Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ECONOMY: Where are those 4.5 million jobs?

Letter by Robert Bennett, Steilacoom on Sep. 7, 2012 at 11:40 am with 81 Comments »
September 7, 2012 11:40 am

I’ve heard all the Democrats boasting about the creation of 4.5 million jobs during the Obama presidency. That’s an incredible number! Is it true or just more political rhetoric?

I did some fact checking on this, and the numbers just don’t add up. With unemployment rising to 8.3 percent, disappointing weekly job numbers and a sluggish economy, this doesn’t seem possible.

Through federal government resources, here’s what they say.

On 9/4/2008 there were 13,525,550 actual unemployed. On 9/4/2012 there were 23,058,163 actual unemployed. That is a net gain of 9,058,163 actual unemployed.

On 9/4/2008 the U.S. work force was 154,731,205. On 9/4/2012 the U.S. work force was 142,814,009. That is a net loss 11,917,196 people in the work force.

So, we have an massive increase in actual unemployed and a massive decrease of people in the work force!

So where are these 4.5 million jobs? It doesn’t add up. Where are the Obama people getting these numbers? I searched through several fovernment agencies and did not see anything that remotely indicated an increase of 4.5 million jobs.

Seems to me this number is nothing but political rhetoric and a complete lie. We all know Obama’s economic record is disappointment at best, but to boast about all these jobs created one has to question his credibility.

Leave a comment Comments → 81
  1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is your friend.

    # Americans working in Feb 2010: 129,244,000
    # Americans working in Aug 2012: 133,300,000

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

  2. sandblower says:

    The President’s economic record is as good as it can be considering the severity of the recession he inherited and the obstructionism by which the extreme right has been trying to keep their vow of making him a one term President.
    The author needs to do more research.

  3. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120907/DA14MN4G0.html

    BIDEN: “After the worst job loss since the Great Depression, we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs in the past 29 months.”
    THE FACTS: This seems to be a favorite statistic, because many speakers at the convention cited it. But it’s misleading – a figure that counts jobs from when the recession reached its trough and employment began to grow again. It excludes jobs lost earlier in Obama’s term, and masks the fact that joblessness overall has risen over Obama’s term so far.
    As well, in the same 29 months that private sector jobs grew by 4.5 million, jobs in the public sector declined by about 500,000, making the net gain in that period about 4 million.
    Overall, some 2 million jobs were lost during the recession that began in December 2007 in President George W. Bush’s term and ended officially in June 2009 with Obama as president.
    Never since World War II has the economy been so slow to recover all the jobs lost in a downturn.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199815/Obamas-DNC-2012-speech-Bleak-unemployment-numbers-morning-Obama-tells-DNC-problems-solved.html

  4. It is really quite simple Mr. Bennett. Ehill has it down pat. You simply take the lowest point in the reported job market and compare it to the highest point in the job market and you achieve the absolute best possible picture.

    Manipulating statistics is a tool used by both parties to show either the gravity of the situation or the rosiest outlook possible depending upon your political prospective.

  5. “Never since World War II has the economy been so slow to recover all the jobs lost in a downturn.”

    Bovine byproduct. It took more than five years for unemployment to recover from the last recession, which was much milder and much shorter than this one. If we recover at that same rate, unemployment won’t recover until sometime in 2014.

  6. “in the same 29 months that private sector jobs grew by 4.5 million, jobs in the public sector declined by about 500,000

    So you’re complaining about governments shrinking? Wow, that’s a new one.

  7. sandblower this p;residents job profaoprmance is a disaster. The Democrats blame all on Brush has 1 large hole. They claim they ended the recession back in 2009. Now 3 years later lack of jobs is blamed on a recession that no longer exists. How can that be. In truth the recession has not ended and the deficits are a major reason why.

  8. The federal govt has grown. And no, I was not complaining, just pointing out the spin.

  9. sandblower says:

    The recession has ended by definition. Look it up. The deficits have no bearing therefore. What the deficits do show is that the stimulus was not large enough and that Bush’s tax cuts were not paid for at the time.
    The time lag between the end of a recession and significant job growth is a variable that depends on many things which seem to be beyond the comprehension of most right wingers. Either that or it is a choice right wingers make as part of their defensive ideology, because they lose so often.

  10. Frankenchrist says:

    Most of them went to China during the Bush administration.

