Obama cannot sell his jobs bill. Are his economic ideas desperate and unsound?

You are correct, Brewskier.

Is has already happened.

Check this out.

 

I believe you are correct, flounder.

 

A hooker in a rest home has had her hand in more jobs than Obama.

 

Here's why he can't sell it:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzGZj32LYc&feature=player_embedded"]All GOP Candidates Would Walk Away From A 10 to 1 Spending Compromise - YouTube[/ame]

Low taxes and less regulation? Heck, that's a great idea. It worked so swell in the 2000s. Let's try it again, because that was such a *fun* decade.

It's like listening to a broken record.

 

You are a broken record.

 

This review by Truth Detector was very good!

 

Durbin says Democrats don’t currently have the votes for Obama jobs bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-currently-have-the-votes-for-obama-jobs-bill




_

 

Why should the fall for that trick again, increase taxes now for empty promises of spending cuts later? You know the fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

Yep, 52 months of full employment, record revenues leading to three years of declining deficits as Bush and the Republicans acted responsibly and restrained spending increases. Bush and the Republicans left us with a $161 Billion deficit, where do the Democrats and Obama have now?

Yes especially yours which seems to skip at 2007 so we never hear it state that the Democrats took over the purse strings then.

 

You are very correct on all thrree accounts, Bluesguy;

Here is want the foolish Democrats have done to our federal budget since they took over the purse strings in 2008.



Note: Obama and the Democrats took total control of the House and Senate in 2008, and things have gone 'to hell in a handbasket' ever since.The foolish Democrats are debt addicts and just don't know when to stop spending! With the Federal debt of $14.7 trillion amounting to $185,000 for every family of four, at some point we have to concede that the federal checkbook has its limits. Cuts in spending are only a start, other programs need to be abolished or radically changed.

 

It is even worse than this. He cannot even get a sponsor for the bill in the House. The House! Says something when people like Waters or Pelosi won't sponsor it.

 

Well it did. And it kept unemployment down also.

Well, that is until the Dems took control of Congress. We're still paying for that mistake. You know. The one you're still blaming on Bush?

 

Exactly. We've seen that playbook before:

Taxes go up now and Democrats legislate away the spending cuts.

 

The reason the Democrats love taxes is because they view taxes as extra money for their new wasteful programs!

 

funny how hes going around the country blaming the Republicans for holding up the bill when its the Senate letting it collect dust .Not even Reid wants anything to do with it right now.

 

This says so much about this guy. Here we are really in a Jam and all he does is waste time and worry about his re-election...Like I said he knows darn well it stands no chance, even Bill Clinton is confused over it...
It's obvious, he needs a class war approach and this was the perfect ''first shot'', as far as the Country goes,,
SCREW IT!! He never liked the country anyway....

 

Except unemployment when Clinton was president with those high taxes.

 

The libs in this group can't defend Obama's foolish policies so the only choice they have is to blame everything in the world on George Bush!

 

The Republicans wanted to bring Obama's bill up for a vote in the Senate and Harry Reid would not let them.

What does that tell you about the quality of Obama's stupid jobs bill!

 

Obama admitted in 2007 he was not ready to be president.

Obama, a complete idiot.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related"]Obama, a complete idiot. - YouTube[/ame]

 

You are very correct, flounder.

This discussion was very good.

 

Since the economy was in a growth cycle two years before he was elected and his tax increase clearly slowed down that recovery what are you attributing to him? 7% growth is better than 9%+? And then of course the economy REALLY took off and produced a surplus after he was forced to sign the Gingrich/Kaisch tax cuts.

 

After the Clinton tax increase in 1993, the economy had better, longer growth than under any president and any term since the 1960s. Including the tax cuts under Reagan Bush and Bush.

Clinton's tax increase flooded the treasury with revenues, which grew far faster than the economy, while the Reagan/Bush tax cuts resulted in revenue growth slower than the economy.

As a result, the Govt had its first surplus under Clinton in decades. Short lived as it was when the Republicans with Bush in the WH squandered it in short order, returning to new record deficits within a few years.

 

It was just announced our deficit spending this year under Obama was $1.3 trillion.

Obama is a fool and he is also very stupid when it comes to sound economic policies.

 

The growth he inherited slowed from 9% down to 7% instead of going into double digit where it was headed. Only after the Gingrich/Kasich tax cuts did the economy finally get into high gear which resulted in the surplus.

You know this, you have been told this over and over, YOU have even posted the numbers which prove it, why do you keep trying to deny it?