The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Keywester on March 20, 2012, 05:04:50 PM
-
followed a Democrat into the White House and see job creation rise.
It has simply never happened, barr none , without exception.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pLqR-Tqe3jw/TMWG6-enNGI/AAAAAAAABCU/5vvfdlfln6s/s1600/jobsCreatedPerYearbyPresident.png)
-
Calling bullshit.
Let's see your data points, i.e. private vs public sector jobs.
The Carter stat is laughable on its face. Remember the Misery Index (assuming you're old enough and not just regurgitating today's college class)?
How about JFK lowering taxes to spur growth?
Did you know defense spending as a % of GDP was higher under JFK, LBJ etc?
How much of Clinton's numbers were a part of Newt's congress?
-
Calling bullshit.
Let's see your data points, i.e. private vs public sector jobs.
The Carter stat is laughable on its face. Remember the Misery Index (assuming you're old enough and not just regurgitating today's college class)?
How about JFK lowering taxes to spur growth?
Did you know defense spending as a % of GDP was higher under JFK, LBJ etc?
How much of Clinton's numbers were a part of Newt's congress?
If you are calling BS ... then you need to post the name of the republican president who makes me a liar.
"the Carter stat is laughable" ... my numbers come from the BLS ... where do your numbers come from ?
waiting....
-
followed a Democrat into the White House and see job creation rise.
It has simply never happened, barr none , without exception.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pLqR-Tqe3jw/TMWG6-enNGI/AAAAAAAABCU/5vvfdlfln6s/s1600/jobsCreatedPerYearbyPresident.png)
2.bp.blogspot.com is the BLS?
Who knew?
::)
-
2.bp.blogspot.com is the BLS?
Who knew?
::)
Those numbers match what the BLS have , thus these numbers are found on the BLS site.
If I am wrong then post the GOP name that makes me a liar....
Don't worry . you won't be the only one to fail.
-
If you are calling BS ... then you need to post the name of the republican president who makes me a liar.
"the Carter stat is laughable" ... my numbers come from the BLS ... where do your numbers come from ?
waiting....
Don't get mouthy with me ****-drippings.
Your graphic comes from a blogspot post which--you being you--can be Nadin'ed to a wikipedia article:
The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.
Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President's term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery). The data in columns shown for September (in bold) correlate better with the federal fiscal year starting each October, showing the impact of a given president and resulting federal budget on the job count.
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
The Heritage Foundation has pointed to Alan Greenspan's general economic optimism (in 2004) as support for household survey numbers over payroll numbers. However, the subsequent downturn, and Greenspan's admission of having been wrong, may have discredited that view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Obama has been running 9+% UE his entire presidency while Bush ran circa 4.5%
Save you're reply. I'm off to do PT so I can efficiently kill brown people in the name of the global Zionist dominion hegemony.
-
Those numbers match what the BLS have , thus these numbers are found on the BLS site.
If I am wrong then post the GOP name that makes me a liar....
Don't worry . you won't be the only one to fail.
Did I say you were a liar?
Nope.
Do try again.
-
Obama has been running 9+% UE his entire presidency
So , you are telling me the unemployment rate is over 9% ???????????
You better go lay down , ... maybe get a head x-ray.
Save you're reply.
but of course , post an outright lie and run for the hills.
-
Did I say you were a liar?
Nope.
Do try again.
If you agree with me , then why do you think the GOP is the party of job creation ?
-
If you agree with me , then why do you think the GOP is the party of job creation ?
Did you see me claim that the GOP is the party of job creation?
Nope.
Do try again.
-
Did you see me claim that the GOP is the party of job creation?
Nope.
Do try again.
Imagine that.
Another rational person.
Do you know why the GOP thinks they are the party of job creation ?
-
Imagine that.
Another rational person.
Do you know why the GOP thinks they are the party of job creation ?
I don't know that the GOP thinks that they are. You are speaking of the GOP as if it is a single entity. It is not.