    Obama will cruise to re-election. Romney offered nothing new except tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

    George W. Bush and the GOP grew government bigger and faster than any president since LBJ, to include creating an entirely new cabinet-level bureaucracy (DHS) as well as selling $12 trillion of U.S. debt to China while cratering the U.S. economy.

    Want more of the same? Vote Mittens.

  11. Sandblower wrote: The time lag between the end of a recession and significant job growth is a variable that depends on many things which seem to be beyond the comprehension of most right wingers.
    _______________________________________________________

    They also would appear to be beyond the comprehension of the Left Winger-in Chief. N’est pas?

  12. Frankenchrist says:

    Beautiful. A retired USAF officer describes in great detail how the coward Mitt Romney dodged the draft and avoided going to Vietnam.

    George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh…the list of Republican chickenhawks is a long shameful yellow line

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/07/how-mitt-dodged-the-draft/print

    Share this with all your friends and relatives who are veterans.

  13. Frankenchrist wrote: George W. Bush and the GOP grew government bigger and faster than any president since LBJ, to include creating an entirely new cabinet-level bureaucracy (DHS) as well as selling $12 trillion of U.S. debt to China while cratering the U.S. economy.
    ___________________________________________________

    China holds $1.3 trillion of US debt??? Your own social security trust fund holds at least five times more government debt than does China.Just how can you expect us to believe anything that you write??

  14. old_benjamin says:

    Obama wants to see more people going to college. If what comes out of Washington D.C. is any indication, we’d be better off with grade school kids running things. Most of the stuff from the politicians and the MSM wouldn’t get a passing grade in the fifth grade.

    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

  15. old_benjamin says:

    [Mark Twain]

  16. LeePHilI says:

    “I did some fact checking on this, and the numbers just don’t add up. With unemployment rising to 8.3 percent, disappointing weekly job numbers and a sluggish economy, this doesn’t seem possible.”

    I did some factchecking on this and unemployment just dropped to 8.1% as of today’s report, thus it’s not possible for it to rise to 8.3 as you state in your letter

  17. averageJose says:

    as of todayexactly. Thursday will be the usual corrective pattern.

  18. aislander says:

    So…P’ill…if you actually DID some “fact-checking,” why did the rate drop to 8.1%? Could it be because there is now a smaller cohort of unemployed who are still looking for jobs, and not because a lot of jobs were found?

    That’s it, actually. A bunch of discouraged workers dropped out of the labor force and no longer count as unemployed…

  19. LeePHilI says:

    aislander – all the factchecking I needed to do, to disprove the letter writer, was to cite yesterday’s report.

    Now…as to “why” the percentage dropped, I’m really wondering why you haven’t cited the position of Uranus and Neptune, as opposed to the 96,000 new jobs cited on the report.

    Anything to deny success to the current administration, huh?

    You know, it’s kinda comical that…back in the good old days of free fall unemployment (2007-2008)…when we were hovering at 7% and progressives brought up the “under employed”, “those who stopped looking” and “those whose benefits ran out”….we were told by the Bush Faithful that we were all wet and didn’t know what we were talking about.

    Today, those are the exactly points you are attempting to push….the ones you denied in the late first decade of the 2000s.

    This is so reminiscent of health care reform that was brilliant coming out of the Heritage Foundation and now is unconstitutional with Obama’s signature.

    How long do you think you can play this charade? Only the conservatives are ignorant enough to have convenient memory loss on these issues.

  20. Hill, are there more of less people working, according yesterday’s report? Simple answer, more or less? Thanks!!!

  21. “Simple answer, more or less?”

    Number of Americans working 2/01/2009: 132,837,000
    Number of Americans working 8/01/2012: 133,300,000
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    The simple, truthful answer is “more.”

  22. First off, I said according to yesterday’s report. Second, you just showed less than a million jobs despite $5tril in spending.

    I see my question was too complicated for you…

  23. beerBoy says:

    at +0.81% the jobs creation numbers for the Obama Administration are anything but robust BUT they are better than W’s first four years (+0.51%) and far better than W’s second four years (-0.81%).

    They are also better than Poppy’s jobs creation (which Carter was better too).

    There are no reasons to believe that Mitt’s proposal to cut taxes on the rich even lower (bringing his rate down to 1%) will create any more jobs in America (we can’t count the 800,000 outsourced jobs his tax proposal will help create) than W’s tax cuts did.

