PDA

View Full Version : What is the % of unemployment in your area?


baja
05-20-2010, 09:15 AM
We all hear what the national numbers are and most people feel that the published numbers are low.


In your state and city what do you think the percent of the work force is out of work?

tsiguy96
05-20-2010, 09:28 AM
find a different number every place you look, but this is one i found

The unemployment rate in Rockford is 14.70 percent(U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Rockford jobs have Decreased by 7.80 percent.

Popps
05-20-2010, 09:28 AM
My town is an industry town, but our city has problems... and our state is something like 12% last I heard.

Beantown Bronco
05-20-2010, 09:30 AM
Massachusetts is 9.2% according to today's Boston Globe.
Our "peak" was 9.5% a few months ago.
It's expected to stay around 9% until at least 2011.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 09:31 AM
Officially in 2009 it was over 9.5%.

I would not be wrong to say in Fremont County, Colo its probably double that now. Unemployment rate does not count people who drop off of the unemployment rolls.

:Broncos:

Los Broncos
05-20-2010, 09:34 AM
Looks like 10.4% here in Santa Ana, good thing I'm working.

Ray Finkle
05-20-2010, 09:35 AM
hard to tell here.....because of the area, the housing market/job rate don't fall as much as the rest of the nation......

ND Bronco Fan
05-20-2010, 09:41 AM
North Dakota has 4.0%......hard to find workers up here with the booming oil economy on top of an already strong job market.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/19/news/economy/Jobs_in_North_Dakota/index.htm

Old article but its still true.

Kaylore
05-20-2010, 09:43 AM
Officially in 2009 it was over 9.5%.

I would not be wrong to say in Fremont County, Colo its probably double that now. Unemployment rate does not count people who drop off of the unemployment rolls.

:Broncos:

Nor does it count the people who are underemployed ie working part time to just pay the bills at mcdonald's.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 09:45 AM
Nor does it count the people who are underemployed ie working part time to just pay the bills at mcdonald's.


Werd.

Also seasonal. The Royal Gorge has excellent whitewater in the spring and summer. It shuts down in the fall and winter.


:Broncos:

Quoydogs
05-20-2010, 10:11 AM
Werd.

Also seasonal. The Royal Gorge has excellent whitewater in the spring and summer. It shuts down in the fall and winter.


:Broncos:
Here in Portland Oregon it is 14.4% . I think we are one of the worst.

Dedhed
05-20-2010, 10:12 AM
In my immediate area it's 0%.

Drunk Monkey
05-20-2010, 10:13 AM
8.8 in Dallas. We are riding this out a little better than most.

worm
05-20-2010, 10:16 AM
6.1 in Nola.

Kaylore
05-20-2010, 10:24 AM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

Quoydogs
05-20-2010, 10:31 AM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.

#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.

ElwayMD
05-20-2010, 10:41 AM
4.2% here in Fairfax County...we're kind of insulated by the Govt bubble.

HEAV
05-20-2010, 10:41 AM
11.5 for all of Ohio

For my local area it was 14% for 2009.

Local steel mill has been idle for over a year and effects felt across the surrounding areas.

Percentage of residents living in poverty in 2008 was 18%, so I'm sure that number has grown.

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 10:42 AM
Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.

#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.

1. Obama voted for TARP when he was a senator, so he gets a nice big pile of share to go with Bush ("we have to abandon the free market to save it") & McCain. 'eff em all.

2. More people would have health insurance if they had jobs. Jobs should have been the priority, they tried and failed with the Stimulus, then dropped it completely.

3. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

chadta
05-20-2010, 10:45 AM
Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.

#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.

first off i would like to say imnot even american

that being said blaming W for this misses the boat totally, this goes back farther then him, try looking at clinton for this mess, you wont know what kind of mess W left ya till after obama is gone.

unemployment in my area is listed at 9.6% i think, but as has been mentioned that dosent include, those who have run out of unemployment benis, those who have given up looking for work, those who are under employed, or those who are in school doing retraining.

Quoydogs
05-20-2010, 10:46 AM
1. Obama voted for TARP when he was a senator, so he gets a nice big pile of share to go with Bush ("we have to abandon the free market to save it") & McCain. 'eff em all.

2. More people would have health insurance if they had jobs. Jobs should have been the priority, they tried and failed with the Stimulus, then dropped it completely.

3. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Look I never said Obama is perfect. Yes he voted for tarp but that was after Bush had already sank the country.

There is a big difference between More People and 30 million People.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 10:48 AM
Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.

#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.


I wish people would realize that while the president can suggest economic policy, its congress that actually sets it. They set tax rates, they set spending, they are the ones that can dump money into the market to create new jobs or lower taxes to create new jobs. The president takes the hit because he is the president, but its nearly all congress. For the knock on Bush that the economy was horrible...it wasnt. It was not spectacular, but it was far from horrible. And the economy did not drop off the way it did until 2008. Nearly 2 years after the democrats took control of congress.

Everyone in this country (legal or not) gets healthcare. You are not denied care at a hospital because of an inability to pay. The issue was coverage, not healthcare itself. The 30 million number is nonsense as well. Out of that 30 million, half of them are people elligible for medicare who never signed up for it. That leaves 15 million. Of that 15 million, half of them were young adults who could afford healthcare, but chose not to get it. So now we are spending 1 trillion dollars for 8 million people to get substandard coverage from the federal government. Seems worth it, right?

Obama only speaks with a teleprompter. Explain to me how the murder of daniel pearle "caught the world's imagination... for the need of a free press"
Does that sound like a rational or intelligent sentence to you? You would think Daniel Pearl's murder would show the world the type of savage barbarity we are facing...but hey. Obama went to Harvard and stuff.

:Broncos:

SouthStndJunkie
05-20-2010, 10:48 AM
Toledo area is 13% to 14% and up the road in the Detroit Metro area it's up over 16%....with the actual number probably being much higher.

tsiguy96
05-20-2010, 11:04 AM
I wish people would realize that while the president can suggest economic policy, its congress that actually sets it. They set tax rates, they set spending, they are the ones that can dump money into the market to create new jobs or lower taxes to create new jobs. The president takes the hit because he is the president, but its nearly all congress. For the knock on Bush that the economy was horrible...it wasnt. It was not spectacular, but it was far from horrible. And the economy did not drop off the way it did until 2008. Nearly 2 years after the democrats took control of congress.

Everyone in this country (legal or not) gets healthcare. You are not denied care at a hospital because of an inability to pay. The issue was coverage, not healthcare itself. The 30 million number is nonsense as well. Out of that 30 million, half of them are people elligible for medicare who never signed up for it. That leaves 15 million. Of that 15 million, half of them were young adults who could afford healthcare, but chose not to get it. So now we are spending 1 trillion dollars for 8 million people to get substandard coverage from the federal government. Seems worth it, right?

Obama only speaks with a teleprompter. Explain to me how the murder of daniel pearle "caught the world's imagination... for the need of a free press"
Does that sound like a rational or intelligent sentence to you? You would think Daniel Pearl's murder would show the world the type of savage barbarity we are facing...but hey. Obama went to Harvard and stuff.

:Broncos:

rand paul 2012

too be hell never get enough media coverage, who essentially chooses the winner.

baja
05-20-2010, 11:07 AM
first off i would like to say imnot even american

that being said blaming W for this misses the boat totally, this goes back farther then him, try looking at clinton for this mess, you wont know what kind of mess W left ya till after obama is gone.

unemployment in my area is listed at 9.6% i think, but as has been mentioned that doesn't include, those who have run out of unemployment benis, those who have given up looking for work, those who are under employed, or those who are in school doing retraining.

I wonder if there is a formula to reasonably calculate the unreported jobless?

Would they add 5% across the board? More? Less?

What % of accuracy? (+ or -) what?

bowtown
05-20-2010, 11:11 AM
rand paul 2012

too be hell never get enough media coverage, who essentially chooses the winner.

Have you turned on the television today? Me thinks he is getting PLENTY of television coverage right now... Rand needs to shut his mouth really quickly or the only election he is going to have a shot at is for Grand Dragon of KKK. What an idiot.

kappys
05-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Everyone in this country (legal or not) gets healthcare. You are not denied care at a hospital because of an inability to pay. The issue was coverage, not healthcare itself. The 30 million number is nonsense as well. Out of that 30 million, half of them are people elligible for medicare who never signed up for it. That leaves 15 million. Of that 15 million, half of them were young adults who could afford healthcare, but chose not to get it. So now we are spending 1 trillion dollars for 8 million people to get substandard coverage from the federal government. Seems worth it, right?
:Broncos:

So why not blame Ronald Regan? Afterall he is the reason that you are ENTITLED to "free" healthcare at the emergency department.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:15 AM
So why not blame Ronald Regan? Afterall he is the reason that you are ENTITLED to "free" healthcare at the emergency department.


Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. And if you recall, the president cannot make law. He can suggest them...but congress still has to pass it.


:Broncos:

kappys
05-20-2010, 11:16 AM
Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. And if you recall, the president cannot make law. He can suggest them...but congress still has to pass it.


:Broncos:

Actually he signed that one right into law. Could have vetoed it if he wanted.

tsiguy96
05-20-2010, 11:17 AM
Have you turned on the television today? Me thinks he is getting PLENTY of television coverage right now... Rand needs to shut his mouth really quickly or the only election he is going to have a shot at is for Grand Dragon of KKK. What an idiot.

i havent watched political coverage in 2 years. its so ridiculous and biased, its not news, its sensationalism.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:20 AM
Actually he signed that one right into law. Could have vetoed it if he wanted.


Point? Who passed it to get it to the president's desk?


:Broncos:

bowtown
05-20-2010, 11:20 AM
i havent watched political coverage in 2 years. its so ridiculous and biased, its not news, its sensationalism.

Well then you might want to go pick up a newspaper, before you give your boy too many props, cause he could fall hard for this if an advisor doesn't get in there and do some cleanup work fast.

kappys
05-20-2010, 11:23 AM
Point? Who passed it to get it to the president's desk?


:Broncos:

So then Obama had no role in crafting and passing the healthcare law? Obviously not, probably just woke up one morning to find it on his desk.

mkporter
05-20-2010, 11:26 AM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

You are obviously a small government kinda guy. Seems odd that you are advocating the government stepping in to create jobs for people. Shouldn't that be the market's responsibility? The fed already provided a relatively soft landing for the free-falling financial and automotive sectors, and did it for a pretty reasonable price via TARP. You really want more government intervention? The economy has clearly turned the corner, and with it, jobs are starting to come back. Too many more months of positive economic news before November, and your "storm" is going to turn into a mild breeze.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:34 AM
So then Obama had no role in crafting and passing the healthcare law? Obviously not, probably just woke up one morning to find it on his desk.


Did you miss the part where I said a president can suggest a law? Go around the country pushing support for it?


:Broncos:

tsiguy96
05-20-2010, 11:36 AM
Well then you might want to go pick up a newspaper, before you give your boy too many props, cause he could fall hard for this if an advisor doesn't get in there and do some cleanup work fast.

what did he do? give me the 2 sentence version.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:37 AM
You are obviously a small government kinda guy. Seems odd that you are advocating the government stepping in to create jobs for people. Shouldn't that be the market's responsibility? The fed already provided a relatively soft landing for the free-falling financial and automotive sectors, and did it for a pretty reasonable price via TARP. You really want more government intervention? The economy has clearly turned the corner, and with it, jobs are starting to come back. Too many more months of positive economic news before November, and your "storm" is going to turn into a mild breeze.


Unemployment is still near 10%. That does not count the people who gave up looking for work. In fact more people will be out of work when the Census starts laying people off in July. A jobless recovery is not a recovery at all.

:Broncos:

kappys
05-20-2010, 11:39 AM
Did you miss the part where I said a president can suggest a law? Go around the country pushing support for it?


:Broncos:

Point? Does the President bear responsibility for laws he signs or doesn't he? If only the congress bears responsibility then it should be noted that when Reagan signed EMTALA into law he at least had a Republican Senate that could have easily blocked it.

bowtown
05-20-2010, 11:48 AM
what did he do? give me the 2 sentence version.