It is made up of millions of people. Just like the DNC is. Certain members of either group (particularly the leadership) don't necessarily speak for all members.
You should know that.
-
I don't know that the GOP thinks that they are. You are speaking of the GOP as if it is a single entity. It is not.
It is made up of millions of people. Just like the DNC is. Certain members of either group (particularly the leadership) don't necessarily speak for all members.
You should know that.
Call up any of the GOP leadership and their office will tell you the GOP is better at creating jobs.
This view comes straight from the top.
Imagine being a GOP voter , and crossing your fingers thinking .."this is the time a republican will win and see job creation rise" ...ignoring that it has never happened in the history of the planet earth
Talk about a brainwash.
There is a reply to my OP ... but nobody has posted it , probably cause it's to embarrassing
-
Call up any of the GOP leadership and their office will tell you the GOP is better at creating jobs.
This view comes straight from the top.
Imagine being a GOP voter , and crossing your fingers thinking .."this is the time a republican will win and see job creation rise" ...ignoring that it has never happened in the history of the planet earth
Talk about a brainwash.
There is a reply to my OP ... but nobody has posted it , probably cause it's to embarrassing
I guess you missed this part: Certain members of either group (particularly the leadership) don't necessarily speak for all members.
-
I guess you missed this part: Certain members of either group (particularly the leadership) don't necessarily speak for all members.
You are one confused person.
First off you shouldn't compare the GOP to the DNC.
If you want to be accurate , you need to compare the DNC to the RNC ... and the GOP to the Democratic Party
And if you think I said EVERY SINGLE republican felt the same way then you need to go back to school , but I bet you can't find one repub anywhere that claimes the Dems are better at creating jobs .. but that thought never went through your mind.
-
BTW....
What is so great about the liberal agenda? In other words, why are you a liberal?
Yeah, I know it's off topic, but your responses might give us a chance to get yo know you a little better.
Who knows? We might even find some common ground.
-
BTW....
What is so great about the liberal agenda? In other words, why are you a liberal?
Yeah, I know it's off topic, but your responses might give us a chance to get yo know you a little better.
Who knows? We might even find some common ground.
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
-
According to International Business Times Reagan created almost 6 million more jobs then Carter did, so there goes your theory, also under Clinton we had the .com bubble burst and 5 trillion dollars was lost hence causing a Bush inherited recession, add to that a total disregard of foreign policy in the Clinton Administration and the loss of persons and the amount of money we're forced to spend because of that disregard has been astronomical.
-
Bush had 911 in his first term. I'm sure that played a role in slow job growth for a while anyway.All I know is that I had a job ( had it for 15 yrs) until 2009...now I'm not considered "unemployed" but I'm working for 10/hr less than I was. (Waffle House vs. engineering tech at a manufacturing facility). Under-employment is rampant. And how much of the job growth is govt jobs vs. private sector jobs?
-
You are one confused person.
First off you shouldn't compare the GOP to the DNC.
If you want to be accurate , you need to compare the DNC to the RNC ... and the GOP to the Democratic Party
And if you think I said EVERY SINGLE republican felt the same way then you need to go back to school , but I bet you can't find one repub anywhere that claimes the Dems are better at creating jobs .. but that thought never went through your mind.
Awww... How quickly you resorted to veiled insults.
Tsk tsk. Not a good way to win the hearts and minds of those you might be wishing to influence.
You obviously understood my point of GOP and DNC. You merely wanted something to quibble about perhaps?
Same with your comment about what thoughts may or may not have crossed my mind.
Since you are in the mood to split hairs, perhaps you should use Republican party rather than GOP? GOP is merely a nick-name as I am sure you are aware.
I sincerely hope you can do better than that moving forward.
p.s. I hope you don't mind if I prefer Democrat Party over Democratic Party.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
Positive job growth? real unemployment is over 11% and underemployment is over 20%. Add to that Obama increasing the deficit in 3 years more then Bush did in 8 years.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
That's it? Your entire support of the liberal agenda is based on what you perceive as job creations?
