Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-04-2013, 03:09 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,386,391 times
Reputation: 3360

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
I doubt it. Liberals and democrats will vote for whoever the democrat party put up for the 2014 and 2016 elections, regardless of the abject failure of their policies and their economic failure- they are that dumb. Can you imagine ANY LIBERAL, even if the unemployment rate was at 33% (actual unemployment now is 16% and that is not even accounting for those with part time jobs). It will never happen.

In 2014 and 2016, libs will make up some phony "issues" like the ""war on women" (even though lib politicians appear to show contempt for women) or "racism" and rally a bunch of idiots to vote for them again, even if they are impoverished and miserable by the very same liberal policies.
Then I highly suggest conservatives get with the times and start re-evaluating their stances on humanitarian issues. Women, immigrants, gay people, the working poor. Conservatives are very out of touch with huge segments of American voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2013, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,492,752 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler View Post
I voted for Obama twice. His job growth record sucks. Obama will go down has having reigned over the worse economy since the 30s. If things don't get better soon then Democrats could be scarred by this for decades.
Obama recouped all the job losses from the Great Recession (which totaled 7 million from Sept 2008-Oct 2009) and now has a net growth in job creation more than DOUBLE his miserable failure of a predecessor.

Republicans cause a disaster, do next to nothing to help clean it up, then blame the guy who is trying to put the pieces back together. Vote them out in 2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 03:56 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,386,391 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Obama recouped all the job losses from the Great Recession (which totaled 7 million from Sept 2008-Oct 2009) and now has a net growth in job creation more than DOUBLE his miserable failure of a predecessor.

Republicans cause a disaster, do next to nothing to help clean it up, then blame the guy who is trying to put the pieces back together. Vote them out in 2014.
All the while our working age population has increased by more than 7 million. If it wasn't for all the people just giving up looking for work or people stuck in part time jobs then our unemployment number would still be sky high.

I don't regret my vote ( I was and still am very passionate about healthcare reform), but giving Obama a pass on this is just being ignorant. He shackled our economy with very burdensome legislation and it will take a VERY long time for our economy to adjust to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Upper East Side of Texas
12,498 posts, read 27,156,444 times
Reputation: 4890
Obama is a miracle worker. He lowered unemployment part of a percent with part time minimum wage jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 47,093,949 times
Reputation: 20676
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The loss in jobs is very much in the public sector.

Conservatives said they wanted fewer government workers. Be careful what you wish for.
Job losses within the public sector over the past three years has been the most dramatic since the Labor Department records began in 1955. Losses of this magnitude have been and will continue to be a drag on the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 47,093,949 times
Reputation: 20676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
And yet only 25% or so who hit the age to collect social security are bothering to retire.

This year, leading-edge boomers are turning 66, the age at which one can claim full Social Security benefits, but many of those eligible are continuing to work.



In fact, recent Labor Department figures show that the percentage of workers over age of 65 is now at a record high.
My husband is one of them. He has no intention of drawing SS until he hits 70, despite no intention of retiring at 70.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 14,051,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
My husband is one of them. He has no intention of drawing SS until he hits 70, despite no intention of retiring at 70.
But you're a liberal. You are supposed to be moochers, according to conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,295 posts, read 121,501,323 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
And yet only 25% or so who hit the age to collect social security are bothering to retire.

This year, leading-edge boomers are turning 66, the age at which one can claim full Social Security benefits, but many of those eligible are continuing to work.



In fact, recent Labor Department figures show that the percentage of workers over age of 65 is now at a record high.
Over 65, yes, since the "official" retirement age is now 66!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 47,093,949 times
Reputation: 20676
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
But what do we blame the bad economy on?

1) deregulation of glass stegall - happened under Bubba

Portions of GS were repealed as a part of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a Republican initiative.

2) housing market bubble - started under Bubba
National home values have been appreciating at a steady pace since the early 70's, coinciding with the baby boom coming of age. The national "bubble" occurred in 2003-7 fueled by low interest rates, piggy back loans and easy credit. Sub prime mortgages were sliced and diced and repacked into private label securities assigned investment grade rating by the independent credit rating agencies. The bubble drove the economy for a blip in time.

The investment grade rating and a lack of due diligence on the part of investors made such securities attractive to conservative investors with big money looking for short term investments with better than average ROI potential. Funding 30 year mortgages with short term funds is not the soundest practice. If the only thing that happened was a whole lot of sub prime mortgages defaulting, the banking industry could have absorbed the losses and licked their wounds.

Instead, banks runs triggered the crises, no one had anticipated.

3) permanent most favored nation trade status to China with more outsourcing and trade deficit - happened under Bubba

China was granted MFN status in 1979. It was renewed 5 times before 1998 when the Republican majority Congress voted in favor of making it permanent.

How convenient for you to mindlessly parrot DNC talking points and solely blame 'Gomer' when reality is both parties put us here, including Bubba. When does the anointed one's presidency start?
Speculation on my part is that it was no coincidence that Obama won in 2008. No one else wanted the mess of all that came before and was to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 47,093,949 times
Reputation: 20676
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
One other factor is that now 66 is the retirement age for SS. All these people having to work one more year will have an effect on numbers.
This might be balanced by the number of folk >50 who are applying for disability because their bodies have worn out. They are not all scamming the system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top