He has twice now failed to endorse the the entire of the Civil Rights amendment. Won't give a yes or no answer on whether he thinks the government should be allowed to tell private businesses that they have to be desegregated.

Whether you agree with that or not, it's about the stupidest and most pointless political stance to be taking or even discussing before an election.

mkporter
05-20-2010, 11:52 AM
For the knock on Bush that the economy was horrible...it wasnt. It was not spectacular, but it was far from horrible. And the economy did not drop off the way it did until 2008. Nearly 2 years after the democrats took control of congress.


My biggest problem with Bush and the Republican congress, was they insisted on slashing the highest marginal tax rate during years when things were going relatively fine. We should have been shoring up our debt situation so when times actually get bad, we have some money to work with. Instead, people get all up in arms about things like TARP, which actually did a pretty good job keeping the entire financial market from cratering, and saving thousands of jobs in the automotive sector as well. I'm personally not a fan of most of the government stimulus packages, because I don't think they really provide that much of an effect, but congress (both parties) likes them because they can fill 'em with pork.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:58 AM
Point? Does the President bear responsibility for laws he signs or doesn't he? If only the congress bears responsibility then it should be noted that when Reagan signed EMTALA into law he at least had a Republican Senate that could have easily blocked it.


So in your view, the president alone is responsible for the workings of legislative government because he signs the bills into law?


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-20-2010, 12:00 PM
My biggest problem with Bush and the Republican congress, was they insisted on slashing the highest marginal tax rate during years when things were going relatively fine. We should have been shoring up our debt situation so when times actually get bad, we have some money to work with. Instead, people get all up in arms about things like TARP, which actually did a pretty good job keeping the entire financial market from cratering, and saving thousands of jobs in the automotive sector as well. I'm personally not a fan of most of the government stimulus packages, because I don't think they really provide that much of an effect, but congress (both parties) likes them because they can fill 'em with pork.


Exactly.


:Broncos:

Kaylore
05-20-2010, 12:01 PM
Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.
This is false, but it's what they want you to believe. Bush didn't "cause" the housing crisis. It was a lack of oversight by all parties. They all have their hands dirty since congress and the committee that controlled the oversight for loans was controlled by Dems. It's basically a case for why government sucks.
#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

Now you're just making stuff up.
#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.
He doesn't care. He's more of a snob than Bush ever was. He's all about parties and being on TV. His list of accomplishments is next to nothing, but he's sure to make sure he and his family are on every magazine. He's all hype and no substance.

mkporter
05-20-2010, 12:05 PM
Unemployment is still near 10%. That does not count the people who gave up looking for work. In fact more people will be out of work when the Census starts laying people off in July. A jobless recovery is not a recovery at all.
:Broncos:

I love your effort on this one. The economy gained 290,000 jobs in April of this year, and has added 573,000 jobs since the beginning of the year. The unemployment figure didn't move because because that figure doesn't count people who aren't looking or who are underemployed. For that reason it is not the most useful metric to evaluate the overall employment picture. But you knew that.

And yes, the census effort has added jobs. 66,000 in April. That still leaves more than 220,000 private sector jobs added. This is not a jobless recovery. Jobs always lag GDP growth. Companies maximize their existing employees before they start adding new ones. My company just posted 4 more job openings this week, and we only have 50 people. The jobs are coming. Sorry.

Kaylore
05-20-2010, 12:06 PM
You are obviously a small government kinda guy. Seems odd that you are advocating the government stepping in to create jobs for people. Shouldn't that be the market's responsibility? The fed already provided a relatively soft landing for the free-falling financial and automotive sectors, and did it for a pretty reasonable price via TARP. You really want more government intervention? The economy has clearly turned the corner, and with it, jobs are starting to come back. Too many more months of positive economic news before November, and your "storm" is going to turn into a mild breeze.

I'm for Government stop spending and therefore printing money. I'm also against additional taxes. I want Government to take steps to get out of the way. You don't spend more and create major, expensive overhauls on programs when you're in the middle of a depression.

And let's be clear, this is a depression. It's not a recession.

bowtown
05-20-2010, 12:13 PM
Where do I go for the party of less spending and more taxes until **** is fixed?

Archer81
05-20-2010, 12:15 PM
I love your effort on this one. The economy gained 290,000 jobs in April of this year, and has added 573,000 jobs since the beginning of the year. The unemployment figure didn't move because because that figure doesn't count people who aren't looking or who are underemployed. For that reason it is not the most useful metric to evaluate the overall employment picture. But you knew that.

And yes, the census effort has added jobs. 66,000 in April. That still leaves more than 220,000 private sector jobs added. This is not a jobless recovery. Jobs always lag GDP growth. Companies maximize their existing employees before they start adding new ones. My company just posted 4 more job openings this week, and we only have 50 people. The jobs are coming. Sorry.


The federal government would need the economy to gain 4 million jobs to equal what was lost since late 2008. It would need to add an additonal 5 million jobs to keep up with population growth and industry demands. This particular government is far from jobs-friendly.

:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
05-20-2010, 12:32 PM
My town is an industry town, but our city has problems... and our state is something like 12% last I heard.

12.4% and 20 billion over budget. Once again, California is screwed but if you ask LABS, it isnt the Dems fault in our state.

OABB
05-20-2010, 12:46 PM
Hasn't Obama fixed everything yet?

I mean Jesus, i don't have all ****ing year.

Durango
05-20-2010, 12:48 PM
This is false, but it's what they want you to believe. Bush didn't "cause" the housing crisis. It was a lack of oversight by all parties. They all have their hands dirty since congress and the committee that controlled the oversight for loans was controlled by Dems. It's basically a case for why government sucks.

Now you're just making stuff up.

He doesn't care. He's more of a snob than Bush ever was. He's all about parties and being on TV. His list of accomplishments is next to nothing, but he's sure to make sure he and his family are on every magazine. He's all hype and no substance.

The simple act, supported and promoted by Bush, of deregulating banks, holding companies like Fanny May and Freddie Mac and marginalizing U-S business tax law to allow massive loopholes costing the treasury a trillion dollars over 8 years sent this country in a downward spiral worsened by two unnecessary wars costing another trillion dollars+.

Look, I'm a Republican, or was, and Obama isn't my idea of a great leader, but Bush is probably among the worst three or four Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Anyone defending this clown has to be extremely close-minded. The financial damage and political polarization sent to new extremes during those 8 years will ripple through our politics and pocketbooks for decades, if not forever.

mkporter
05-20-2010, 01:23 PM
The federal government would need the economy to gain 4 million jobs to equal what was lost since late 2008. It would need to add an additonal 5 million jobs to keep up with population growth and industry demands. This particular government is far from jobs-friendly.

:Broncos:

For starters, duh. Yes, we need to add a lot more jobs, and one month isn't good enough. But the trend is looking pretty good jobs-wise. It is going to take some time to recover all of the lost jobs, but we are headed in the right direction. I'm going to assume that "this particular government" refers to The government as it has existed during the Obama administration. This president, and the significant change in the make up of congress started work in January of '09. Look at the graph. Improving jobs figures every month. I'm not going to make the claim that they deserve all the credit, because there are a lot of factors at play, many of them bigger than just the impact of federal policy change, but to say this administration is "far from jobs-friendly" is ridiculous.



26607

Graph pilfered from: http://www.global-view.com/forex-trading-tools/econ/usjobs.html

Mr. Trout
05-20-2010, 01:24 PM
State of KS. 6.9% in March
Topeka, KS. 7.7% in March

Mr. Trout
05-20-2010, 01:25 PM
North Dakota has 4.0%......hard to find workers up here with the booming oil economy on top of an already strong job market.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/19/news/economy/Jobs_in_North_Dakota/index.htm

Old article but its still true.

might have to get myself in the oil business!!

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 01:29 PM
My biggest problem with Bush and the Republican congress, was they insisted on slashing the highest marginal tax rate during years when things were going relatively fine. We should have been shoring up our debt situation so when times actually get bad, we have some money to work with. Instead, people get all up in arms about things like TARP, which actually did a pretty good job keeping the entire financial market from cratering, and saving thousands of jobs in the automotive sector as well. I'm personally not a fan of most of the government stimulus packages, because I don't think they really provide that much of an effect, but congress (both parties) likes them because they can fill 'em with pork.

Spending.

The federal government is taking in plenty of revenue, they need to stop spending. It's why a lot of conservatives left the Republican party 2005-08. It's just gone mainstream in the last 2 years starting with the TARP bailout.

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 01:30 PM
He has twice now failed to endorse the the entire of the Civil Rights amendment. Won't give a yes or no answer on whether he thinks the government should be allowed to tell private businesses that they have to be desegregated.

Whether you agree with that or not, it's about the stupidest and most pointless political stance to be taking or even discussing before an election.


http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-sets-the-record-straight/

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years

“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”

“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.

“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.

“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 01:33 PM
might have to get myself in the oil business!!

I wouldn't right now. Remember how cheap oil/gas was in the late 90s? You know what caused that. It was called the Asian Flu aka The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Financial_Crisis). We're seeing a repeat of it right now in Europe and more than likely it will include Japan and China as well. I would be that we'll see $25/barrel oil before we'll see $90/b again.

Hogan11
05-20-2010, 01:34 PM
Last I knew, NY's unemployment rate was around 8% a couple of months ago, I have no idea what it is now.

Mr. Trout
05-20-2010, 01:35 PM
I wouldn't right now. Remember how cheap oil/gas was in the late 90s? You know what caused that. It was called the Asian Flu aka The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Financial_Crisis). We're seeing a repeat of it right now in Europe and more than likely it will include Japan and China as well. I would be that we'll see $25/barrel oil before we'll see $90/b again.

good point. Maybe I shouldn't start my tycoon quest this late in the game.

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 01:37 PM
good point. Maybe I shouldn't start my tycoon quest this late in the game.

You just have to be prepared to take advantage of it when it bottoms!

mkporter
05-20-2010, 01:44 PM
I'm for Government stop spending and therefore printing money. I'm also against additional taxes. I want Government to take steps to get out of the way. You don't spend more and create major, expensive overhauls on programs when you're in the middle of a depression.

And let's be clear, this is a depression. It's not a recession.

A couple of points:
-You should be ecstatic about the current level of taxation. It is historically low. I'm guessing the lowest in your lifetime. Judging by the apparent anger in your political postings, however, you aren't ecstatic.

-The best time for government intervention is during downturns in the economy. This is the time for deficit spending. This is when citizens are in the most need. You cut programs when the economy is doing well, and run a surplus so that you can pay down your debt. It is a tragedy that we cut our top marginal tax rate so much in the 2000's. We'd be much better off if we hadn't.

-You are playing semantics with recession/depression. While there is no official statistical definition, the most widely accepted is a loss of real GDP of >10%, or a recession(negative GDP growth) lasting more than two years. Neither of which is the case. I'll grant that this has been a pretty bad recession though.

baja
05-20-2010, 01:47 PM
The simple act, supported and promoted by Bush, of deregulating banks, holding companies like Fanny May and Freddie Mac and marginalizing U-S business tax law to allow massive loopholes costing the treasury a trillion dollars over 8 years sent this country in a downward spiral worsened by two unnecessary wars costing another trillion dollars+.

Look, I'm a Republican, or was, and Obama isn't my idea of a great leader, but Bush is probably among the worst three or four Presidents this country has ever had to endure. Anyone defending this clown has to be extremely close-minded.<b> The financial damage and political polarization sent to new extremes during those 8 years will ripple through our politics and pocketbooks for decades, if not forever.


This is the part people overlook. They think he is out of office so problem solved. No we will be feeling the effects of GWB for a long long time.

DarkHorse30
05-20-2010, 01:57 PM
You are obviously a small government kinda guy. Seems odd that you are advocating the government stepping in to create jobs for people. Shouldn't that be the market's responsibility? The fed already provided a relatively soft landing for the free-falling financial and automotive sectors, and did it for a pretty reasonable price via TARP. You really want more government intervention? The economy has clearly turned the corner, and with it, jobs are starting to come back. Too many more months of positive economic news before November, and your "storm" is going to turn into a mild breeze.