Surely there is more to it than that. At least I hope there is.
-
Keywestlib. Your thesis is falling apart. Aren't you going to driveby defend it ?
-
Bush had 911 in his first term. I'm sure that played a role in slow job growth for a while anyway.All I know is that I had a job ( had it for 15 yrs) until 2009...now I'm not considered "unemployed" but I'm working for 10/hr less than I was. (Waffle House vs. engineering tech at a manufacturing facility). Under-employment is rampant. And how much of the job growth is govt jobs vs. private sector jobs?
I know that the only times I have ever been laid off from a job, we had a Democrat in the WH.
Just saying.....
:popcorn:
-
So how's Obama doing?
-
So how's Obama doing?
He's doing a stellar job at destroying what is left of the Republic.
-
I know if I spend a few trillion more than you I can hold a better party.
-
Sooooo is Keywester saying that Obama is a republican? Obama comes in with anti-business policies and jobs plummet.
Looking at the graphs and the commentary I must conclude: "If Liberals didn't lie, they would have no arguments whatsoever."
Other people won't call you a liar, but I will.
-
I see they're still smoking and poking shit in Paradice.
We still have numerous useless county employees that were mandated by Jimmy Carter's and paid by his federal government for 2 years....then they dumped on the locals to pay them. And as usual, no government job can be eliminated.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
The Bush economy was pretty good, in spite of attacks on this country and a three front war, until 2007 when the Democratics took over congress and the senate. Then Dodd, Fwank, and Little Chuckie pulled the pin on the housing grenade, which they had been building since the Carter era.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
When have we seen positive job growth?
Do you mean the manipulation of numbers to get unemployment below 9%?
-
Imagine that.
Another rational person.
Do you know why the GOP thinks they are the party of job creation ?
Why does 0bama think he has created jobs?
-
If you are calling BS ... then you need to post the name of the republican president who makes me a liar.
"the Carter stat is laughable" ... my numbers come from the BLS ... where do your numbers come from ?
waiting....
Then you won't mind posting the bls link and/or the raw numbers, will ya?
And sonny, as someone who has been in the workforce for every President from Carter to Obama, believe me, the only times I ever had a hard time finding a job was under Clinton.
-
So , you are telling me the unemployment rate is over 9% ???????????
You better go lay down , ... maybe get a head x-ray.
but of course , post an outright lie and run for the hills.
I'll tell you it is. The U-3 number currently stands at 8.3 percent.
HOWEVER...
U-6 stands at 15 percent. Those are the U-3 number PLUS "discouraged" workers, plus those who are employed part-time who are seeking full-time employment. In February of 2008, that U-6 number stood at 9.0 percent (U-3 number was at 4.9 percent).
What you fail to consider, small-minded troll bait, is that DISCOURAGED workers are no longer counted in the U-3 numbers. Does that mean they're no less unemployed? No. That simply means for purposes of bean counting, if they're not drawing UE benefits and not actively seeking work, they simply "disappear". Take, for instance, the utilization percentage. In 2008, that number was at 66.0 percent. In February 2012, that number was 63.9 percent--in other words, over 2 percent (or nearly 3 million people) just "dropped off the radar", so to speak...and if they HAD been counted, unemployment would be closer to 11 percent, not 8.3 (and rising, according to the information I'm hearing.)
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS11300000_3150_1332289456491.gif)
Ya see, scooter, Obama and the Dems have done a bang-up job of cooking the books to make shit look better than it is, but even then they can only stretch shit so far.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
A few tidbits, if I may:
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little
changed at 5.4 million in February. These individuals accounted for 42.6 percent of
the unemployed.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.1 million in
February.
In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 3 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $23.31. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings
have increased by 1.9 percent.
Only problem is, gas has increased by nearly $1/gallon (and over $2/gallon since January 2009), food is up nearly 10 percent since last year, health insurance costs are up an average of 9 percent, and the list goes on....
