Our longest war
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#21 Mar 9, 2013
get a clue wrote:
...you're right, it is like talking to a child, with you. The last 2 years of GWB, Dems controlled the congress, I believe the term is 'Lame Duck'. And that's also when the economy began taking a turn for the worse. The unemployment rate that Oblama was gonna lower, is still higher than it was when he took office, so there is still not one 'net job' created, although welfare and food stamps have quadrupled, some would consider that a plus,(but not working tax payers)...and taking your self proclaimed nickname and adjusting it to fit your aptitude is not exactly 'name calling'...have a nice day yerself...
P.S. and as for the unemployment rate being higher you can look at the chart and also see that the number of people looking for work is also higher.
in dec. 2008 there were 154,447,000 people looking for work in dec 2012 it was 155,511,000 an increase of 1,064,000
and in Jan 2009 it was 153,716,000 and in Jan 2013 iw was 155,654,000 an increase of 1,938,000
The unemploy. rate in dec 2008 was 7.2% and in dec 2012 it was 7.8 and in Jan 2009 it was 7.6 and in 2013 it was 7.9 [ if you look it up you will see that there are more people employed now than when Obama came into office In Jan 2990 there were 142,009,000 people employed in Jan 2013 there are 143,322,000 people working an increase of 2,313,000
in Feb 2009 it was 141,748,000 and in Feb 2013 it was 143,492,000 and in 2013 it was 143,492,000 an increase of 1,744,000
you can look it up here http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/emps...
The unemployment rate may be up but so is the number of people looking for work and the number of people that are employed.
You have to be able to make an adjustment for the number of people added to the workforce and if you did that the unemployment rate would be lower today than it was when Obama took office.
Have a nice day
get a clue

Buffalo, NY

#22 Mar 9, 2013
oh, you're a bute, I said that repubs did not have control of congress the last 2 years of GWB, which they did not! The dems had TOTAL control (House, Senate and Whitehouse)for 2 whole years, and couldn't even agree amongst themselves. They wasted the entire 2 years bickering amongst each other, with the minority party locked out of the process, and after 4 years of muddling everything, their only answer is to somehow blame the minority party...

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#23 Mar 9, 2013
get a clue wrote:
oh, you're a bute, I said that repubs did not have control of congress the last 2 years of GWB, which they did not! The dems had TOTAL control (House, Senate and Whitehouse)for 2 whole years, and couldn't even agree amongst themselves. They wasted the entire 2 years bickering amongst each other, with the minority party locked out of the process, and after 4 years of muddling everything, their only answer is to somehow blame the minority party...
I thought you said the REPUBs didn't have control of the GOV for 6 years.
now it is 4 years?
Well first of all let me explain something to you.
See the Pres, in this case G.W. who was a Rep. has the power of veto and can stop any bill from becoming law so the Rep did have some control of the GOV.
The last two years of his term the SEN was 49 to 49 with 2 ind. so nobody had control of the Sen, seeing it takes 60 votes [ super majority] to break a filibuster, so the REP had control
In 2009 to 2011 the Dems had the white house and had the SEN and the House BUT did not have a super majority so anybody could have filibustered a bill and seeing nobody had 60 votes to break it the dems didn't have complete control.[ just by slim numbers]
then we have the most useless congress ever. the 112th with the dems having 51 Sen. to 47 rep and 2 ind and in the house 193 dems to 242 reps.
so they still had some control.
And as for this session I see that it isn't going to go any place.
Rep. Boehner the speaker of the House doesn't understand that any bill that was put forth in the last session does NOT carry over to the next session so the HOUSE has to put forth a spending bill first NOT the SEN like he wants them to.
He says the House will not act on any spending bill until the Sen. does.
maybe he should go back and read Article 1, section 7 , clause 1 of the Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bi...
and he would learn that any bill that has to do with revenue and spending have to start in the HOUSE and NOT the SEN.

Now back to the subject this thread is about.
If you want to carry this on start another thread about it and leave these people alone.
Have a nice day
get a clue

Buffalo, NY

#24 Mar 10, 2013
ahh, you're the one who introduced the Rozi Odonll babble, wanting to close military installations, and blaming 'Red States'. The Oblama connection is that he has emboldened terrorists, and loonytoon tyrants, with his apologetic approach everything except to the American people, whom he should appoloize to...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Buffalo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Water Rescue Tburdd 7 hr tbird19482 2
News The Depression Coach 10 hr tbird19482 7
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 13 hr Pedro 21,284
News Buffalo and Rochester Team Up for Amazon Headqu... Mon Tommy II 16
Pros and Cons of living in Buffalo, NY (Jan '13) Sun somethingmore 47
Does Buffalo have a Farmer's Market? Sun Elmer Fudd 1
News Retired K-9 Drago Passes Away (Jun '12) Oct 14 theknowing 15

Buffalo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Buffalo Mortgages