"clearly turned the corner"? It's the economy stupid.....Obama is weak sauce when habeneros' are needed. Look at his weak appointments that are so much about politics and NOT about fixing anything. Dems are in deep on this one.......look at them jumping off before it sinks

ND Bronco Fan
05-20-2010, 02:00 PM
might have to get myself in the oil business!!

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/article_368dcb38-53ef-11df-a6c8-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

99% success rate in drilling is a safe play. Our state government gave back 400 million in the last session. Expecting by the end of 2011 the budget surplus will be 700 million with a billion forecast farther out. I liked the decrease in property taxes that is for sure.

(keep in mind the low population of ND when talking those numbers)

mkporter
05-20-2010, 02:12 PM
"clearly turned the corner"? It's the economy stupid.....Obama is weak sauce when habeneros' are needed. Look at his weak appointments that are so much about politics and NOT about fixing anything. Dems are in deep on this one.......look at them jumping off before it sinks


Yep turned the corner. It means going from increasing job losses to decreasing job losses and then to job gains. It doesn't matter what you think of him, or the people he has appointed. Facts are facts. The economy is improving. Do you not believe the jobs chart? Or is it just easier putting your head in the sand?

TexanBob
05-20-2010, 03:58 PM
6.1 in Nola.

The New Orleans area actually is a boom area because of all the post-Katrina rebuilding that is still going on. If you have any construction skills, looking for work there is a smart choice.

DarkHorse30
05-20-2010, 04:05 PM
Yep turned the corner. It means going from increasing job losses to decreasing job losses and then to job gains. It doesn't matter what you think of him, or the people he has appointed. Facts are facts. The economy is improving. Do you not believe the jobs chart? Or is it just easier putting your head in the sand?

Unemployment was about as low as it could get in 2005...but then Pelosi started tanking this country in 2006, and Obama is holding her water. The 3 stooges will be gone in 2 years; unfortunately it took a giant catastrophy like their idiocy to wake up the masses....go tea party, take it back from dem-idiots

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 04:14 PM
A couple of points:
-You should be ecstatic about the current level of taxation. It is historically low. I'm guessing the lowest in your lifetime. Judging by the apparent anger in your political postings, however, you aren't ecstatic.

-The best time for government intervention is during downturns in the economy. This is the time for deficit spending. This is when citizens are in the most need. You cut programs when the economy is doing well, and run a surplus so that you can pay down your debt. It is a tragedy that we cut our top marginal tax rate so much in the 2000's. We'd be much better off if we hadn't.

-You are playing semantics with recession/depression. While there is no official statistical definition, the most widely accepted is a loss of real GDP of >10%, or a recession(negative GDP growth) lasting more than two years. Neither of which is the case. I'll grant that this has been a pretty bad recession though.


Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law)

In economics, Hauser's Law is an empirical observation that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the top marginal tax rate.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif

FADERPROOF
05-20-2010, 04:14 PM
Cleveland area unemployment is just north of 11%

TexanBob
05-20-2010, 04:20 PM
While the Obamabots blow happy smoke up our butts...

Jobless Claims Jump, Leading Indicators Fall (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256112299027150.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5)

New claims for jobless benefits soared last week, a worrisome sign for the slowly recovering labor market.

Separately, an index of leading economic indicators fell in April, pulled down by a sharp decline in building permits.

The number of workers who filed new claims for unemployment insurance climbed by 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 471,000 for the week ended May 15, the Labor Department said Thursday.

"We are left with the uncomfortable possibility that the trend in claims has not only stopped falling, but may be turning higher," Ian Shepherdson, a High Frequency Economics Ltd. economist, said in a note to clients.

A labor department economist said Thursday that, unlike early April, when jobless claims surged due to seasonal and holiday factors, this time there was no indication that any special factors were at work. Last week's jump in claims reversed most of the declines since April 10, when claims were at 480,000.

The AP reported this news was "unexpected" as job losses have "unexpectedly" risen in 15 of the 16 months Obama has been president.

enjolras
05-20-2010, 04:51 PM
unemployment in my area is listed at 9.6% i think, but as has been mentioned that dosent include, those who have run out of unemployment benis, those who have given up looking for work, those who are under employed, or those who are in school doing retraining.


Wrong. I really wish this rumor would die.

Unemployment is counted by survey, not by tallying unemployment claims (which is what I assume are 'unemployment rolls').

You can find the details here:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm for all of the details.

You are correct with the rest, however. The 'under-employed' are counted employed. The rest are 'not in the job force', so they don't count as unemployed.

mkporter
05-20-2010, 05:06 PM
Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law)

In economics, Hauser's Law is an empirical observation that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the top marginal tax rate.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif

Rep. for arguing with data. I don't have much time right now to get into it further, but I'll try to post again later tonight. Cheers.

enjolras
05-20-2010, 06:00 PM
Rep. for arguing with data. I don't have much time right now to get into it further, but I'll try to post again later tonight. Cheers.

From my wife:

The data is correct, but the conclusion suffers from a pretty serious confirmation bias. Go from there:)

Sassy
05-20-2010, 06:05 PM
North Dakota Unemployment RateCategories: Local | U S | Jobs | Unemployment Benefits
Unemployment Rate: 4.9 percent in March 2010 http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/n...
Historical Highest Unemployment Rate: 7.1 percent in 1983 http://www.commerce.nd.gov/news/detail.a...
Historical Lowest Unemployment Rate: 2.9 percent in 1998 http://www.commerce.nd.gov/news/detail.a...
Area with Highest Unemployment: Bismarck city http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.serv...
Unemployment Benefits: North Dakota Unemployment Insurance benefits and emergency unemployment compensation program http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layou...
Job Service North Dakota reported that labor statistics released a non seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for North Dakota in March 2010 at 4.9 percent. This is slightly higher than the previous month at 4.7 percent. The state is enjoying a lower unemployment rate than the national which is at 10.2 percent.http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/news.detail.html?newsId=16562&locationId=


The state’s unemployment rate is considerably low compared to the national rate which is at 10.6 percent in January 2010. http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/news.detail.html?newsId=16282&locationId


In 2009, the state had an average unemployment rate of 4.3 percent. This is higher by 1.1 percentage points compared to 2008. The seasonally adjusted rate for January 2010 in the U.S. was 9.7 percent a 0.3 percentage point decrease from December 2009. North Dakota has a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 4.2 percent in January which is a very small change compared to the prior month at 4.3 percent.http://www.jobsnd.com/jsnd/jobsnd/news/news.detail.html?newsId=16282&locationId


According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, North Dakota had the fastest economic growth rate in 2008 among other states in the U.S. The growth rates were contributed to agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing. The state's economy grew twice as fast as all other states.http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/19/news/economy/Jobs_in_North_Dakota/index.htm


The strength in North Dakota’s economy created more jobs for many of the state’s contractors. The Northern Improvement Company, for example, is still hiring because the towns are still funding road, airport and municipal improvement projects.http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/19/news/economy/Jobs_in_North_Dakota/index.htm

gunns
05-20-2010, 06:20 PM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

If the Repubs were in office? I've been commenting on the underemployed since 2007 and y'all were saying meh. It started long before January 20, 2009 and will take longer than a year to remedy. I don't think it's a bad thing the Dem's will take it up the ass with all the short sighted people blaming it on them. It should be a more evenly divided legislature. That being said, neither the Repubs or Dem's are much good at what they do there.....or should I say what they need to do. The positive thing is spending is slightly up. If that can continue to improve so will the economy and jobs. But I doubt it will be enough to make a significant or quick improvement.

ColoradoDarin
05-20-2010, 06:30 PM
Rep. for arguing with data. I don't have much time right now to get into it further, but I'll try to post again later tonight. Cheers.

Yeah, it's not perfect and I'm aware of some of the criticisms, but I think it's worth being in the conversation.

ScottXray
05-20-2010, 06:47 PM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

K, I have to say I hear about unemployment numbers almost every day here in
Blue state Oregon. I also see at least something weekly on national news broadcasts about twice a week. And mostly they say that the jobs won't come until employers start hiring and that won't happen until the banks start loaning to the businesses and local employers. And why they won't when its obvious that people are ready and willing to buy stuff is what a lot of people don't get.

Frankly I was just in Las Vegas last week....and the economy down there is going gangbusters....no shortage of visitors, and no shortage of partying going on. And no shortage of charges for food and drinks and "other" entertainment. I was amazed at the high cost of EVERYTHING....and it didn't phase anyone.

Yeah there are a lot of people pissed off....especially when the unemployment benefits start to run out...and when a republican senator starts trying to make points with the Teabaggers by trying to hold up passage of unemploymernt benefit extensions because its "not sound fiscal policy".


Sorry, but I think you are wrong about what the general opinion of Obamas responsibility for all this ..... everybody knows we were in the **** when he took office....and slowly but surely things are getting better. I think most people are going to see thiongs a whole lot different come November


By the way I put 20 on the Broncos to win the Super bowl this year....Stupid bet , but I get $720 If I win. I'll blow more than that on Lottery tickets before FEB....and the odds are better for the broncos bet anyway.

By the way your buddy Scott Brown (R-Mass) was the vote that broke the filibuster on getting the Wall street reform to the senate floor for discussion/amendments and a possible vote today.....
Not every new R is an idiot.

Que
05-20-2010, 11:09 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

/end

OABB
05-20-2010, 11:11 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

/end

Well at least Now I know what they mean by "trickle down economics".

24champ
05-20-2010, 11:26 PM
Frankly I was just in Las Vegas last week....and the economy down there is going gangbusters....no shortage of visitors, and no shortage of partying going on. And no shortage of charges for food and drinks and "other" entertainment. I was amazed at the high cost of EVERYTHING....and it didn't phase anyone.



The Strip is always going to full of people. That's part of the economy there sure, but if you ventured outside of the strip you would know that construction has completely nosedived there. Unemployment is still very high there at just below 14 percent. Housing market is shot to hell and so on.

Que
05-20-2010, 11:30 PM
The Strip is always going to full of people. That's part of the economy there sure, but if you ventured outside of the strip you would know that construction has completely nosedived there. Unemployment is still very high there at just below 14 percent. Housing market is shot to hell and so on.

Actually, that's false. New home construction in Las Vegas is going nuts. Doesn't make any sense to me though... but ya, they're building them as fast as they can down there right now.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/home_building_booms_in_places.html


Home building booms in places like Las Vegas and Florida that had worst housing bust
LAS VEGAS -- In a plastic tent under a glorious desert sky, Richard Lee preached the gospel of the second chance.

The chance to make money on the next housing boom "is like it's never been," Lee, a real estate promoter, assured a crowd of agents, investors and bankers. "We're going to come back like you've never seen us before."

Home prices in Las Vegas are down by 60 percent from 2006 in one of the steepest descents in modern times. There are 9,517 spanking-new houses sitting empty. An additional 5,600 homes were repossessed by lenders in the first three months of this year and could soon be for sale.

Yet builders here are putting up 1,100 homes, and they are frantically buying lots for even more.

Las Vegas is trying to recover by building what it does not need. It is an unlikely pattern being repeated in many of the areas where the housing crash was most severe.

From the recession's lows, construction has nearly doubled in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson. It is up 74 percent in inland Southern California and soaring in Florida.

Some of the demand is coming from families who are getting shut out of the bidding for foreclosures by syndicates that pay in cash, and some is from investors who are back on the prowl.

Land and labor costs have fallen significantly, so the newest homes are competitively priced. Some of the boom-era homes, meanwhile, are in developments that feel like ghost towns. And many Americans will always believe the latest model of something is their only option, an attitude builders are doing their utmost to reinforce.

All of this goes contrary to the conventional wisdom, which suggests an improved market for builders is years away. Nationwide, new-home sales at the beginning of this year plunged to a level below any recorded since 1963, when the figures were first officially tabulated.

Simply put, the country already has too many houses, the legacy of wide-scale overbuilding during the boom. The Census Bureau says there are 2 million vacant homes for sale, about double the historical level. Fewer new households, moreover, are being formed as families double up for economic reasons, putting a further brake on demand.

There is a benefit to the seeming madness in places like Las Vegas. Building homes is the traditional fuel of a recovery.

New-home sales in March rose 27 percent. But most analysts attributed the jump to the pending expiration of yet another government incentive, a tax credit for buyers, and said sales would quickly slump again.