In other words, your Dear Reader tells you what you think you want to hear, but the reality around you is quite different.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
And Bush 41 handed Clinton an improving economy. Carter handed Reagan a warm pile of runny shit. And we're still not seeing positive job growth. Just to KEEP PACE with population growth, we need to be adding an average of 250-300K jobs per month. How many months have we seen that kind of growth under Dear Reader? (Hint: two.) Under Obama, we've still had a NET LOSS of jobs. We still have over 8 percent unemployment, and if people come back into the workforce, expect that number to top 10 percent again. We have the lowest workforce participation rate in over 30 years.
Think it over, more examples to chew on.
-
If liberals are so great at creating jobs why are they always pushing for more welfare, unemployment, food stamps and subsidized housing?
Maybe I'm just crazy but it seems to me if they're so damned good at getting people to work those programs would not be needed.
-
ummmmmmmmmm.I think we lost him people.....
and if he does come back, I am gonna steal Thor's hammer!!!
-
my numbers come from the BLS
You have numbers from the BLS? Okay, let's see them.
-
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Obama was also handed a AAA bond rating which he managed to piss away. Any "job growth" that happened in 2009 vanished when the stimulus ran out. Which, by the way, he also managed to run up a very steep price tag on the backs of the tax payers while getting in a lot of time on the greens. The voters he fooled have long memories and they will not forget the misery he created.
Face it, little barry big ears is going down in flames this year and there won't be a damned thing you'll be able to do to stop it.
-
Bush was handed a mild recession from Bill Clinton. Bush did what he thought would be best for the nation , we didn't see positive job growth for OVER 2 years.
Obama was handed a very very deep recession , he did what he thought was best for the nation , we saw positive job growth in about 1 year.
Think it over , it's a recent example to chew on.
The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.
It appears that what your figures actually show is that employment under Democratic presidents causes far more people to try to manage on 2 or more part-time jobs, while employment under Republican presidents allows most people to find 1 full-time job. :lmao: :lmao:
-
If you are calling BS ... then you need to post the name of the republican president who makes me a liar.
"the Carter stat is laughable" ... my numbers come from the BLS ... where do your numbers come from ?
waiting....
I have not seen a troll use the "I won because I said I won" argument since the paulbot invasion of 2008. Or do I just not pay enough attention?
-
I have not seen a troll use the "I won because I said I won" argument since the paulbot invasion of 2008. Or do I just not pay enough attention?
Attention span is based on the amount of income taxes paid....you're in good shape.
-
According to International Business Times Reagan created almost 6 million more jobs then Carter did, so there goes your theory, also under Clinton we had the .com bubble burst and 5 trillion dollars was lost hence causing a Bush inherited recession, add to that a total disregard of foreign policy in the Clinton Administration and the loss of persons and the amount of money we're forced to spend because of that disregard has been astronomical.
The international business Times?
And where did they get their numbers ?
That's what I thought
-
Oh is this funny
Three pages now and nobody can list the name of the Republican that makes the OP a lie
Instead of posting spin and lies why not just post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise ?
-
Link to the original chart?
...waiting...
-
Oh is this funny
Three pages now and nobody can list the name of the Republican that makes the OP a lie
Instead of posting spin and lies why not just post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise ?
Sorry. You might have missed my post.
How's our current president doing?
-
Oh is this funny
Three pages now and nobody can list the name of the Republican that makes the OP a lie
Many have, you ****ing retard.
-
Here's a chart for you.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/unemployment.jpg)
...and that should say "Bush, Republican Congress", not just house.
-
Are you blaming the dem house for the rise in unemployment ?
I suppose you think they collapsed the economy to , and bush had nothing to do with it
-
Are you blaming the dem house for the rise in unemployment ?
I suppose you think they collapsed the economy to , and bush had nothing to do with it
Sure Bush had something to do with it, after he started acting like a fiscal liberal and "working" with your moonbat representatives to start bailing ****ing private businesses out.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/unemployment-1.jpg)
-
Many have, you ****ing retard.