  24. “I see my question was too complicated for you…”

    No, your question was idiotic because “yesterday’s report” didn’t show the number of working Americans.

  25. “The govt does not simply broadcast one figure, you clown.”

    it “broadcasts” the number of Americans working, as I showed. What part of that do you fail to understand?

  26. Lets quote the very first sentence of what you cited at 5:50pm:

    “Total nonfarm Employment rose by 96,000 in August”. As I said, the number of Americans working is growing.

  27. Robert – unemployment under Obama FELL to 8.3%, which means you letter is a piece of tea stained right wing falsehood.

  28. Ehill, you are wrong. Less people are working according to the latest job report.

    Take some time and look at the links.

  29. beerBoy says:

    On 9/4/2008

    Obama didn’t take office until 1/20/2009.

    Why are you quoting numbers from the 3rd quarter of Bush’s last term rather than the last quarter? Oh….right…..that was before the big crash DURING Bush’s tenure and that way you can blame Obama for what happened under Bush.

  30. beerBoy says:

    From the December 2008 jobs report

    Payroll employment fell by 524,000 over the
    month and by 1.9 million over the last 4 months of 2008. In December, job losses were large and widespread across most major industry sectors.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.htm

    The dishonesty of the letter (in quoting Aug 2008 jobs numbers) is clear.

  31. beerBoy says:

    Not only was Obama not in office Sept. 4, 2008, he wasn’t even the president-elect at that time.

    A case can be made that the 4.5 million jobs figure is not the full picture as it doesn’t include the drastic hemorrhaging of jobs that occurred at the beginning of Obama’s term but that case isn’t made by comparing jobs to a date before the election was held.

  32. blakeshouse says:

    Easy to see why this gulag is in the toilet when the socialists outnumber the correct thinking people 4-5 to 1. Idiots breed idiots and the indoc camps are pushing hard to make the ratio even farther apart.

  33. hansgruber says:

    Hey Frankenchrist!

    Don’t for get to add Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden to your list…and share it with all your friends!

  34. “Less people are working according to the latest job report.”

    Then you should have no problem showing the total number of Americans working last month and in the months before that, from that report.

  35. “this gulag is in the toilet “

    Why do you hate your country so much?

  36. You are lazy.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

    Shows July to Aug change. So now what? Go away, you do not care about the truth or you would have found it. Most articles on the recent jobs report mentioned the declining amount of workers in America. If you missed it shame on you. Heck, CNN even mentioned it.

    Shame on you, opening your mouth when you are so ignorant.

  37. Ehill whined: When you two know you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. Hardly unexpected.
    ___________________________________________________________

    I replied: Message duly refuted. Messenger confused. Typical. Try the old pot/kettle thing.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Ehill knowledgeably responded: Because you said so, eh? ROFLMAO
    ___________________________________________________________

    Someone must interject some sanity to the conversation…..now get up off the floor and wipe off your chin.

  38. averageJose says:

    “Not only was Obama not in office Sept. 4, 2008, he wasn’t even the president-elect at that time” True that. The democrats had controlled the house & senate for two years… Bush was a lousy lame duck… the democrats got what they wanted.

  39. Clamat0 says:

    Fun to watch hill jr. scramble. It’s the same ‘ol story; forget about the fact that private sector employment stood at 111 million on the day 0bama took office – that wouldn’t make the top spin to the left. No, ehill takes the phony baloney left wing bloggers POV; 0bama took office on 2/1/09.

    BS. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Here’s what ultra conservative CNN says:

    The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it’s not the whole picture.

    Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

    While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it’s only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html

    LMAO, Castro (perfect name, BTW) and ehill would have everyone just conveniently forget about 0bama’s first year.

    And the best part is, even with his incessant cherry-picking, ehill still can’t “refute” the fact that the claim of 4.5 million is a flat-oput lie. The best his cherry picking can fabricate is 4.5… hundred thousand, which CNN exposes as rubbish.

    Kooky.

    In fact, if the labor force participation rate were the same as it was the day 0bama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1% right now. But it’s not. Instead it has dropped to a 31-year low of just 63%.

    Sad. (And we won’t mention the fact that due to population increase 8.8 million more people should be included in that participation rate.)

    Spin away, ehill. But you haven’t come close to refuting Mr. Bennet – never will.