24champ
05-20-2010, 11:47 PM
Actually, that's false. New home construction in Las Vegas is going nuts. Doesn't make any sense to me though... but ya, they're building them as fast as they can down there right now.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/home_building_booms_in_places.html


Home building booms in places like Las Vegas and Florida that had worst housing bust
LAS VEGAS -- In a plastic tent under a glorious desert sky, Richard Lee preached the gospel of the second chance.

The chance to make money on the next housing boom "is like it's never been," Lee, a real estate promoter, assured a crowd of agents, investors and bankers. "We're going to come back like you've never seen us before."

Home prices in Las Vegas are down by 60 percent from 2006 in one of the steepest descents in modern times. There are 9,517 spanking-new houses sitting empty. An additional 5,600 homes were repossessed by lenders in the first three months of this year and could soon be for sale.

Yet builders here are putting up 1,100 homes, and they are frantically buying lots for even more.

Las Vegas is trying to recover by building what it does not need. It is an unlikely pattern being repeated in many of the areas where the housing crash was most severe.

From the recession's lows, construction has nearly doubled in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson. It is up 74 percent in inland Southern California and soaring in Florida.

Some of the demand is coming from families who are getting shut out of the bidding for foreclosures by syndicates that pay in cash, and some is from investors who are back on the prowl.

Land and labor costs have fallen significantly, so the newest homes are competitively priced. Some of the boom-era homes, meanwhile, are in developments that feel like ghost towns. And many Americans will always believe the latest model of something is their only option, an attitude builders are doing their utmost to reinforce.

All of this goes contrary to the conventional wisdom, which suggests an improved market for builders is years away. Nationwide, new-home sales at the beginning of this year plunged to a level below any recorded since 1963, when the figures were first officially tabulated.

Simply put, the country already has too many houses, the legacy of wide-scale overbuilding during the boom. The Census Bureau says there are 2 million vacant homes for sale, about double the historical level. Fewer new households, moreover, are being formed as families double up for economic reasons, putting a further brake on demand.

There is a benefit to the seeming madness in places like Las Vegas. Building homes is the traditional fuel of a recovery.

New-home sales in March rose 27 percent. But most analysts attributed the jump to the pending expiration of yet another government incentive, a tax credit for buyers, and said sales would quickly slump again.


Read your own articles...


The only reason housing saw an uptick in Vegas is because of the Federal tax credits and that buying a foreclosed house is a PIA compared to a new home. The credits have expired, and the statistics for home buying will be out in July and August. I suspect it will slide.

Funny though, they have 10,000 plus houses sitting empty in Vegas and the builders are building more. Won't be surprised when KB Homes and other builders go bankrupt.

Que
05-20-2010, 11:48 PM
24champ - just to clarify, it was only the new home comment that I thought was false. The job market is still in the sh@tter down there and to me, this new housing boom makes no sense and even if it did, only reinforces the same patterns that got us into this mess in the first place. But ya, they're building again for no known reason.

Archer81
05-20-2010, 11:50 PM
Well at least Now I know what they mean by "trickle down economics".


15.9 million people out of work.

At this "blistering" pace we should fully recover by 2014.

:Broncos:

OABB
05-20-2010, 11:51 PM
15.9 million people out of work.

At this "blistering" pace we should fully recover by 2014.

:Broncos:

Just in time for Jeb bush to come in and **** it up again. It's the circle of life.

24champ
05-20-2010, 11:57 PM
24champ - just to clarify, it was only the new home comment that I thought was false. The job market is still in the sh@tter down there and to me, this new housing boom makes no sense and even if it did, only reinforces the same patterns that got us into this mess in the first place. But ya, they're building again for no known reason.

I didn't say anything about new homes, just that the Housing Market is crap there. You can buy houses in Las Vegas for peanuts. 180,000 for a new 3 bedroom house in a nice neighborhood.

Though I agree, doesn't seem smart to be building homes at this point when no one is buying them up among other things. :ouwknow:

OABB
05-21-2010, 12:04 AM
15.9 million people out of work.

At this "blistering" pace we should fully recover by 2014.

:Broncos:

I like you, but I'm a little troubled that younseem to miss the correlation here. You realize things weren't great when Obama took over right? I mean surely you know 8 years of republican rule caused alot of damage to the middle class and our economy right?

I mean if youconsider national debt and unemployment a problem. Most republicans don't if they did well personally, but part of you has to be aware right?I mean you mentioned jobs here.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 07:56 AM
Ok First I would like to say I do not belong to any political party.

#1 Now that being said. This problem was caused by republican President. It's funny how Republicans seem to forget this. Obama got handed a big old pile of crap.

#2 Health care? Yep who really cares that 30 million people did have it right. I mean we don't need them anyways.

#3 I understand that Obama is not the perfect solution and he has not done everything I wanted. However at least he can say a complete sentence and at least has some concern for the well being of people.

Congress passes the laws and the Democrats have been the majority in congress for many years and the Dems were the majority when Bush was in offices so wrong. Sorry.

OABB
05-21-2010, 08:05 AM
Congress passes the laws and the Democrats have been the majority in congress for many years and the Dems were the majority when Bush was in offices so wrong. Sorry.

Lol. I hate democrats and liberals, but right wing nutjobs like this are a whole new asshole. This is th real reason our country is in trouble.


Denial. It's ok to back a losing horse, but ****ing man up.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:11 AM
A couple of points:
-You should be ecstatic about the current level of taxation. It is historically low. I'm guessing the lowest in your lifetime. Judging by the apparent anger in your political postings, however, you aren't ecstatic.

-The best time for government intervention is during downturns in the economy. This is the time for deficit spending. This is when citizens are in the most need. You cut programs when the economy is doing well, and run a surplus so that you can pay down your debt. It is a tragedy that we cut our top marginal tax rate so much in the 2000's. We'd be much better off if we hadn't.

-You are playing semantics with recession/depression. While there is no official statistical definition, the most widely accepted is a loss of real GDP of >10%, or a recession(negative GDP growth) lasting more than two years. Neither of which is the case. I'll grant that this has been a pretty bad recession though.

It didn't work during the depression, remember? The gov tried all of that crap and the depression lasted what, 10 years? It was WWII that got the US economy out of the depression.

The gov needs to cut spending and stop printing money.

bronclvr
05-21-2010, 08:12 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37274896/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:15 AM
Lol. I hate democrats and liberals, but right wing nutjobs like this are a whole new a-hole. This is th real reason our country is in trouble.


Denial. It's ok to back a losing horse, but ****ing man up.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm simply for less government, not more. I've never been a republican and never will be.

tsiguy96
05-21-2010, 08:24 AM
Lol. I hate democrats and liberals, but right wing nutjobs like this are a whole new a-hole. This is th real reason our country is in trouble.


Denial. It's ok to back a losing horse, but ****ing man up.

agreed 100%

i dont care for either party, but just the pure denial of how bad bush was and the unrealistic expectations placed on the next president are just out of control.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:34 AM
agreed 100%

i dont care for either party, but just the pure denial of how bad bush was and the unrealistic expectations placed on the next president are just out of control.

I never defended Bush, simply pointed out that the Dems have controlled congress for a while now and congress has more effect on the economy than the president (Health Care anyone?).

If Bush is to blame for the economy than it was the Congress who was in house at the time of the Bush administration's crappy policies that inacted Bush's policies, no? Or, am I missing something here?

jhns
05-21-2010, 08:34 AM
I don't know the numbers but there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here in Omaha, Ne. I don't know a single person out of work that has actually tried getting work. I even switched jobs about 2 years ago because I was offered a lot more at my current one. The only people I know that are unemployed are people that are to lazy to even look for jobs.

bowtown
05-21-2010, 08:38 AM
I never defended Bush, simply pointed out that the Dems have controlled congress for a while now and congress has more effect on the economy than the president (Health Care anyone?).

If Bush is to blame for the economy than it was the Congress who was in house at the time of the Bush administration's crappy policies that inacted Bush's policies, no? Or, am I missing something here?

The tax breaks for the wealthy were passed by reconciliation by the Republicans, and the war that helped cripple our economy came straight from lies by the White House.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:42 AM
Where I live the economy is not doing well, high unemployment for this region, lots of businesses shutting down and I seriously doubt it's going to get better any time soon. Basically, the businesses that are surviving are running off their reserve capital and once that dries up, yep, they too will shut down. It's simply a matter of time. I'm anticipating more small businesses going south within the next 10-12 months. Banks aren't lending money PERIOD.

I don't know how people don't understand the HUGE ramifications of the banks not lending money to businesses?

I really don't understand how you don't understand.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:45 AM
The tax breaks for the wealthy were passed by reconciliation by the Republicans, and the war that helped cripple our economy came straight from lies by the White House.

I agree dude!! But was it not a democratically controlled congress?? Congress could have said "NO". Just like the repubs tried to stall the health insurance legislation, the dems could have tried the same thing, correct?

bowtown
05-21-2010, 08:49 AM
I agree dude!! But was it not a democratically controlled congress?? Congress could have said "NO". Just like the repubs tried to stall the health insurance legislation, the dems could have tried the same thing, correct?

Again, they passed the tax cuts using reconciliation. The dems did try to stop it. There was no declaration of war by congress. It came from the White House. Once the Commander and Chief has commited troops, you have to supoort them, especially wen the entire country was mislead into thinking it was a needed war.

Kaylore
05-21-2010, 08:51 AM
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm simply for less government, not more. I've never been a republican and never will be.

I actually agree with you. Republicans and Democrats are functionally the same. I don't expect there to be any major shifts in policy. Both are liars and both just spend money when they get in office.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 08:52 AM
Again, they passed the tax cuts using reconciliation. The dems did try to stop it. There was no declaration of war by congress. It came from the White House. Once the Commander and Chief has commited troops, you have to supoort them, especially wen the entire country was mislead into thinking it was a needed war.

So, we can agree that congress is a joke, right? I mean, you just pointed out how stupid they are.

"IT CAME FROM THE WHITEHOUSE" sounds like a horror movie. Hilarious!

Kaylore
05-21-2010, 08:53 AM
The tax breaks for the wealthy were passed by reconciliation by the Republicans

How does that hurt you? How does that not create jobs? The non wealthy got tax breaks too.

bowtown
05-21-2010, 08:59 AM
So, we can agree that congress is a joke, right? I mean, you just pointed out how stupid they are.

"IT CAME FROM THE WHITEHOUSE" sounds like a horror movie. Hilarious!

There is no joke about it. It's a tradgedy that big business has taken hold of this country and our entire political process. The differnce though is that I don't believe no government is the answer. I believe that governemnt is important but needs to be fixed. That starts by removing big business and the private sector from our government... if that makes me a "socialist," so be it.

bowtown
05-21-2010, 09:00 AM
How does that hurt you? How does that not create jobs? The non wealthy got tax breaks too.

Because it ruined the economy and killed the middle class. It continues to hurt the majority of our population today. You can thank those cuts for the ****hole we are in right now.

Dagmar
05-21-2010, 09:03 AM
I just lost my job 2 months back, the company doesn't have long left. Just moved to Denver. Anyone hiring?? I have a degree... :(

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 09:05 AM
There is no joke about it. It's a tradgedy that big business has taken hold of this country and our entire political process. The differnce though is that I don't believe no government is the answer. I believe that governemnt is important but needs to be fixed. That starts by removing big business and the private sector from our government... if that makes me a "socialist," so be it.

Wow, do you understand how circular your argument is. You want to give Obama a slide and at the same time blame Bush, yet Obama is in bed with big business.

WHO WROTE THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION AGAIN? THE LEGISLATION OBAMA SO DESPARATELY WANTED?

If big business is the problem, what is Obama doing about Wall Street? Well, he's lending the Goldman Sachs of the world billions of dollars. Hmmmm....

How are Fanny Mae and Feddy Mac doing againg? Please elaborate on the greatness of these GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are two of the cornerstone reasons THE ECONOMY TANKED!!!

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 09:10 AM
And nobody has yet to tell my why all these banks that the fed gov gave money to are not lending any money to struggling businesses.

why is that again?

is it because the banks know something we don't?

randomtask
05-21-2010, 09:13 AM
Because it ruined the economy and killed the middle class. It continues to hurt the majority of our population today. You can thank those cuts for the ****hole we are in right now.

