Yes, but how much direct influence does the government have over creating private-sector jobs? Can you really say that a job created the day after a Dem president took office was his doing, or does it rightly belong to the Rep president who vacated the day before and signed legislation that helped make that job happen? What is the time-frame cut-off, a week, a month, 6 months? I think they can generally say that their policies created more, but to quantify hard numbers is disingenuous.
Then incessantly blaming Obama for the job-losses that continued the day he took office, following the 750,000/month that were being lost for the last several months of Bush's administration, is just as faulty. You blame him when gasoline goes up 3-cents, and say he "had nothing to do with it" when it goes down 21-cents. Which is it?
The crap about the Keystone pipeline, (in terms of both money generated, and the lie about number-of-jobs-created) has been totally debunked, but yet they still keep repeating the lie.
God, I love the smell of conservative hypocrisy in the morning.
Democracy4Sale wrote: You can't have it both ways... If you say:
Yes, but how much direct influence does the government have over creating private-sector jobs? Can you really say that a job created the day after a Dem president took office was his doing, or does it rightly belong to the Rep president who vacated the day before and signed legislation that helped make that job happen? What is the time-frame cut-off, a week, a month, 6 months? I think they can generally say that their policies created more, but to quantify hard numbers is disingenuous.
Then incessantly blaming Obama for the job-losses that continued the day he took office, following the 750,000/month that were being lost for the last several months of Bush's administration.
Yet you continue to blame Bush for the recession, even though the MAIN factor was the housing/credit crash created by all.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
So, here is obama's speech in 2008. I only skimmed it. I think he did what he said he was going to do and really Clinton tried to make everyone feel involved. Obama has an air of arrogance and does not have the charisma. I think Hilary would have that issue as well. But Obama has done what he said. You can't call him a liar. And the dems seem to be happy with what he has done.
Heisenberg wrote: Clinton tried to convince the audience that the policies of the 1990s could work for the current environment. BUT, he didn't mention the DOTCOM bubble, he didn't mention the fact that he balanced the budget and Obama failed to even come close... and he didn't mention the added 5.4 trillion in added debt that is sucking the life out of this economy. He said not long ago that we shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone during an a financial downturn... he forgot to mention that too. I don't think he gives a flip how well Obama does, just as long as Hillary can come riding in on her white horse in 2016. His painfully long speech was more about him IMO than it was about Obama.
Very good points here- the Clinton era was a pretty good era for America. It wasn't till the end of his era that the DOTCOM bubble had influence though.
It was the implementation of the Internet that produced the boom in the economy. Americans had an advantage- massive productivity increases due to the internet, E-mail, Online information - it set the economy on fire. The rest of the world hadn't connected yet- so America was flying high right past many other economies.
This expanded economy is what gave Clinton the advantage which allowed him to balance the budget- not by cutting government, but by growing the economy.
We have no such innovation today- nowhere in sight. There's nothing of the sort anywhere on the horizon. This economy will need to be boosted by reductions in government spending, reducing regulations, reducing taxes, getting out of the way of business- and being pro-business.
Slick willy had some luck on his side- no such luck exists for Obama.
CinnamonGirl wrote: But Obama has done what he said. You can't call him a liar. And the dems seem to be happy with what he has done.
You're right... And we kept Geezer and Gidget out of the White House. We kept the GOP from two more Supreme Court justices. We kept them from giving even more to the top 1%... We kept them from cramming a whole raft of social issues down our throats...
Are things as good as we'd like for them to be, job-wise? No. But as was pointed out NO PRESIDENT could have turned around the disaster that Bush created, and done it in 4 years.
""We left Obama a mess, he didn't clean it up fast enough, put us back in.""
You bet I'm happier with what Obama did that I would have been with McCain/Moosemeat...Are we better off than we were when we took over from the idiot-son?...You bet we are.
I love his new campaign of "please elect me again because I didn't have enough time to fix it" Don't go by my record. Sorry sweetie, Clinton maybe can pull something like that off. I don't Obama can. But we will see. What ever happened to the last 8 years chant? But Obama deserves more? Doesn't make sense.
Are we better off as a country? Yes...Absolutely,,, Are there still areas of high unemployment? You bet. A huge number of decent paying middle class jobs are not coming back. RMoney and his off-shoring buddies have seen to that.
