Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
thapamisakta
457 Followers
Blippslider
709 Followers
Rob Valentine
524 Followers
alan martin
503 Followers
Jesseb Shiloh
4516 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
u2canfailJul 4, 2011
He doesn't have to deal with CONGRESS, makes life easier, as he well knows.
cantstopwontstopJul 4, 2011
your post might make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that democrats had a majority since 2006. it was only under obama when we lost that majority. it doesn't get better than a democratic majority with a democratic president. by all means, the card was stacked in obama's favor, and he still managed to screw it up due to inexperience and bad direction on his part.
also under obama even long standing democratic majority states switched to republican over night, some were democratic for decades up until then. this fact alone speaks volumes, and is unprecedented.
putting obama in office was like putting a random 12 year old kid in a space shuttle and saying 'fly this to the moon'.
digg me down if you have a small penis. see what I did there?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2011
But according to the neocon funhouse mirror version of reality, when Bush and the GOP had the majority it was actually Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who had the power to wrestle them into submission. Funny how nutjob cons think THAT makes sense but they don't understand how lockstep GOP obstruction (once the Democrats regained control) could keep our country in a hellhole of economic despair. ;-P
norman619Jul 4, 2011
So please explain the first 2 years of his presidency. Congress was in his pocket for 2 years.
cantstopwontstopJul 4, 2011
on top of that, obama has spent 50% of his presidency on vacation, and his term isn't even up. in comparison, bush only spent 30% over 8 years, which means obama has spent less time in office than bush did on vacation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexJul 4, 2011
58 days of vacation compared to 2 years as President.
I'm no math expert, but that's WAY less than 50%
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
Fail.
youareretardedJul 4, 2011
Show me some legislation that was passed with a filibuster proof majority.
davidnivenJul 5, 2011
Show me when there was an actual filibuster.
youareretardedJul 5, 2011
If republicans say they will use cloture or filibuster a bill then why would they still try to pass it if they know they don't have a majority? The bill would be pretty much dead at that point.
Here you go none the less:
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2010/12/10/24126/a_real_filibuster_going_on_right_now_on_senate_floor
davidnivenJul 5, 2011
Uh, those were DEMOCRATS filibustering, not Republicans.
Did you read your own post?
u2canfailJul 5, 2011
Democrats are not lock step. No KOCH training.
shingoexJul 4, 2011
Because the Republicans aren't stonewalling Bill Clinton...
norman619Jul 4, 2011
He is also no longer president. He is a PRIVATE citizen now.
youareretardedJul 5, 2011
Woosh!!!
richardboreanJul 4, 2011
Because it is NOT the president's job to create jobs!
4Herp2Derp0Jul 4, 2011
In fact, according to conservatives, it is governments job to give tax cuts to the wealthy so they can create the jobs.
norman619Jul 4, 2011
Where do they say this is their job?
killersquirelJul 4, 2011
In the title of this submission.
sloppyjoes7Jul 5, 2011
"it is governments job to give tax cuts to the wealthy so they can create the jobs."
That's true. However, the wealthy aren't the *only* people who create jobs. Regardless, the government should not even try to create jobs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
the wealthy equate jobs as "handouts". So, when was the last time you received something free from someone rich?
sloppyjoes7Jul 6, 2011
the wealthy equate jobs as "handouts".
I have no idea what you're talking about.
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
That makes one. Nobody has a clue about what you are talking about.
sloppyjoes7Jul 6, 2011
What I'm saying is well known:
Wealthy people tend to get rich by entrepreneurial enterprises, during which they employ people and grow their business. Wealthy people also tend to reinvest their money in business, employing even more people.
So, both when creating and maintaining their wealth, wealthy people employ others. They pay employees, and in doing so, are able to earn even more money.
So, why would you say they "equate jobs as "handouts"".? That doesn't make sense in any context.
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
Where are your facts buddy? You have nothing to back up what you are saying.
sloppyjoes7Jul 7, 2011
"Where are your facts buddy? You have nothing to back up what you are saying."
Are you seriously challenging the idea that rich people run businesses and invest their wealth?
r0am3rJul 4, 2011
I wish Obama believed in this theory. He loves creating government jobs.
killersquirelJul 4, 2011
Because the government is in the business of creating private sector jobs.
norman619Jul 4, 2011
Thank you! Now if only most of the people here who support Obama would understand that...
gkiltzJul 5, 2011
Because Congress doesn't interfere with FORMER presidents!
What's the opposite of PRO-GRESS?
CON-GRESS!
bille3Jul 5, 2011
Brilliant! When do the bumper stickers come out?
larrylwillJul 4, 2011
I'm still waiting for the trickle downs from the Reagan era. Give corporations more power less taxes, less regulations and they will .......... wait for it. Give their CEOs more money.
norman619Jul 4, 2011
Live in the now. I know today things are far worse and damn scary but it's the only way to deal with reality.
shingoexJul 4, 2011
That's one way to not be prepared for the future.
sloppyjoes7Jul 5, 2011
"I'm still waiting for the trickle downs from the Reagan era."