Could you please explain how cutting taxes to job providers kills the middle class and ruins the economy?

I mean it seems to me that cutting expenses at the top would allow for more jobs to be created.

I'm just wondering if you could explain that so I know where you're coming from with that.

bowtown
05-21-2010, 09:18 AM
Could you please explain how cutting taxes to job providers kills the middle class and ruins the economy?

I mean it seems to me that cutting expenses at the top would allow for more jobs to be created.

I'm just wondering if you could explain that so I know where you're coming from with that.

Remind me again how that worked out?

Oh yeah...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

bowtown
05-21-2010, 09:21 AM
Wow, do you understand how circular your argument is. You want to give Obama a slide and at the same time blame Bush, yet Obama is in bed with big business.

WHO WROTE THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION AGAIN? THE LEGISLATION OBAMA SO DESPARATELY WANTED?

If big business is the problem, what is Obama doing about Wall Street? Well, he's lending the Goldman Sachs of the world billions of dollars. Hmmmm....

How are Fanny Mae and Feddy Mac doing againg? Please elaborate on the greatness of these GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are two of the cornerstone reasons THE ECONOMY TANKED!!!

Your argument is all over the place here. I thought we were discussing congress and the fact that it needs to be fixed, and what a damaging president George Bush was. I haven't said anything about Obama.

broncocalijohn
05-21-2010, 09:22 AM
Read your own articles...


The only reason housing saw an uptick in Vegas is because of the Federal tax credits and that buying a foreclosed house is a PIA compared to a new home. The credits have expired, and the statistics for home buying will be out in July and August. I suspect it will slide.

Funny though, they have 10,000 plus houses sitting empty in Vegas and the builders are building more. Won't be surprised when KB Homes and other builders go bankrupt.

if he only lived in those areas. I live in So Cal and while there are some building going on, no way it is a healthy market. If it is up, that is because the market has been so horrible. Go ahead and buy a new home in Phoenix. I will buy the many foreclosures that has been sitting for months.

Durango
05-21-2010, 09:23 AM
And nobody has yet to tell my why all these banks that the fed gov gave money to are not lending any money to struggling businesses.

why is that again?

is it because the banks know something we don't?

I just received approval for my second SBA loan about three days ago. From Citibank. Isn't that one of the bail-out banks? My loan officer told me it wouldn't have been possible without the government loans to the banking industry and the stimulus.

I'm an outfitter/outfitter designer and a groundfloor-up business without a lot of collateral. If not for the stimulus, me and four other people wouldn't have jobs.

Your point is dumb and your premise is flat out wrong.

randomtask
05-21-2010, 09:24 AM
Remind me again how that worked out?

Oh yeah...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

Yeah, since Obama has repealed those tax cuts which you're railing against. :oyvey:

P.S. They haven't been repealed. Guess that ruins your idea.

bowtown
05-21-2010, 09:27 AM
Yeah, since Obama has repealed those tax cuts which you're railing against. :oyvey:

P.S. They haven't been repealed. Guess that ruins your idea.

They will eventually have to be repealed (or allowed to expire) though or when the stimulus money runs out, or the same thing will happen.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 09:28 AM
Your argument is all over the place here. I thought we were discussing congress and the fact that it needs to be fixed, and what a damaging president George Bush was. I haven't said anything about Obama.

My argument remains the same: less goverment, not more. I'm for letting the states have more choice over how to run their economies and I've said that from the beginning. Less fed gov has been my ringtone from day 1.

I've never stated we don't need the fed gov, obviously we do. But the fed gov has to be streamlined.

Tombstone RJ
05-21-2010, 09:36 AM
I just received approval for my second SBA loan about three days ago. From Citibank. Isn't that one of the bail-out banks? My loan officer told me it wouldn't have been possible without the government loans to the banking industry and the stimulus.

I'm an outfitter/outfitter designer and a groundfloor-up business without a lot of collateral. If not for the stimulus, me and four other people wouldn't have jobs.

Your point is dumb and your premise is flat out wrong.

I work with a lot of outfitters and many of them are going under. I know the business I work for can't get loans and it's been around for almost 20 years.

How big was your loan, and what are the terms, if I may ask?

randomtask
05-21-2010, 09:36 AM
They will eventually have to be repealed (or allowed to expire) though or when the stimulus money used to counter their effect runs out, or the same thing will happen.

How the hell is the stimulus money countering the tax cut's effect? This is brand new information to me. What part of the money is countering it, and how? At least give me a link to somewhere that explains the economics of how that is supposed to work.

Frankly, I'd be satisfied with at least an attempt at an explanation, because right now there is a distinct lack of explanation in this part of the thread.

gunns
05-21-2010, 09:49 AM
How does that hurt you? How does that not create jobs? The non wealthy got tax breaks too.

It hurts me because I'm middle class. The wealthy are supposed to pay 39% of their income in taxes but of that 39% they pay 31% of it. Middle class is supposed to pay 25%. They pay 95% of that 25%. Tax breaks? Give that lip service to the wealthy. The creation of jobs is what we kept hearing from Bush. Seems to me the unemployed would say BS and so would a lot of people.

TonyR
05-21-2010, 09:51 AM
Yeah, since Obama has repealed those tax cuts which you're railing against. :oyvey:

P.S. They haven't been repealed. Guess that ruins your idea.

You're widely missing the larger point. Bush and a GOP controlled congress got us into needless, costly wars and at the same time cut taxes (particularly for the wealthy) during a strong economy. Now, during a major recession, was not the time to be raising taxes.

And I wonder how many of you right wingers who are so concerned about government spending and deficits would be supportive of cutting defense spending?

ScottXray
05-21-2010, 09:52 AM
The Strip is always going to full of people. That's part of the economy there sure, but if you ventured outside of the strip you would know that construction has completely nosedived there. Unemployment is still very high there at just below 14 percent. Housing market is shot to hell and so on.

I was on the strip , yes. But I talked to about five or six taxi drivers about the economy. They all said that, compared to now, the strip was a ghost town 8-9 months ago, and that the economy is almost back to normal for the tourism industry. And that means that the economy in the rest of the country is coming back...because those tourists are coming from OTHER areas (and I didn't see that many foreign tourists..most were standard people from Ohio, indiana etc.)

As far as the housing industry...yeah new home construction was spurred by the buyers programs the govt put out...and guess what...that means it kept jobs going that otherwise would have been gone.

The problem with the housing market in most areas is that people got fooled into thinking it was ALWAYS going to go up, and then got themselves upside down in their mortgages when the market tanked. Using your home line of credit to buy cars, TVs and non essential and non secured items will do that. People were just stupid in that respect. The banks and Wall street helped with those crazy derivative markets they were pushing and the fact that they were irresponsible in their lending , nad TOO creative in their loans. Because Vegas and Florida were places that had a LOT of speculation the markets there were affected more than most.

They will come back eventually...but it will take some time. People are being a little more cautious. Being out of work or money tends to do that to your confidence.

gunns
05-21-2010, 09:54 AM
Congress passes the laws and the Democrats have been the majority in congress for many years and the Dems were the majority when Bush was in offices so wrong. Sorry.

Congress? Dem's? Many years? Hilarious! The Republicans were in control from 1995 to 2006. Please!

Durango
05-21-2010, 09:58 AM
I work with a lot of outfitters and many of them are going under. I know the business I work for can't get loans and it's been around for almost 20 years.

How big was your loan, and what are the terms, if I may ask?

I had my very best year in 2009, and I was only two years into my start-up.

This season, hunting, expeditionary inquiries are up nearly 20% from 2008.

15 years, 250K, 6.47%. I believe I can pay it off in 5 years, but I wouldn't have had the opportunity at all if not for more generous lending practices made easier by the stimulus and that is a fact.

I sold my mountain tours business 3 years ago. I collateralized with less than 15% of the principal and three outside investors, including myself. That would've been impossible only two years ago.

I grant you; banks, any banks are much tighter and restrictive, but no-one would even have a chance without the help from the federal government at several levels; TARP, SBA and much less loan processing red tape.

I'm not an Obamaite, but his stimulus package including direct infusion of monies into the SBA (outside the purview of Congress) and administrative rule changes probably saved thousands of small businesses and I'm grateful, as is my family.

mkporter
05-21-2010, 10:06 AM
Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law)

In economics, Hauser's Law is an empirical observation that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the top marginal tax rate.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif

26610

Note the period between 2000 and 2004. This is when the Bush tax cuts were passed. Note the marked drop in revenues during a period of growth in GDP, and growth in spending. In the year 2000, revenues were 20.6% of GDP, and we were running a surplus. In 2003, revenues were at 16.2%. Hauser's "Law" merely shows that we tend to bring in about as much revenue as we spend (although not quite). When the top marginal tax rate drops, those revenues are eventually made up in other places, like lower tax bracket increases or entitlement program or corporate taxes. Also of note is that people didn't really pay the ultra high marginal tax rates from 50 years ago. There were more ways to shelter your money from these taxes then. People actually pay an amount closer to their marginal tax rate now, so changes in the rate have a larger effect.

randomtask
05-21-2010, 10:09 AM
You're widely missing the larger point. Bush and a GOP controlled congress got us into needless, costly wars and at the same time cut taxes (particularly for the wealthy) during a strong economy. Now, during a major recession, was not the time to be raising taxes.

And I wonder how many of you right wingers who are so concerned about government spending and deficits would be supportive of cutting defense spending?

Two things:

1)I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. That one is worthy of almost all the criticism brought it's way.

2)I would be supportive of cutting most government spending, including defense spending. It's currently hovering at about 4% of GDP. If we cut that to even 3.7% of GDP (still a higher % than Russia, Iran, and more than 2.5 times the EU), we would save more than 41 billion dollars. Not enough to get us out of the hole we're in, but definitely a help.

Cito Pelon
05-21-2010, 10:12 AM
If a Republican was in office you wouldn't here the end of it. With Obama in the press goes weeks at a time not even mentioning it. When they do, they try to make it sound cute, like having "top ten best ways to nail your interview!" With lines like "with a stubborn job market, we're all lookin' to stand out!" Tee hee!

The fact is there are a lot of pissed off people and they are tired of being ignored and tired of reading headlines about expensive state dinners and Oprah appearances. You talk to people and they feel like they're being ignored. We're wasting time and money passing health care legislation when people need work. The press want to prop their boy up, so they are pretending it's not there.

There's a storm coming and the Dems are going to take it up the ass this fall.

There's a lot more to it than just Dems vs. Repubs.

You can complain all you want about Obama, but the GOP had 8 consecutive years from 2000-2008 with majorities in the House, the Senate, and GWB in the White House. And did the GOP turn it into Golden Years? No.

Please, act like a man and be fair.

Matter of fact, Republicans have been in the White House for 28 years since 1968, Democrats only 16 years.

So, where's this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow the GOP keeps promising? Pretty near a 2-to-1 ration the Republicans have been ruling the USA, but where's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow???

Please, back off your rhetoric and act like a man.

OABB
05-21-2010, 10:19 AM
There's a lot more to it than just Dems vs. Repubs.

You can complain all you want about Obama, but the GOP had 8 consecutive years from 2000-2008 with majorities in the House, the Senate, and GWB in the White House. And did the GOP turn it into Golden Years? No.

Please, act like a man and be fair.

Matter of fact, Republicans have been in the White House for 28 years since 1968, Democrats only 16 years.

So, where's this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow the GOP keeps promising? Pretty near a 2-to-1 ration the Republicans have been ruling the USA, but where's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow???

Please, back off your rhetoric and act like a man.


Iranian Holocaust deniers think american republicans are insane.

OABB
05-21-2010, 10:19 AM
26612

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2010, 10:24 AM
I just lost my job 2 months back, the company doesn't have long left. Just moved to Denver. Anyone hiring?? I have a degree... :(

If you're willing to move to Myrtle Beach, I hear there are openings for waitstaff.

mkporter
05-21-2010, 10:31 AM
How does that hurt you? How does that not create jobs? The non wealthy got tax breaks too.