  40. Notice he disappeared? Let’s hope for good.

  41. ” Most articles on the recent jobs report mentioned the declining amount of workers in America.”

    Then “most articles” (probably Fox articles) are wrong.

  42. # of non-farm employees Feb, 2009: 132,837,000
    # of non-farm employees Aug, 2012: 133,300,000
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    The fact is that there are more people working today than were working when Obama was sworn in. And if you look at just the last two and half years, the record is even more impressive:

    # of non-farm employees Feb, 2010: 129,244,000
    # of non-farm employees Aug, 2012: 133,300,000

    Facts. They trump clammy hyperbole every time.

  43. “the democrats had controlled the house & senate for two years”

    Not true. They controlled the Senate for 180 days, most of which Ted Kennedy was in the hospital, dying of brain cancer.

  44. “Someone must interject some sanity to the conversation…..now get up off the floor and wipe off your chin.”

    And I’ll keep on trying to interject some sanity, despite your puerile insults.

  45. averageJose says:

    180 days? Why do you lie Jr.? They took both houses Nov. 8-2006. While that may not be 2 years to the day it’s a heckuva lot more than 180 days.

  46. Have a spine. We are talking about one month’s change, and you go and cherry pick.

    CNN was quoted, not FNC.

    Since Feb 09 we have spent $5tril in debt and the population has grown 8mil.

  47. Well, not surprisingly our resident hypocrite has already gone back on his promise to cease name-calling. (WOW, BIG surprise, LMAO!)

    When you can’t refute, dilute.

    The fact is that there are more people working today than were working when Obama was sworn in.

    Obviously, either you’re looking at the wrong data, or misreading it, or simply not being truthful. I think the folks at the WSJ know a bit more about these things than you:

    During the president’s first year in office, the economy lost an average of 422,000 jobs a month. In the past year, the economy has added an average of 153,000 jobs a month. However, that still left the country with 316,000 fewer jobs in July 2012 than in January 2009, when he was sworn in as president—a source of frustration for millions of Americans looking for work and others who have given up the
    search.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577635881339662986.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLESecondStories

    Facts. They trump mole.hill’s lies every time.

    In the future, if you’re going to cite and/ or link data, kindly make an effort to understand the data. It helps one’s credibility to be be accurate… and truthful. But in your case, we’ll take accurate.

    Then there’s this:

    The August jobs report released this morningshowed the economy gaining a disappointing 96,000 jobs. While running for Senate in 2004, then state senator Obama twice dismissed and criticized a Bush jobs reporting showing a gain of over 300,000 jobs.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-twice-dismissed-bush-jobs-report-showing-gai

    FYI, mole, that was a net gain of 300K for Bush at pretty much exactly the same time in his first term as the hypocrite/ empty-chair-in-chief has presently stumbled upon.

    No wonder you’re such a fan – kindred spirits, I guess.

  48. “180 days? Why do you lie Jr.? They took both houses Nov. 8-2006. While that may not be 2 years to the day it’s a heckuva lot more than 180 days.”

    Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

    Facts, they trump wrong-wing lies, every time.

  49. “Have a spine. We are talking about one month’s change, and you go and cherry pick.”

    The irrefutable fact is that the Obama administration has overseen a larger jobs increase (and a larger stock market increase) at this point in time than did its predecessor. All the insults and name-calling can’t change that.

  50. “our resident hypocrite .. mole.hill … mole … he hypocrite/ empty-chair-in-chief”

    Here’s a clue. Complaining about other people name-calling loses its impact when you do it so frequently yourself.

    “either you’re looking at the wrong data, or misreading it, or simply not being truthful.

    Nope. Here, because you’ve failed to notice them several times, are the actual jobs numbers, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


    # of non-farm employees Feb 1, 2009: 132,837,000
    # of non-farm employees Aug 1, 2012: 133,300,000

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    Facts. They trump wrong-wing insults and lies every time.

  51. What a clown.

    Are more people working in Aug 12 vs Jul 12?

  52. What a moron. Quit cherry-picking the dates.

  53. Since you asked so very nicely:

    # of working Americans Jul 2012: 133,204,000
    # of working Americans Aug 2012: 133,300,000

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

  54. It may come as a surprise that according to the federal government, an out-of-work person who put in an application at every place in town more than thirty days ago, who scours every available newspaper’s want ads every morning, and who visits every job search website on the web with no luck is not counted as unemployed. He would not be considered member of the labor force because he is not actively searching for a job.