Where were you during the 1990s?
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
Yeah. It never happened.
sloppyjoes7Jul 6, 2011
The 1990s never happened. Gotcha.
The massive growth during that time never happened either.
Are you eleven years old? Because that would explain how you are unaware of the 1990s.
leatherpancakeJul 6, 2011
The trickle down you stupid prig.
sloppyjoes7Jul 7, 2011
Average wage in 1990: $20,172.11
($26503.77 in 2000 dollars)
Average wage in 2000: $30,846.09
Median wage in 1990: $14,498.74
($19,049.63 in 2000 dollars)
Median wage in 2000: $20,957.18
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html
Okay. There's the trickle down. The average and median worker has gotten richer.
I love data.
leatherpancakeJul 7, 2011
Thats cute. But you forgot some things.
You love data? Maybe you should learn how to analyze it properly. Cost of living? Inflation? Gas in 1990 cost about $1.15. Food? Housing? Average nor median wages have barely kept up with these costs.
If you equate trickle down with stagnation, you are right.
Epic fail.
evildadJul 5, 2011
“The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.” Will Rogers, Nov 26, 1932
jefftc14Jul 5, 2011
don't call it a comeback... BILL has been on point. wish he was president all through Bush's terms...
BojangDealerJul 5, 2011
i wish Gerry Ford had gotten 7 terms, and then handed the torch to Clinton. George Clinton! you see, i want presidents whose name begins with G.
ren1999Jul 5, 2011
It is the government's job to create temporary government sector jobs that raise demand that create private sector jobs.
Bill Clinton has the time to focus on our economy and job creation ideas.
Obama is listening to Clinton and implementing some of those ideas.
Those of you Diggers who are attacking Obama and Clinton for trying to create jobs are most likely foreign people who are just having fun pretending to be radical U.S. conservatives.
But know this. We U.S. Progressives are trying to fix the U.S. economy which will ultimately help your economy. You're having fun trolling at your own expense because you're encouraging Republicans and Conservatives who are destroying the U.S. and world economy. Your economy. You're damning yourselves. So be damned.
devnulldoodJul 5, 2011
Like what? What is Obama doing that has been recommended my Clinton?
Just because we disagree with your liberal policies, doesn't mean we're foreigners.
So far you "Progressives trying to fix the U.S. economy" have done nothing but put us further in debt and allowed the economy to continue to tank.
Do some research and quit depending on Diggers to give you the full story. If you remove your head from your rectum, you will see that conservatives are not your enemy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ren1999Jul 6, 2011
devnulldood, typed
"They could construe any act from the US or Israel as an act of offence."
"Just because we disagree with your liberal policies, doesn't mean we're foreigners."
devnulldood, you are a foreigner to the U.S.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
metsada1337Jul 4, 2011
so quickly we forget that this was the president that signed NAFTA
rogerstrongJul 5, 2011
NAFTA was a Republican show from the beginning. The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was signed by Reagan. NAFTA was an expansion of this agreement that added Mexico, and was signed by Bush I in 1992. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush I under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement. The U.S. House passed it with considerably more Republican than Democrat support.
All Clinton was really responsible for was a couple add-on agreements that attempted to raise Mexican worker and environmental standards, to try to level the playing field for American workers.
JonathonFishenatorJul 5, 2011
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148379/Job-Creation-Index-Highest-September-2008.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Americas%20-%20Business%20-%20USA
Gallup disagrees.
ren1999Jul 6, 2011
I typed this and then a foreign guy "devnulldude" pretending to be a U.S. conservative complained.
"Those of you Diggers who are attacking Obama and Clinton for trying to create jobs are most likely foreign people who are just having fun pretending to be radical U.S. conservatives."
I bet that most of the 10 to 20 radical conservative trolls on Digg that I see every day constantly creating new accounts to replace the ones that are banned -- aren't even from the U.S.
laurahoustonJul 5, 2011
Both current and past presidnts are good for Americans.
Bill Clintons plan is awesome- " Clinton Global Initiative jobs summit and rolling out a series of partnerships with businesses that would create thousands of jobs"
chassupJul 5, 2011
Because even that old has-been does more than the empty suit currently occupying the white house.
ghengiskhan1Jul 4, 2011
Because the current one doesnt know what he is doing.
analogassassinJul 4, 2011
You don't give Obama enough credit. He knows exactly what he's doing.
See "Cloward and Piven."
larrylwillJul 6, 2011
Here is your trickle down Economics.
$10.8 million
Median pay in 2010 for top executives at 200 large companies, according to an Equilar report commissioned by The New York Times. "Total C.E.O. pay hasn't quite returned to its heady, pre-recession levels — but it certainly seems headed there," says Prandyna Joshi in The New York Times.
$7.7 million
Median executive pay package in 2009, a 17 percent decline from 2008
38
Percentage increase in cash bonuses from 2009 to 2010. Executives' big paydays were due, in part, to the return of cash bonuses, says Equilar's Aaron Boyd in The New York Times.