There is no significant correlation between GDP growth and the highest marginal tax rate. Tax cuts to the wealthy do not produce jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthy with out corresponding spending cuts mean either higher deficits, or increases in taxes from other sources (lower tax brackets/payroll taxes/etc). Tax cuts to the wealthy also mean an increase in income disparity and the reduction of the middle class, which is one of the most destabilizing effects in our economy. Note the points on the graph in 1928 and 2007.

26614

OABB
05-21-2010, 10:33 AM
There is no significant correlation between GDP growth and the highest marginal tax rate. Tax cuts to the wealthy do not produce jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthy with out corresponding spending cuts mean either higher deficits, or increases in taxes from other sources (lower tax brackets/payroll taxes/etc). Tax cuts to the wealthy also mean an increase in income disparity and the reduction of the middle class, which is one of the most destabilizing effects in our economy. Note the points on the graph in 1928 and 2007.

26614

burn the socialist with his witch graphs!

mkporter
05-21-2010, 11:07 AM
burn the socialist with his witch graphs!

Quiet you! Give me your money so that I can build medical centers for endangered whale species!

Kaylore
05-21-2010, 11:16 AM
Are the Dems actually trying pimp Carter's economic policy based on national debt? ROFL!Ha!:spit:

Good luck with that.

OABB
05-21-2010, 11:25 AM
Are the Dems actually trying pimp Carter's economic policy based on national debt? ROFL!Ha!:spit:

Good luck with that.

not a dem, and these are just the facts maam.

I know national debt doesn't matter to reaganites, but it is a pesky problem for the country.

Like all repubs nowadays, its socialism for the rich(bailouts,put spending on the government so they can keep more) and capatilism for the middle class and poor.

also, I don't know how you did on the color Iq test, but you do see the GIANT RED BARS right.

those are bad.

Paladin
05-21-2010, 11:28 AM
Headline. Lower unekoyment in 34 States and DC.........

Dang. And the anti-Obama BS was getting started.....

Watch the Natioonal Dobt go down over the next three years, and watch the Libertarians and Repugnicans choke on themselves.... Again.

Boy. that Rand Paul is a great poster boy for the teabaggers, eh?

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 11:38 AM
The tax breaks for the wealthy were passed by reconciliation by the Republicans, and the war that helped cripple our economy came straight from lies by the White House.


Darn all those right wingers that got us into the Iraq war!


"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."


Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm


"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."


President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."


Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582


Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html


"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print


John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html


"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html


John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html


"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831


Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER:
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT:
I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml


"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802


"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.

Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002391


"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html


"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/


"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/


"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.


Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 11:38 AM
cont...



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm


Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

Robert C. Byrd
Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html
http://australianpolitics.com/news/2002/10/02-10-03a.shtml
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm


"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix


"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix


"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix


"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix


"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."


President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/


CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/


Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm


CNN
October 10, 2002

House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq

The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us

CNN
October 11, 2002

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us



"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush
State of the Union address
January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.


As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.


September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.


There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!


The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."


Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html



UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:

CNN
November 5, 1998

U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq

The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991 resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/05/un.iraq.02


America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3


"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html


"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,


Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)

Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
http://www.house.gov/ford/12_06_01a.htm


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002

http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/pdfs/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.pdf


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

mkporter
05-21-2010, 11:39 AM
Headline. Lower unekoyment in 34 States and DC.........

Dang. And the anti-Obama BS was getting started.....

Watch the Natioonal Dobt go down over the next three years, and watch the Libertarians and Repugnicans choke on themselves.... Again.

Boy. that Rand Paul is a great poster boy for the teabaggers, eh?

Well, unemployment will hopefully continue to show good results. The national debt is not going down any time soon though. As the economy improves, deficit reduction needs to be a major focus.

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Congress? Dem's? Many years? Hilarious! The Republicans were in control from 1995 to 2006. Please!

Please Google Jim Jeffords.

TonyR
05-21-2010, 12:12 PM
Darn all those right wingers that got us into the Iraq war!

Yes, all those Dems are complicit. But you're sidestepping the fact that Cheney and his minions steered the evidence and the intelligence community to manufacture a case for going to war in Iraq, something they had the desire to do years before 9/11. They lied, deceived, and obfuscated. The media and congress didn't show enough skepticism and ask enough questions. It was a rush to judgement and rush to war fueled by post 9/11 nationalism. But don't fool yourself, Bush/Cheney are the cheif perps in this fiasco.

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 12:26 PM
Yes, all those Dems are complicit. But you're sidestepping the fact that Cheney and his minions steered the evidence and the intelligence community to manufacture a case for going to war in Iraq, something they had the desire to do years before 9/11. They lied, deceived, and obfuscated. The media and congress didn't show enough skepticism and ask enough questions. It was a rush to judgement and rush to war fueled by post 9/11 nationalism. But don't fool yourself, Bush/Cheney are the cheif perps in this fiasco.

Blah blah blah, the argument was that right wingers got us into the war. I showed otherwise. You'll note that plenty of these came prior to 9/11.

mkporter
05-21-2010, 12:53 PM
Blah blah blah, the argument was that right wingers got us into the war. I showed otherwise. You'll note that plenty of these came prior to 9/11.

The right wingers were in power at the time war was declared. They pushed for war, and they got it. Therefore, they got us into the war. The left was not pushing for this war on the whole. There were some who did, either because they believed it was the right thing to do (Lieberman et al), or they didn't want to look weak on National security (Kerry, edwards, etc). Maybe war would have happened with lefties in power, but I sincerely doubt it.

The Neocons had advocated invading Iraq and taking down Saddam starting in the latter half of the 90's. 9/11 provided an opportunity to do so.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Bolton, and Perle were all members of the Neocon movement and held positions in the highest levels of the government. They convinced Bush after 9/11, and the push for war was on. We can argue all day about whether we should have gone to war, but the mechanics of how it happened are pretty obvious.

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 12:57 PM
The right wingers were in power at the time war was declared. They pushed for war, and they got it. Therefore, they got us into the war. The left was not pushing for this war on the whole. There were some who did, either because they believed it was the right thing to do (Lieberman et al), or they didn't want to look weak on National security (Kerry, edwards, etc). Maybe war would have happened with lefties in power, but I sincerely doubt it.

The Neocons had advocated invading Iraq and taking down Saddam starting in the latter half of the 90's. 9/11 provided an opportunity to do so.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Bolton, and Perle were all members of the Neocon movement and held positions in the highest levels of the government. They convinced Bush after 9/11, and the push for war was on. We can argue all day about whether we should have gone to war, but the mechanics of how it happened are pretty obvious.

I can quote it all again if you missed it. It has the dates on there too! :thanku:

Tomeboy58801
05-21-2010, 01:21 PM
I saw on the news that hear in North Dakota it is at 3 percent, the best in the country.

mkporter
05-21-2010, 01:57 PM
I can quote it all again if you missed it. It has the dates on there too! :thanku:

I actually read through your entire post. I don't deny the accuracy of any of it. Most of the quotes don't advocate an invasion of Iraq. Most of them say we should do something, and that Saddam is bad. There were some that do advocate invading, mostly repeated quotes from Kerry.

My point, which you nicely sidestepped, was that while there were some democrats that did advocate war, the executive branch was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. If I had the time and the disdain for the OM server, I'm pretty sure that I could post 100x more quotes advocating invasion of Iraq from right wingers than you could ever find from the left.

ColoradoDarin
05-21-2010, 06:28 PM
I actually read through your entire post. I don't deny the accuracy of any of it. Most of the quotes don't advocate an invasion of Iraq. Most of them say we should do something, and that Saddam is bad. There were some that do advocate invading, mostly repeated quotes from Kerry.

My point, which you nicely sidestepped, was that while there were some democrats that did advocate war, the executive branch was the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. If I had the time and the disdain for the OM server, I'm pretty sure that I could post 100x more quotes advocating invasion of Iraq from right wingers than you could ever find from the left.

Here's a free Constitutional lesson, the executive branch ALWAYS is the driving force behind wars. Yes Congress must pass the authorization, but all of the Armed Forces fall under the executive.

PS. These aren't the only quotes by Democrats on Iraq, just the leaders at the time of the AUMF and prior.

mkporter
05-21-2010, 11:14 PM
Here's a free Constitutional lesson, the executive branch ALWAYS is the driving force behind wars. Yes Congress must pass the authorization, but all of the Armed Forces fall under the executive.

PS. These aren't the only quotes by Democrats on Iraq, just the leaders at the time of the AUMF and prior.

Wow, how lucky we are to have such a constitutional scholar here with us. Here's a history lesson with as much value as your constitutional lesson: The right wing had control of the executive branch at the time of the AUMF. Put your lesson together with mine, and you have: The right wing was the driving force behind the war on Iraq.

But you know that, so I have to assume that you are arguing that it was a coincidence that an executive branch littered with neo-cons who had openly advocated an invasion of Iraq for years, just happened to be in power at a time when a preemptive war against Iraq became inevitable? How fortunate for them. I'm sure a democratic administration would have pushed for war every bit as hard.

You are delusional if you don't think the right wing was the primary driver behind us being in Iraq.

PS- Thanks for the clarification on your quotes. I assumed that you had found every single quote by a democrat ever published.

TomServo
05-22-2010, 12:57 AM
F the stats. when the Local prison or Hog Farm wont hire..................its Bad

JJJ
05-22-2010, 04:08 AM
4.0% here in Switzerland after being at 2.5% for years.

Most business friendly labor laws and the smallest government nanny state in Europe keep these rates at a level envied by all those countries that surround it.

ColoradoDarin
05-22-2010, 04:49 AM
Wow, how lucky we are to have such a constitutional scholar here with us. Here's a history lesson with as much value as your constitutional lesson: The right wing had control of the executive branch at the time of the AUMF. Put your lesson together with mine, and you have: The right wing was the driving force behind the war on Iraq.

But you know that, so I have to assume that you are arguing that it was a coincidence that an executive branch littered with neo-cons who had openly advocated an invasion of Iraq for years, just happened to be in power at a time when a preemptive war against Iraq became inevitable? How fortunate for them. I'm sure a democratic administration would have pushed for war every bit as hard.

You are delusional if you don't think the right wing was the primary driver behind us being in Iraq.

PS- Thanks for the clarification on your quotes. I assumed that you had found every single quote by a democrat ever published.

Keep moving those goalposts!

Original argument was that it was ONLY right wingers pushing for war - I showed that to be false. Anything else we're just having fun arguing! :afro:

mkporter
05-22-2010, 08:08 AM
Keep moving those goalposts!

Original argument was that it was ONLY right wingers pushing for war - I showed that to be false. Anything else we're just having fun arguing! :afro:

Original argument:

The tax breaks for the wealthy were passed by reconciliation by the Republicans, and the war that helped cripple our economy came straight from lies by the White House.


He didn't make the claim that it was ONLY right wingers. The original argument was that the war came from lies pushed by the white house. The extent of the lies is debatable, but the push for the war did come from the White House. Goalposts intact.

NOLA Bronco
05-22-2010, 09:47 AM
I was on the strip , yes. But I talked to about five or six taxi drivers about the economy. They all said that, compared to now, the strip was a ghost town 8-9 months ago, and that the economy is almost back to normal for the tourism industry. And that means that the economy in the rest of the country is coming back...because those tourists are coming from OTHER areas (and I didn't see that many foreign tourists..most were standard people from Ohio, indiana etc.)

As far as the housing industry...yeah new home construction was spurred by the buyers programs the govt put out...and guess what...that means it kept jobs going that otherwise would have been gone.

The problem with the housing market in most areas is that people got fooled into thinking it was ALWAYS going to go up, and then got themselves upside down in their mortgages when the market tanked. Using your home line of credit to buy cars, TVs and non essential and non secured items will do that. People were just stupid in that respect. The banks and Wall street helped with those crazy derivative markets they were pushing and the fact that they were irresponsible in their lending , nad TOO creative in their loans. Because Vegas and Florida were places that had a LOT of speculation the markets there were affected more than most.

They will come back eventually...but it will take some time. People are being a little more cautious. Being out of work or money tends to do that to your confidence.

