But don’t waste time worrying about that (I’m sure you won’t)… I bet you have more important things to do… like meeting with an hiring radicals, terrorists, population control advocates, and communists. Oh, and spending hundreds of thousands of our dollars for “date night”. And of course you’re busy setting records for time spent playing golf and attending fund raisers. Afghanistan? What Afghanistan!?

That’d be more than enough for these knucklehead Democrats to not feel buyers’ remorse.

Moreover, the administration emphasized, these reports do not reflect the job impact of the stimulus plan’s tax cuts,

Ya lets not forget that (if you still have a job) $0.19 per hour!

That’s like $1.56 per DAY! ($1.00 after state and local tax)!

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. That was significant enough.

Oh, that’s right! /sarc. And since Congress controls spending…..well….hmmmm…

Obama + lips moving = liar

He didn’t need to. The job market was doing just fine …until 2006. I don’t quite recall what wss significant about that year, though.

Fed45 on October 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. That was significant enough.

Really, I’m too young to remember this in a detailed political sense, but isn’t that what they thought in the very late 70’s as well:

Lines for gas
Malaise
Hostage crisis
OPEC

Everyone thought our best days were behind us, and then along came Reagan…

Oh, and it’s kind of hard to get real optimistic when the Liar in Chief’s staff is saying we will just have to get used to the new normal of 10% unemployment. If GW had said that, heads really WOULD have exploded. For the life of me, I don’t understand the double standard on these things. Do those on the left REALLY want things to be demonstrably WORSE? (And I’m not talking about the lefties in power, I’m talking about the ones who put them in power.)

UnderstandingisPower on October 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM

I am old enough to remember the Carter years in a detailed political sense, although I was young and naive at the time and actually voted for Carter in 1976.

“Malaise” was only part of the problem. Unemployment was over 10%, inflation was at 13%, and mortgage interest rates were over 20% by 1980. At those rates, who could buy a house that didn’t already have one? Businesses couldn’t invest in new equipment to increase productivity, because they would need a phenomenal rate of return to pay back the loans. The stock market was going nowhere but down, since stock prices couldn’t keep up with inflation, so no one wanted stocks. The only investments that could keep up with inflation were government bonds and money-market funds, which weren’t invested in the productive economy, but that’s where RICH people put their money, meaning the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Meanwhile, the high interest rates forced up the value of the dollar against foreign currencies (where interest rates were lower), meaning that American exports were expensive in foreign countries, and foreign imports were cheap here, which led to further transfer of jobs overseas.

What caused this in the Carter years? Tax increases, runaway spending, kowtowing to the unions (assembly-line UAW people made twice as much as engineers back then), foreign-policy weakness against Iran and the Soviet Union, bumbling in Afghanistan (the Russians invaded it then) unwillingness to use America’s energy resources (domestic oil prices were capped at $6 / barrel).

Aren’t we seeing the same thing now under Obama? Tax increases and runaway spending, even worse than under Carter. Kowtowing to the unions by giving them the lion’s share of GM? Check. Foreign policy weakness against Iran and Russia? Check. Bumbling in Afghanistan? Check. Unwillingness to use America’s energy resources–what would Cap and Trade do to our coal industry?

Add to that a massive, expensive, and destructive government takeover of the health-care system (which even Carter was smart enough to avoid), and we’re looking at a repeat of the Carter years under Obama, only worse.

Except for one caveat. An American President is not a dictator, but needs Congressional approval to get things done. Carter, like Obama, had Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, who willingly pushed through his policies, and Republican resistance was weak due to popular hatred of anything Republican after the Watergate scandal.
President Clinton, in 1993-94, tried to do many of the things Obama is doing now, but Republicans took over the House in 1994, and kept Clinton in check for the next six years, and Clinton became much more moderate in response.

There are now many House Democrats who only won their seats in the last two elections, and some Senate Democrats who remember 1994 and know that Democrat majorities may not last forever, and may worry about following Obama over a political cliff. They’ve been getting an earful from their constituents.

This is why need to not give up now, but work like crazy to take back the House, and cut back on the Democrat majority in the Senate in 2010. This could result in gridlock in 2011-12, as Obama vetoes lots of Republican initiatives, but Obama can’t raise taxes without House approval! For this reason, Obama may only have two years to wreak havoc, whereas Carter had four.

In response to the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, Clinton moderated his policies in 1995-96, and both Clinton and the Republican Congress were re-elected in 1996.
Obama might lack the political realism and pragmatism that Clinton had in 1995, and still try to force a radical agenda through Congress, but with less success than now. But this would pave the way for a Republican President in 2012. The question is–who would be the next Reagan?

The administration will claim that it saved the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters with the data submitted by the states.

This will raise the GDP……NOT! So much for recovery!

YOU LIE….AGAIN!

Just how many jobs did Bush save?

Whocares on October 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

900,000,000,000 gazillion,gatrillion jobs created and saved by the Bush administration.

God I just love this new liberal math.

Memeorandum…Mi ……

Just how many jobs did Bush save?

Whocares on October 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

He didn’t need to. The job market was doing just fine …until 2006. I don’t quite recall what wss significant about that year, though.

Out: Trickle down

In: Trickle out

faraway on October 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM

There’s really no need to get all wee-wee’d up, is there?