Yeah they mention Reagan but what they don't know is Reagan created 2 million jobs per year while he was in office Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year when he was in office my math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0
What does your math tell you ?
-
Yeah they mention Reagan but what they don't know is Reagan created 2 million jobs per year while he was in office Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year when he was in office my math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0
What does your math tell you ?
My math tells me that creating government jobs doesn't do dick to stimulate an economy on a massive scale, just ask your savior Barack. Much the opposite as a government job takes from an economy and produces nothing in return. Who the hell do you think is paying for all those government jobs?
-
Sorry. You might have missed my post.
How's our current president doing?
Here we go again. Sorry that I'm quoting myself, board, but I'm not sure if our visitor read my post.
-
My math tells me that creating government jobs doesn't do dick to stimulate an economy on a massive scale, just ask your savior Barack. Much the opposite as a government job takes from an economy and produces nothing in return. Who the hell do you think is paying for all those government jobs?
I suppose you think the jobs being created since Obama started are government jobs ....
-
I suppose you think the jobs being created since Obama started are government jobs ....
Nothing gets by you.
-
My math tells me that creating government jobs doesn't do dick to stimulate an economy on a massive scale, just ask your savior Barack. Much the opposite as a government job takes from an economy and produces nothing in return. Who the hell do you think is paying for all those government jobs?
Perhaps you should inform yourself about the recession of 38 as we were coming out of the Great Depression in 38 government cut back on its spending and threw the country back into recession
The government cutting spending threw the nation back into recession , get it yet ?
-
Nothing gets by you.
Your view is complete horseshit since Obama started we lost between 600 and 700,000 government jobs , all the jobs being created are private sector this is a fact you're going to have to deal with
-
Your view is complete horseshit since Obama started we lost between 600 and 700,000 government jobs , all the jobs being created are private sector this is a fact you're going to have to deal with
???
What jobs being created?
Link please?
-
Your view is complete horseshit since Obama started we lost between 600 and 700,000 government jobs , all the jobs being created are private sector this is a fact you're going to have to deal with
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/federal-workforce-continues-to-grow-under-obama-budget/
That's January of last year. Since then, we're still losing jobs. Fact is, your president is a miserable failure and he and his fatass, bitch wife will be thrown out on their asses this November.
-
???
What jobs being created?
Link please?
First off check last month and then check the month before that and then check the month before that and then check the month before that and perhaps you want to check the month before that
Every month we are creating thousands upon thousands of private-sector jobs
To be ignorant of that fact shows truly how confused you are
-
Gather around everybody take a good hard look it does not get dumber than this , people are now telling me that we lose jobs every month that we are not creating jobs
-
First off check last month and then check the month before that and then check the month before that and then check the month before that and perhaps you want to check the month before that
Every month we are creating thousands upon thousands of private-sector jobs
To be ignorant of that fact shows truly how confused you are
We have to create, not "createorsave", CREATE approximately 150,000 jobs per month just to see the unemployment rate remain steady. If we're creating more than that, give me a link to it. We have fewer jobs now than we did under Bush, yet more people looking for jobs.
-
Gather around everybody take a good hard look it does not get dumber than this , people are now telling me that we lose jobs every month that we are not creating jobs
Creating 10 jobs is "creating jobs". It is not considered progress economically speaking. Also creating government jobs hurts an economy if you don't have the damn private sector to support it. ...which we don't. As for FDR's "government jobs" he created, he also ran the Damn debt level up to a number "once" unprecedented to pay for those government jobs. I guess Obama is following his footsteps. Great. Now all we need is a world war to pull us out of it. :whatever:
-
We have to create, not "createorsave", CREATE approximately 150,000 jobs per month just to see the unemployment rate remain steady. If we're creating more than that, give me a link to it. We have fewer jobs now than we did under Bush, yet more people looking for jobs.