True that there are a ton of folks in Vegas, and they may be taking cabs, but the hotels are doing serious discounting just to get people there. MGM casinos are in bad trouble - the opening of city center expanded their rooms and they can not fill them profitably. Same at Encore, which cost millions per room and now you can get rooms for $100.

I'm in the biz, so I know this stuff. Vegas is way over saturated with rooms and people who are NOT spending money like they used to. Companies have stopped a lot of business travel, people eat at Fridays instead of a high end place, gaming revenue pr head is in the crapper.

TonyR
05-22-2010, 10:12 AM
Nevada, the nation's largest gambling market by revenue, was down 10.4 percent in gaming revenue and down 10.0 percent in tax revenue...

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20100508_National_gambling_revenue_off_5_5_percent _in__09.html#ixzz0ogBCZnRS

TonyR
05-22-2010, 10:16 AM
...the argument was that right wingers got us into the war. I showed otherwise...

They did, and what you showed doesn't change the fact. "Right wingers" manufactured and sold the case for war, the spineless dopes in congress gave Bush/Cheney the authority to invade.

gunns
05-22-2010, 10:24 AM
Please Google Jim Jeffords.

The House of Representatives was still controlled by Republicans and the Senate was only for two years.....by 1.

gunns
05-22-2010, 10:28 AM
They did, and what you showed doesn't change the fact. "Right wingers" manufactured and sold the case for war, the spineless dopes in congress gave Bush/Cheney the authority to invade.

All the pastes from the Clinton administration show one thing....they didn't jump into war. That was left to Bush/Cheney to fabricate a situation to convince us all that it was needed. We were all convinced. We were all sheep.

ColoradoDarin
05-22-2010, 02:09 PM
All the pastes from the Clinton administration show one thing....they didn't jump into war. That was left to Bush/Cheney to fabricate a situation to convince us all that it was needed. We were all convinced. We were all sheep.

I assume you're old enough to remember all the way back to 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29)

TexanBob
05-22-2010, 02:17 PM
Most of the quotes don't advocate an invasion of Iraq. Most of them say we should do something, and that Saddam is bad. There were some that do advocate invading, mostly repeated quotes from Kerry.

The mantra from the Left was for UN Sanctions. Bush didn't have to delay eight months before invading Iraq but he did so to try to let the "Let sanctions work crowd" see their folly and get on board.

Don't forget that one consequence of invading Iraq was exposing the UN's Oil-for-Food scam which basically bought Iraqi oil and skimmed profits to Kofi Annan's son. The toothless UN was never going to act against Iraq because it was up to its eyeballs in corruption and because nations like France, who were also in on the Oil-for-Food con, were never going to approve upsetting their sweetheart deal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2111195

So, if we had not taken the lead in invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be funding suicide bombers in Israel, his son would still be running rape and torture rooms and destabilizing the region.

Whether the Iraq invasion was worth it in the cost of lives lost and dollars spent is up to each individual to decide. But the bottom line is that, had Iraq not been invaded, Saddam would still be in power, would still be terrorizing neighbor states critical to both the supply of oil and American influence in the region.

But I contend the Iraq invasion is not why the country has fallen into economic near-bankruptcy. If that were the case, why is Europe even worse off than us when their support of the Iraq invasion was half-assed at best and undermining at worst?

Que
05-22-2010, 02:58 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

One more time. A picture is worth a thousand words.

briane
05-22-2010, 03:03 PM
i dunno, but I have got a lead on a really good job in my town. Keep your fingers crossed. I should find out monday or soon thereafter. Maybe I can be crossed off that unemployment list soon!

Broncojef
05-22-2010, 03:11 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

One more time. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Oh goodie...thank the Good Lord obama has saved us...nothing to worry about now.

Broncojef
05-22-2010, 03:14 PM
All the pastes from the Clinton administration show one thing....they didn't jump into war. That was left to Bush/Cheney to fabricate a situation to convince us all that it was needed. We were all convinced. We were all sheep.

No actually it shows Clinton didn't have the balls to keep the country safe and punish the bad guys. His incompetence on national defense lead to 911 and the economy everyone wants to pin on Bush and his policies.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2010, 03:20 PM
The mantra from the Left was for UN Sanctions. Bush didn't have to delay eight months before invading Iraq but he did so to try to let the "Let sanctions work crowd" see their folly and get on board.

Don't forget that one consequence of invading Iraq was exposing the UN's Oil-for-Food scam which basically bought Iraqi oil and skimmed profits to Kofi Annan's son. The toothless UN was never going to act against Iraq because it was up to its eyeballs in corruption and because nations like France, who were also in on the Oil-for-Food con, were never going to approve upsetting their sweetheart deal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2111195

So, if we had not taken the lead in invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be funding suicide bombers in Israel, his son would still be running rape and torture rooms and destabilizing the region.

Whether the Iraq invasion was worth it in the cost of lives lost and dollars spent is up to each individual to decide. But the bottom line is that, had Iraq not been invaded, Saddam would still be in power, would still be terrorizing neighbor states critical to both the supply of oil and American influence in the region.

But I contend the Iraq invasion is not why the country has fallen into economic near-bankruptcy. If that were the case, why is Europe even worse off than us when their support of the Iraq invasion was half-assed at best and undermining at worst?


Well, thats one way to look at it. Another way is that Saddam was a "known" enemy and very predictable. IMHO, I side with Israel's analysis of why NOT to invade Iraq and it's quite simple: Its better to have a known enemy (hence, you know what motivates this enemy, and Hussien was motivated by money) then to have an unknown enemy and destabilization. Hence, invading Iraq destablilizes the entire region and gives more power to Iran.

I side with Israel on this. I'd rather have Hussien as the bird in hand then have destabilization and a bunch of what ifs.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2010, 05:54 PM
US Foreign Policy can be a hellava thing, the enemy of my enemy and all that... it would have been easy to placate Saddam Hussien, all you really had do is pay the man. It makes no sense to eliminate Hussien when he could be your second best ally in the region, just buy his oil. A guy like Hussien is easy to understand, give him money and let him hide in his palaces. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction but he did have the power to hide a huge bluff from the most powerful nation in the world. I dunno... stupid move by the morons on capital hill, but thats what happens when you elect a hick to the highest position of authority in your country...

TonyR
05-23-2010, 08:24 AM
Well, thats one way to look at it. Another way is that Saddam was a "known" enemy and very predictable. IMHO, I side with Israel's analysis of why NOT to invade Iraq and it's quite simple: Its better to have a known enemy (hence, you know what motivates this enemy, and Hussien was motivated by money) then to have an unknown enemy and destabilization. Hence, invading Iraq destablilizes the entire region and gives more power to Iran.

I side with Israel on this. I'd rather have Hussien as the bird in hand then have destabilization and a bunch of what ifs.

I agree with this. The other big problem is that they went in without a plan. Didn't understand what they were getting themselves into, didn't fully understand the internal politics, didn't understand how long it would take or how much it would cost, and perhaps biggest of all didn't have an exit strategy. Just a massive failure. How can you put American men and women in harms way without full and careful planning?

Que
05-23-2010, 09:07 AM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpgOh goodie...thank the Good Lord obama has saved us...nothing to worry about now.

I still don't hear a real response to this. The economy was in a nose dive of epic proportions under GOP rule. We are pulling out of the dive and are now creating jobs again. Are we done? Hell no. Do we have a long way to go? You bet. The plunge was huge and now we are having to claw our way back. But are things improving? Yes... Albeit slowly yet the upslope is identical to the downslope. The graph is very striking and clear in it's message. And it is something I don't hear conservative being able refute this.

Archer81
05-23-2010, 09:12 AM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4586046313_028d681d2a.jpg

I still don't hear a real response to this. The economy was in a nose dive of epic proportions under GOP rule. We are pulling out of the dive and are now creating jobs again. Are we done? Hell no. Do we have a long way to go? You bet. The plunge was huge and now we are having to claw our way back. But are things improving? Yes... Albeit slowly yet the upslope is identical to the downslope. The graph is very striking and clear in it's message. And it is something I don't hear conservative being able refute this.


So congress has nothing to do with economics? Its all the President? Because if I recall, Dems were the majority party in 2008 in both houses.

Also...Its not like the number of jobs lost were replaced putting 15 million people to work. You still have 15 million unemployed people waiting for substandard jobs to go back to work.

But by all means celebrate a BS graph that is showing seasonal and federal government hires.

:Broncos:

ScottXray
05-23-2010, 09:25 AM
True that there are a ton of folks in Vegas, and they may be taking cabs, but the hotels are doing serious discounting just to get people there. MGM casinos are in bad trouble - the opening of city center expanded their rooms and they can not fill them profitably. Same at Encore, which cost millions per room and now you can get rooms for $100.

I'm in the biz, so I know this stuff. Vegas is way over saturated with rooms and people who are NOT spending money like they used to. Companies have stopped a lot of business travel, people eat at Fridays instead of a high end place, gaming revenue pr head is in the crapper.

Yeah, I can see that. I didn't play at a single table...Reason? 10-15$ Minimum bet. Lower that to $5 and I would have been all over the black jack / tables. I don't mind losing money to the house...I consider it part of the total entertainment package. What I do mind is sitting down with 2-3 100$ and
only getting to play 15-20 hands before its gone. Less than an hour. And I did watch a lot of table play....House was taking Everybodys money, and taking it fast. I didn't see anybody winning.
Couple that with the high food and drink prices and you drive customers out of the casinos, or to the low end slots, which at least give you a lttle time before you lose.

Also noticed that the Keno games are gone. Used to be that you could play that in most any restaurant or bar. The poker games have replaced them...and again...10-15 minimum. They need to reconfigure the games if they want to draw Common visitors back to the tables.

All told I broke pretty even on the gambling end. But the food , drinks and 2 shows cost me > 1700 for a 3 day trip, and the rooms and air were comped ( long story but it was in comp for a personal injury last fall). I had a good time and I'll go back, but I'll probably stay off the strip next time.

Durango
05-23-2010, 09:31 AM
Yeah, I can see that. I didn't play at a single table...Reason? 10-15$ Minimum bet. Lower that to $5 and I would have been all over the black jack / tables. I don't mind losing money to the house...I consider it part of the total entertainment package. What I do mind is sitting down with 2-3 100$ and
only getting to play 15-20 hands before its gone. Less than an hour. And I did watch a lot of table play....House was taking Everybodys money, and taking it fast. I didn't see anybody winning.
Couple that with the high food and drink prices and you drive customers out of the casinos, or to the low end slots, which at least give you a lttle time before you lose.

Also noticed that the Keno games are gone. Used to be that you could play that in most any restaurant or bar. The poker games have replaced them...and again...10-15 minimum. They need to reconfigure the games if they want to draw Common visitors back to the tables.

All told I broke pretty even on the gambling end. But the food , drinks and 2 shows cost me > 1700 for a 3 day trip, and the rooms and air were comped ( long story but it was in comp for a personal injury last fall). I had a good time and I'll go back, but I'll probably stay off the strip next time.


Very, very true take. Vegas has positioned itself outside the average Joe's budget, in everything from gaming to restaurants. casinos used to offer cheap food and those wonderful-massive buffets for $4.95. They're all gone now it seems, and you're right, $15 minimums are far outside the risk factor for the average guy or woman.

I've been to Vegas a couple dozen times and only came away with some minimum winnings a couple of times and ONLY because I hit a small jackpot on slots. I have never won at Blackjack. Ever.

Cito Pelon
05-23-2010, 09:36 AM
Been a very interesting thread. Lot of knowledgeable people on this board. Very stressful times we live in. But it's always been that way.

Someone asked me the other day, "Would you rather be alive today than 50 years ago?" I replied, hands down today. There's been so much progress made. It may not seem like it, but there has been a lot of progress made.

People will always disagree, there will always be extremists to the Left and to the Right, we see that on this board constantly, but as long as we keep moving forward and there's people trying to find a consensus, we'll be ok.

strafen
05-23-2010, 09:44 AM
1. Obama voted for TARP when he was a senator, so he gets a nice big pile of share to go with Bush ("we have to abandon the free market to save it") & McCain. 'eff em all.

2. More people would have health insurance if they had jobs. Jobs should have been the priority, they tried and failed with the Stimulus, then dropped it completely.

3. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZxBX8sz3tO8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>LMAO! that says it all... ROFL!
That's what happens when they take the teleprompt away from the guy
Here in the Boulder-Denver area jobs have started to come arouind a little bit.
Not by much, but just enough for people to get back on their feet. I've seen a few Walmarts being built everywhere. In fact, I was at a new one that opened on the 19th of this month and I was talking to some of the folks there, and they couldn't be any happier to be working again.

OABB
05-23-2010, 10:11 AM
I learned from this thread that republicans have never mad a mistake. I was surprised at first than I found out when thy did, it was actually the democratic congress.

I also learned that graphs showing actual proof are to be ignored as well.

NOLA Bronco
05-23-2010, 02:01 PM
Very, very true take. Vegas has positioned itself outside the average Joe's budget, in everything from gaming to restaurants. casinos used to offer cheap food and those wonderful-massive buffets for $4.95. They're all gone now it seems, and you're right, $15 minimums are far outside the risk factor for the average guy or woman.

I've been to Vegas a couple dozen times and only came away with some minimum winnings a couple of times and ONLY because I hit a small jackpot on slots. I have never won at Blackjack. Ever.

Casinos don't have $5 dollar tables because they don't make money off of them. It is all about utilization - they would rather have 2 people at a 20 table than a full $5 table. More hands delt that way. Don't get me wrong, I too would like to play a 5 dollar table, but LV and other casinos were not built because of folks like me. They are sucking air now because the guy who used to lose 5k now loses just 2k. Plus most money is made on slots, and most of that is made on penny slots. No one just plays a penny on those.

tsiguy96
05-23-2010, 02:05 PM
I learned from this thread that republicans have never mad a mistake. I was surprised at first than I found out when thy did, it was actually the democratic congress.

I also learned that graphs showing actual proof are to be ignored as well.

listen to sean hannity or bill oreilly for 15 minutes, you will learn an incredible amount about how bad obama really is.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2010, 02:17 PM
I learned from this thread that republicans have never mad a mistake. I was surprised at first than I found out when thy did, it was actually the democratic congress.

I also learned that graphs showing actual proof are to be ignored as well.

I've learned there's some drama queens on this thread too...

OABB
05-23-2010, 02:53 PM
I've learned there's some drama queens on this thread too...

Not enough of them IMO...people should have been rioting the last ten years. In the old days, bush would have met the guiliatine. "Let them eat cake" used to make people mad, now they say it's just free market and it's not personal.

Being out of work, jobs going to china and India, that is personal. The bottom line that money is all that matters will harm this country beyond belief. Jobs should be kept here, and the strength of all citizens should be more important than the gross comfort of a few.

Archer81
05-23-2010, 03:21 PM
I learned from this thread that republicans have never mad a mistake. I was surprised at first than I found out when thy did, it was actually the democratic congress.

I also learned that graphs showing actual proof are to be ignored as well.


I find it amazing that nothing is this administration's fault. Quick to blame when they have been in power long enough.

And showing a graph for job creation does not really prove anything. The same fundemental issues remain. Federal hiring is increasing, and alot of these "shovel ready" jobs will go away when federal funding for them ends. How many of these "new" jobs are seasonal? The graph does not take into account that 16 million people are out of work. Did 16 million people suddenly find work? Is it meaningful employment? How many people have jobs but have reduced hours or have taken paycuts? Are private companies expanding facilities and hiring? At the current pace the US will be out of the recession by 2014.

:Broncos:

elsid13
05-23-2010, 03:43 PM
I agree with this. The other big problem is that they went in without a plan. Didn't understand what they were getting themselves into, didn't fully understand the internal politics, didn't understand how long it would take or how much it would cost, and perhaps biggest of all didn't have an exit strategy. Just a massive failure. How can you put American men and women in harms way without full and careful planning?

They had a plan, it was based on many false assumptions and failure to listen to folks that understand what meant to stabilize a country. Wolfowitz and Feith along with Rumsfield arrogance ****ed us big time.

HAT
05-23-2010, 03:50 PM
I find it amazing that nothing is this administration's fault. Quick to blame when they have been in power long enough.

And showing a graph for job creation does not really prove anything. The same fundemental issues remain. Federal hiring is increasing, and alot of these "shovel ready" jobs will go away when federal funding for them ends. How many of these "new" jobs are seasonal? The graph does not take into account that 16 million people are out of work. Did 16 million people suddenly find work? Is it meaningful employment? How many people have jobs but have reduced hours or have taken paycuts? Are private companies expanding facilities and hiring? At the current pace the US will be out of the recession by 2014.

:Broncos:

Didn't you know Obama invented the census? That's a million "jobs" right there.

Archer81
05-23-2010, 03:53 PM
Didn't you know Obama invented the census? That's a million "jobs" right there.


What happens when they end in July?


:Broncos:

HAT
05-23-2010, 03:56 PM
Exactly. That chart is statistical manipulation & nothing more.

OABB
05-23-2010, 05:48 PM
Are we talking about the chart that shows us debt over the years that I posted or the other one?

Archer81
05-23-2010, 06:18 PM
Are we talking about the chart that shows us debt over the years that I posted or the other one?


That chart is even more ridiculous. Presidents do not spend. Congress does.

It does not show the second half of GW Bush's 2nd term, or the first two years of Obama's. It also does not say who controlled congress. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html shows the makeup of congress by party from 1855 to 2010.

:Broncos:

mhgaffney
05-23-2010, 07:16 PM
And nobody has yet to tell my why all these banks that the fed gov gave money to are not lending any money to struggling businesses.

why is that again?

is it because the banks know something we don't?

The banks used part of our money to cover their bad debts. It wasn't enough -- the bad debts being so large.

But they patched things up for the short term. They figure they can always come back later and demand more of our money. And because they own Congress -- they are probably right. They will scream "panic: and the Congress will cough it up.

The banks took the rest of our money and bought federal bonds which are guaranteed and pay 3-4% interest. So they took our free money and are making more free money off of you and me.

Why don't the knee jerks on this board get this? They vote against their own interests time and time again.

We face a common foe. I used to call them banksters but this is too kind. They are gangsters -- and they rule America. We are led by sociopaths.

It's why the wars go on and on. The only thing more profitable to bankers than war are drugs -- and they are into that as well. To the tune of $500-1,000 million a year washed through the NY banks. This estimate came out of Cong. hearings some years ago -- and is probably way low.

During our lifetimes the nation has descended into a swamp of corruption and evil. It's been this way for a long time -- since before Ronnie Ray-gun. I would say all the way back to the assassination of JFK- - the last US president who made his own monetary policy -- and fought Wall Street.

The war machine (Wall Street) rules America.

OABB
05-23-2010, 07:46 PM
that chart is even more ridiculous. Presidents do not spend. Congress does.

It does not show the second half of gw bush's 2nd term, or the first two years of obama's. It also does not say who controlled congress. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0774721.html shows the makeup of congress by party from 1855 to 2010.

:broncos:

26638

TomServo
05-23-2010, 11:59 PM
No Prob No Prob at ALL. Obama knows how to solve it. Spend Spend Spend and tax tax Tax. problem Solved. the old soviet union just didnt have the Obama. the missing ingredient to Marxism-Obama

Archer81
05-24-2010, 12:00 AM
26638


Oh yeah?

http://tinyurl.com/ylr6k58

HA!


:Broncos:

OABB
05-24-2010, 08:19 AM
oh yeah?

http://tinyurl.com/ylr6k58

ha!


:broncos:

26640

Archer81
05-24-2010, 08:44 AM
26640


http://tinyurl.com/349ta6b


:Broncos:

TonyR
05-24-2010, 09:33 AM
Obama knows how to solve it. Spend Spend Spend and tax tax Tax. problem Solved.

You're either misinformed, confused, or stupid. Perhaps all three. What/where/how has Obama spent or taxed that the previous administration didn't?

Que
05-24-2010, 04:00 PM
I find it amazing that nothing is this administration's fault. Quick to blame when they have been in power long enough.

And showing a graph for job creation does not really prove anything. The same fundemental issues remain. Federal hiring is increasing, and alot of these "shovel ready" jobs will go away when federal funding for them ends. How many of these "new" jobs are seasonal? The graph does not take into account that 16 million people are out of work. Did 16 million people suddenly find work? Is it meaningful employment? How many people have jobs but have reduced hours or have taken paycuts? Are private companies expanding facilities and hiring? At the current pace the US will be out of the recession by 2014.

:Broncos:

Sure it does. Actually, I laugh at the notion that job creation isn't a good measure. It is probably the most accurate measure of whether we are headed in the right direction. What, you want to talk inflation? 40 year low. Savings rate? 20 year high. Unemployment rate? That's probably the second best measure but to inaccuracies such as people starting to look for work again - normally they're not counted - make it misleading. Median household income is another good one but that's census data and not compiled on a monthly basis by the gov (correct me if I am wrong).

So yes, net job creation (loss) is about the best indicator on a MoM basis we have. However, let me get to your other question. You asked how many of these jobs are due to seasonal hiring? Well, that chart is over 2 years in span so seasonality is factored out. You could argue that 45,000 - 60,000 (seen both numbers reported) of the March job growth was Census short term hiring. Okay, so net out 60,000 from the March number and you still have 102,000 new jobs. 290,000 new jobs in April. Best job numbers in 3 years.

So to your next point: how many of these jobs are short term associated with government spending? Oh now you have yourself in a catch 22. Conservatives like to say the Stimulus isn't working. But now you are trying to say that a big portion of these jobs are tied to Stimulus? So which argument do you want to make a) the stimulus isn't working and these are all private sector jobs (the kind Conservatives value) or b) it is working and seems to be doing what it was supposed to do in the first place - put Americans back to work.

And to your last point: What about salary levels? Employees are getting hired back to lower positions at lower salary levels. Unfortunately, that's a symptom of a market force Tea Partiers and Conservatives hold sacred - law of supply and demand. Ya, totally sucks doesn't it? But hey, its the Free Market man... Though, if you would like to I would love to start a conversation about the government or unions stepping in to make sure everyone gets a fair wage... Want to go there with me?

The US out of the Recession by 2014? Actually, technically we are already out of it. I think that the economist declared it over a while back after 3 consecutive quarters of GDP growth. But I hear you man. I know what you were saying.... when is the US Job Market going to be back to normal again. That's a good question. Eyeballing the chart and assuming that MoM job gains continue at the same rate we're looking at what... 17 months? I don't think we can expect the slope to steepen any more than that. I mean, that's just Free Market economics right? So late Q4 2011 before we're back to "normal" again. With the supply-demand factors I spoke of earlier probably Q3 2012 before we're back to the same wage levels.

Bummer I know but hey, we didn't get into this overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight as well. Quick fixes and short term thinking lead to this crisis and we shouldn't expect to get out of it using the same flawed thinking.

Bronco Yoda
05-24-2010, 04:08 PM
Didn't you know Obama invented the census? That's a million "jobs" right there.


Speaking of the census. Anyone else having trouble with these guys? I filled our census out and sent it in the mail but still get these guys at my door. I finally fill another one out at the door but it still will not end. Four different people I know of so far have left cards and rang my bell. My neighbors are all having the same problem. One camped out on our culdisac for a couple days straight. I fianlly went out and told him that the house he's stalking is empty and to get lost.

I take these guys are getting paid by the form?

Cito Pelon
05-24-2010, 05:32 PM
They had a plan, it was based on many false assumptions and failure to listen to folks that understand what meant to stabilize a country. Wolfowitz and Feith along with Rumsfield arrogance ****ed us big time.

It's gonna be interesting to see how we deal with Israel, Turkey, Iraq, the Kurds, vs. the Persians. Then you have the Greeks with internal problems and problems with the Turks on Cyprus. The Persians are the only solid force in the region, the rest are divided. But the Persians have severe internal problems.

I have no clue how it's gonna turn out.

Cito Pelon
05-24-2010, 06:16 PM
http://tinyurl.com/349ta6b


:Broncos:

sir, please, give it a rest. Do you have a job? Who is paying for your education?

OABB
05-24-2010, 06:41 PM
sir, please, give it a rest. Do you have a job? Who is paying for your education?

The Iraqi minister of defense thinks kenney is crazy.