  55. Here’s a clue. Complaining about other people name-calling loses its impact when you do it so frequently yourself.

    Proof? Don’t think so. As I said before, I respond in kind. Besides yourself, there are two other habitual name-callers on your deluded side of reality – thinking of Swoppy and your daddy, Peehill – they get as good as they give too. But you’d have to do some serious research to back up your projectionist claim – even using them.

    The fact is that there are more people working today than were working when Obama was sworn in.

    Sorry, that statement is a lie and is completely unrelated to the data you linked.

    Try again.

  56. “an out-of-work person who put in an application at every place in town more than thirty days ago, who scours every available newspaper’s want ads every morning, and who visits every job search website on the web with no luck is not counted as unemployed”

    No, that’s not true. The U-6 unemployment figure includes people who stopped looking for work as long as a year ago, as well as those who are underemployed (i.e., working part-time but prefer full-time). And it, like the other measures of unemployment, has been trending downward. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

  57. Clammie,


    # of non-farm employees Feb 1, 2009: 132,837,000
    # of non-farm employees Aug 1, 2012: 133,300,000

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

    You can spin, call name, try to deflect, or whatever, all you want, but nothing can change the fact that there are more Americans working now than were working when Obama was sworn in.

  58. averageJose says:

    I don’t know why I bother trying to reason with a liar, Jr.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003370147_weblxn08.html

    November 8, 2006
    Democrats win control of both houses of Congress for first time since 1994

  59. Ehill wrote: No, that’s not true. The U-6 unemployment figure includes people who stopped looking for work as long as a year ago, as well as those who are underemployed (i.e., working part-time but prefer full-time). And it, like the other measures of unemployment, has been trending downward. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm-___________________________________________________________________

    The link is to an American Thinker article detailing how the Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers it’s data to compile unemployment statistics. The article disputes BLS claims of the inclusion of those who have stopped looking for work in the previous 12 months in the U-6 report.
    While it is not possible to determine the absolute accuracy of either BLS oer American Thinker’s claim, the article is an interesting read.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/understanding_unemployment_statistics.html#ixzz265Hn8Qhk

  60. The article you cited says says “Those who would like to work but have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, but have looked within the last year, are called marginally attached to the labor force and are not counted in the unemployment rate.”

    As I’ve already shown, the U-6 unemployment rate includes those marginally attached to the job force proves your opinion piece to be bovine byproduct.

  61. “Democrats win control of both houses of Congress for first time since 1994″

    Read it and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

    Facts. They trump wrong-wing lies every time.

  62. Ehill wrote: The article you cited says says “Those who would like to work but have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, but have looked within the last year, are called marginally attached to the labor force and are not counted in the unemployment rate.”

    As I’ve already shown, the U-6 unemployment rate includes those marginally attached to the job force proves your opinion piece to be bovine byproduct.
    _________________________________________________________

    You must be the only fool on the face of the planet who has never read a piece of government “bovine byproduct”. Dismissing infomation out of hand as “bovine byproduct” because it is at odds with a government publication is a positive sign of a closed mind. Surely you were not one of those war mongers who believed government “bovine byproduct” regarding WMDs?

  63. “Dismissing infomation out of hand as “bovine byproduct” because it is at odds with a government publication is a positive sign of a closed mind.”

    Try again. Accepting infomation out of hand solely because it is at odds with a government publication is a positive sign of a closed mind.

  64. mole, you should quit while you’re a behind. Your assertion that “the fact is that there are more people working today than were working when Obama was sworn in” is a flat-out lie and has nothing to do with what you linked.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-a-budget/248231-the-incredible-shrinking-labor-force

    That makes it CNN, the WSJ, and The Hill (thought you might appreciate the name familiarity). But enough of this laughing at your expense – here’s a hint; check the difference between your absolute (“there are more people working”) and the definition of “non-farm employees”.

    HTH

    (Geez, do I have to spell it out for ‘ya too?!!)

    And are you seriously arguing that dems did not control both houses of Congress from 2007 through 2010?

    If you must tramp all over the old proverb that states “discretion is the better part of valor”, then either learn to read or learn to write.

