@Curly4.... I am not making a statement pro or against any party other than the
absurdity of picking and choosing numbers to ones own liking. But sure..... if
you consider a 49/49 Senate as veto proof during that period.... we can play
along. And the house.... 236 (D) to 199 (R).... that is two thirds -
right? 54% is 2/3rds, right - absolutely veto proof... I guess somewhere, in
someones math. I mean, you need 66% to override a veto - and the Democrats 54%
gives them the 66% needed.... right? Ok... just wanted to make sure.I hear that excuse so often. It wasn't "fill in the blanks"
fault, they didn't control congress. We'll guess what, Obama
doesn't control this congress either. Is he absolved of responsibility
too.... somehow I am guessing not.And just to nit pick.... the
110th congress was from 2007-2009.... not 2006. They had no control in 2006.
@patriotLet's say we have a bill. We'll call it the repeal
Obamacare bill since that's what the bill is. The CBO says that as a result
of it 2.5 million more jobs will be needed for people to be able to get enough
money to pay for adequate healthcare. Is that a good thing?
UtahBlueDevil,Yes in 2008 there was a republican as president. But the
president has less to do with the economy if there is a congress of the other
party. So to tell the truth the democrats were in control of the congress with
nearly a veto proof majority. So the democrats control the economy starting with
the election in 2006.So UtahBlueDevil rethink your statement.
Lets see…. Utah home prices are going up. Unemployment is 4.1 by the
states (republican state by the way) numbers. Corporations are reporting year
over year growth. GDP is up. Is the economy bad simply because a democrat
is president? Because by the numbers…. any number you look at….
the economy is doing better than it was in 2008 - which is when a republican was
in office.As to the silly garble about "the real unemployment
number"…. when did the number become bad. Was it good in 2008…
then became bad in 2009? As long as you compare same sample set to same sample
set… you get a measure or trend of how things are going. Minus a full
blown census every month, you will never have a true unemployment number. You
are going to have to go off of a sampling… which will have errors…
but is usually close enough.But Rock… if you want to vote for
a monthly Census…. so you can have your perfect numbers….. more
power to ya.
We voted this man into office twice so all I can say is elections have
consequences as does stupidity.
Barack and Jay Carney say we are in a "robust" recovery. Hmmm?? Somebody
is lying...once again. I guess ask the underemployed and the millions who have
flat given up even looking for work. Hey - the bright side is the CBO says
Obamacare is all about providing an incentive NOT to work so maybe unemployment
is a good thing?? Democrats will tell you it is.
The current method of calculating unemployment is a fraud. We should simply
look at the percentage of American's employed. That is the most
illuminating statistic. I would be surprised if the real unemployment rate is
not at least 10%.Obama owns this.