$84.5 million
Pay package, for nine months of work in 2010, of Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, the highest paid exec in the report
$76.1 million
Pay package in 2010 for Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray R. Irani, a 143 percent raise from the previous year
$56.9 million
Salary in 2010 for CBS' Leslie Moonves, a 32 percent raise over the previous year
$752
Average weekly income of the average American worker in late 2010, just a 0.5 percent raise over the previous year. "It's not as if most workers are getting fat raises," says Joshi. After inflation, they're actually making less.
29.2
Percentage increase in profits for American businesses in the fourth quarter of 2010, "the fastest growth in more than 60 years"
2
Percentage increase, since the recovery began, in the amount businesses are spending on employees, according to the Commerce Report
26
Percentage increase in the amount they're spending on equipment and software. "The economy is producing as much as it was before the downturn, but with seven million fewer jobs," says Catherine Rampell in The New York Times.
madtechnologistJul 5, 2011
Got news for all you "government is God" idiots.....President's don't create jobs. They can get the government out of the f**king way, but they don't "create" them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
friday1970Jul 4, 2011
"Why Is the Former President Doing More to Create Jobs Than the Current One?
Because one was a leader and one is a complete failure....
Now, if you "progressives" on this board actually think Obama is doing a good job, then you must agree with Analogassassin above in which Obama is purposely destroying America. In this case, Clinton actually cared about the country, and Obama hates his own country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexJul 4, 2011
RTFA
Congress is blocking anything and everything Obama is trying to bring to the table. Clinton doesn't have to deal with Congress.
sloppyjoes7Jul 5, 2011
Or, Obama's blocking everything the Republicans are trying to do.
It goes both ways.
youareretardedJul 5, 2011
Such as?
Tax cuts? Nope you got them.
No single payer health care? Yep you got that too!
More off shore oil drilling? Yep you got that too!
A ramp up of going after illegals? Yep you got that one as well.
devnulldoodJul 5, 2011
"Tax Cuts" are temporary
No single payer health care? Still Mandatory, you cant pick and choose what to support.
Off shore drilling continuously hampered with costly moratoriums and new unlawful regulation.
A ramp up of going after illegals? Obama's way of creating jobs. How about he put forth some immigration reform legislation to attempt to fix the problems.
-Half-assed attempts at Bi-Partisan negotiations. This country is more concerned about our debt problem. You want to raise the debt ceiling, we want to decrease the spending.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexJul 5, 2011
I think you're a bit confused
Unregistered_CowardJul 5, 2011
Obama spent a trillion dollars in a misguided attempt to create jobs. Maybe we're better off letting him sit this one out.
shingoexJul 5, 2011
OR maybe the other party should try to help and not hinder.
youareretardedJul 5, 2011
Maybe you are right. So where are those job producing bills the republicans had promised?
What? No where to be found? Well then maybe then you should STFU until you have something of substance!
Unregistered_CowardJul 5, 2011
Did I defend the Republicans actions on job creation?
Nope.
I simply pointed out that Obama, despite being granted a blank check of unimaginable size, failed to produce jobs in any measurable or sustainable quantity.
It's not the government's business to create jobs, the best they can do is stay the f**k out of the way.
youareretardedJul 5, 2011
So when you said "let him sit this one out" who exactly did you have in mind to take over?
Unregistered_CowardJul 5, 2011
Did you read the article or just peruse the pictures?
devnulldoodJul 5, 2011
Paul Ryan put a budget plan in place that would have removed restrictions on job creators. I know... that's debatable. Well never know because it was never even looked at seriously by Obama. Besides, who is president right now? The house is doing their job! Where's Congress?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajajadudeJul 5, 2011
I came here to say that.
An individual or private group working with private companies don't have to deal with political grandstanding.
alanocuJul 4, 2011
Why is this blog post about Bill Clinton? The former president was George Bush.
Clinton was creating blow jobs in the Oval Office. I imagine a few jobs were created during his impeachment, when he lied under oath, and when he was being accused of rape by a credible witness.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
isaac7719Jul 4, 2011
Why do you defend Bush, who is guilty of committing f**king war crimes and destroying our economy, while simultaneously attacking Clinton, whose guilty of getting a blowjob and a budget surplus?
Complete idiot much?
shingoexJul 5, 2011
You honestly don't recognize Clinton as a former President?
I think my brain just exploded.
stubearJul 5, 2011
Bush was the previous President, there are a lot of former Presidents, Clinton is amongst those still living.
outerboxthinkerJul 4, 2011
Don't blame Obama for not knowing how to do his job; it's the American voters who are the dumb, uninformative, and clueless voters. They voted for him just because they thought it was "cool" to have a black president (Colin Powell could've been a better candidate if they just needed a black president). The guy does not even have a complete 4 year term in the Senate. No experience whatsoever, but just talk. The Americans would have been better off elected a motivational speaker.
If the Americans were a bit smarter, they would've just put Bill in charge of the Federal Reserve while Ben Bernanke is his right hand man.
Having too many uneducated and lazy Americans pushing America on the brink of collapse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shingoexJul 5, 2011
How about "no"