  65. I wrote: The link is to an American Thinker article detailing how the Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers it’s data to compile unemployment statistics. The article disputes BLS claims of the inclusion of those who have stopped looking for work in the previous 12 months in the U-6 report. While it is not possible to determine the absolute accuracy of either BLS oer American Thinker’s claim, the article is an interesting read.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Ehill then ranted: As I’ve already shown, the U-6 unemployment rate includes those marginally attached to the job force proves your opinion piece to be bovine byproduct.
    _______________________________________________________________

    I replied: Dismissing infomation out of hand as “bovine byproduct” because it is at odds with a government publication is a positive sign of a closed mind. Surely you were not one of those war mongers who believed government “bovine byproduct” regarding WMDs?
    _______________________________________________________________

    Ehill shouts: “Try again. Accepting infomation out of hand solely because it is at odds with a government publication is a positive sign of a closed mind.”
    ______________________________________________________________

    Because you are such a flaming idiot did you not read that I also wrote, “While it is not possible to determine the absolute accuracy of either BLS or American Thinker’s claim, the article is an interesting read”???? Your mom was probably not home yet to explain it to you.

    Nor did you respond to my further question asking: Surely you were not one of those war mongers who believed government “bovine byproduct” regarding WMDs?

    I have had enough of your “bovine byproduct” for one day. Good evening.
    ________________________________________________________________

  66. averageJose says:

    What am I supposed to be reading that contradicts the fact that democrats took control of both houses November of ’08?

    You are one kooky chip of the ‘ol block head bro.

  67. averageJose says:

    Reuters: GM losing up to $49,000 of our money on every Chevy Volt produced.

  68. are you seriously arguing that dems did not control both houses of Congress from 2007 through 2010?

    And the Wall St. puppets labeled as Democrats are different from the Wall St. puppets labeled Republicans, how?

    American politics is a whorehouse. Anyone trying to make the argument that Democrats are different from Republicans these days has a hard row to hoe. To be sure, the GOP has been overtaken by Taliban Christians who hate women across the board, and there aren’t any Democrats trying to limit access to the voting booth in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Florida…but when it comes to the money, to the powers behind the throne, to the “Too Big To Fail” entities standing above reproach in the halls of power, both parties bend the knee, to our collective detriment, and that is fact. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry are only two examples of Democrats who screwed the common good in recent memory because it was expedient.

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11430-just-another-tv-show

  69. averageJose says:

    “You quoted an blog – not a news story – another person’s opinion to support your opinion.
    Try using your brain, it might work if you give it some exercise.”

    Author not-so unknown ;)

  70. “you are such a flaming idiot”

    Ahh, taking the high road yet again,eh? LOL

  71. ” Your assertion that “the fact is that there are more people working today than were working when Obama was sworn in” is a flat-out lie”

    # of non-farm employees Feb 1, 2009: 132,837,000
    # of non-farm employees Aug 1, 2012: 133,300,000

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable

  72. “are you seriously arguing that dems did not control both houses of Congress from 2007 through 2010?”

    Nope. Wikipedia is. And guess what? They’re correct.

  73. “Flaming idiot” confirmed, thanks for that.

  74. Your… uh-hum… wiki link charts only the 111th Congress (January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011), and even it clearly shows democrat majorities in both House and Senate. But you conveniently… forgot to include the wiki entry from the 110th Congress where it states the following:

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

  75. “charts only the 111th Congress (January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011), and even it clearly shows democrat majorities in both House and Senate.

    A simple majority can’t control the Congress when the minority party uses the filibuster 241 times.

  76. averageJose says:

    It’s deflecting… Jr. is deflecting.

  77. Wrong on every issue – every time. Congratulations on your consistency.

    A simple majority can’t control the Congress when the minority party uses the filibuster 241 times.

    ROTFLMFAO! Nice goal post move. Doesn’t change the facts though.

    From my wiki link RE the 110th Congress (again) – second paragraph from the top:

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.

    From your wiki link RE the 111th Congress – first paragraph from the top (which you… conveniently choose to ignore):

    In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democrat majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.

    I’t “pointless” arguing with you, Oblio, take your self-flagelating argument to wiki – after all, you linked them.

    BTW, done your research on the HUGE difference between total employment and non-farm employment?

    Didn’t think so.

  78. “Wrong on every issue – every time.”

    projection – look it up.

  79. “Mirror” – look… it up.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0