Like I said check last month , I know you didn't check last month because you just made it idiotic post
-
Creating 10 jobs is "creating jobs". It is not considered progress economically speaking. Also creating government jobs hurts an economy if you don't have the damn private sector to support it. ...which we don't. As for FDR's "government jobs" he created, he also ran the Damn debt level up to a number "once" unprecedented to pay for those government jobs. I guess Obama is following his footsteps. Great. Now all we need is a world war to pull us out of it. :whatever:
You need to check how many jobs have been created in the last few months before you post another idiotic statement like that
-
Can anybody post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise when he replaced a democrat in the White House ?
Simply post the name or admit that it's never happened in the history of our planet , I Doubledare you idiots to post the name
-
Can anybody post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise when he replaced a democrat in the White House ?
Simply post the name or admit that it's never happened in the history of our planet , I Doubledare you idiots to post the name
Hey dipshit, are any of those guys running? Keep deflecting from your failed president, dipshit. Deflect your way to your pillow crying like a little bitch when you idiots are no longer in power.
-
You need to check how many jobs have been created in the last few months before you post another idiotic statement like that
Who controls the House right now? Also, I asked you for a link, light bright.
-
Who controls the House right now? Also, I asked you for a link, light bright.
Would never post a link showing how many jobs were created last month or the month before you can forget about it this is something you should be informed about go inform yourself you ****ing idiot
-
Would never post a link showing how many jobs were created last month or the month before you can forget about it this is something you should be informed about go inform yourself you ****ing idiot
Figures.
-
BTW:
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/unemployment-1.jpg)
That's your warped unemployment rate, and even it has been tweaked by the Obama administration to make him look better. We have more people today than we did 3 years ago and a helluva lot less jobs. Do you understand this concept? Or should I break out the crayons and Blue Horse paper?
-
Would never post a link showing how many jobs were created last month or the month before you can forget about it this is something you should be informed about go inform yourself you ****ing idiot
So you don't have a link? How about total jobs created for the president's term? And when you said "created jobs," is that net, versus jobs lost?
I'd really like to see some sort of link, if you can find one, please.
You're the one coming here making all kinds of claims. Please back them up.
Thanks!
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfMjbS0oWrE[/youtube]
Gonna suck for you when Obama and fat bitch get evicted.
-
The Carter stat is laughable on its face.
Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per month on average , RR created 2.0 million jobs per month on average my math tells me that 2.6 is larger than 2.0 what does your math tell you ?
-
So you don't have a link? How about total jobs created for the president's term? And when you said "created jobs," is that net, versus jobs lost?
I'd really like to see some sort of link, if you can find one, please.
You're the one coming here making all kinds of claims. Please back them up.
Thanks!
These are issues you should be informed about before debating somebody about job creation
Otherwise you end up looking like a ****ing idiot like most of the people in this thread
-
Figures.
Do you agree with OP that there has never been a Republican that followed a democrat into the White House and saw job creation rise ?
Do you agree? And if you don't post the name of the Republican
-
awesome. An Obama "self-assessment."
Got any links to cite your claims?
It's a pretty easy question. I'm sure you have plenty to back up what you're saying.
I'm looking for a net 150,000 job gain per month, vs. jobs lost.
I'm sure you have that. I'll just wait for you to show me, because everything I can find has Obama at a net loss after spending trillions on "stimuli" that just put us into unfathomable debt while creating minimal jobs.
But I know you have something, anything that says that the jobs created were worth the trillions upon trillions spent on them.
I've seen things like $228,000 stimulus dollars spent for each job "saved or created." What do you have?
-
Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per month on average , RR created 2.0 million jobs per month on average my math tells me that 2.6 is larger than 2.0 what does your math tell you ?
2.6 million jobs per month? Are you retarded?
-
Do you agree with OP that there has never been a Republican that followed a democrat into the White House and saw job creation rise ?
Do you agree? And if you don't post the name of the Republican
There are more dynamics than A+B=C, shortbus, but I wouldn't expect you to understand anything more difficult than 2+2=potato. Jobs were being created left and right under Bush....until you DUmbasses took control of Congress.
-
He called me stupid. :bawl:
I'm thinking he doesn't have statistics to back up any of his claims. And I'M the one who looks stupid? Interesting.
While I'm waiting for some sort of evidence for this kid to back up his or her claims, here's a picture of a scrapple, a Pennsylvania delicacy:
(http://steamykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/scrapple.jpg)
-
Do you agree with OP that there has never been a Republican that followed a democrat into the White House and saw job creation rise ?
Do you agree? And if you don't post the name of the Republican
No I don't agree. I think your post is a lie, and you are a bigger partisan fool if you think Carter created more jobs than Reagan.
-
I just read in the other post that he's 42, a vegan and an atheist. No wonder he's so angry.
-
2.6 million jobs per month? Are you retarded?
No. just another "DUmmie modern math genius".
2.6 mil per month....31+ mil jobs a year for 4 years = 120+ million jobs...No wonder the illegal alliens raided us.
-
I just read in the other post that he's 42, a vegan and an atheist. No wonder he's so angry.
A covered dish/potluck supper at the church would do wonders for his disposition.
-
Here's something He'll like from another Key-Wester...It fits his posts:
Jimmy Buffett, Math Suks.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5iaZf21R8w[/youtube]
-
All one has to do is ask anyone who worked during both, the Carter administration and Reagan administration, how well Carter worked out. There's a ****ing reason Carter was a one-termer, while Reagan was elected to two. It's also pretty easy, when comparing liberal economics and conservative economics, to look at any two states like Michigan and South Carolina and look where the jobs are going. It's not rocket science. Hey Keywester, how long would it take you to drive 80 miles if you're driving 80 MPH?
-
Are you blaming the dem house for the rise in unemployment ?
I suppose you think they collapsed the economy to , and bush had nothing to do with it
Google: "housing bubble."
Google: "Community Reinvestment Act." Which president signed it into law? Which president expanded it? Explain how giving loans to those previously unable to qualify could lead to potential bubble.
"Freddie and Fannie are basically sound." Which Congressman uttered those words? Was he right? Was there a possible conflict of interest between him and the leadership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
-
Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per month on average , RR created 2.0 million jobs per month on average my math tells me that 2.6 is larger than 2.0 what does your math tell you ?
You're telling us that Jimmy Carter created 10 times more jobs per month than Barry only to go on and lose his ass in a landslide.
America is so ungrateful. We don't deserve liberals.
-
All one has to do is ask anyone who worked during both, the Carter administration and Reagan administration, how well Carter worked out. There's a ****ing reason Carter was a one-termer, while Reagan was elected to two. It's also pretty easy, when comparing liberal economics and conservative economics, to look at any two states like Michigan and South Carolina and look where the jobs are going. It's not rocket science. Hey Keywester, how long would it take you to drive 80 miles if you're driving 80 MPH?
I liked to have starved to death under Carter...hyper inflation was so bad you couldn't bid a job or promise an hourly rate out past maybe a month.
2 years into Reagan and I was back on my feet. 4 years into Reagan and things were going good. 8 years of Reagan and "We was cook'n on all burners"...right on thru Bush 1....then a little dip that sort of leveled off when the republicans regained the house. 9/11 took the wind out of some sails but the ship wasn't sinking until (D) Shumer DUmped the info on "Freddie Mac" to help the Obama campaign. I'm damn glad to be retired now even thought the savings and investments aren't doing squat but it'll come back when the "DAMN COMMUNIST" are run out of town.
...and spell check still doesn't recognize "Obama".... :lmao:
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton but not Obama.... :lmao:
-
Perhaps you should inform yourself about the recession of 38 as we were coming out of the Great Depression in 38 government cut back on its spending and threw the country back into recession
The government cutting spending threw the nation back into recession , get it yet ?
And also because of the tax increases imposed by the FDR administration and his attacks on "economic royalists", and implementation of anti-trust laws as attacks on business, which undermined consumer confidence.
Couple that with the SCOTUS declaring several of his New Deal administrations unconstitutional and his attempt to pack the court which even many in his own party found too far-reaching, and topped off with the strict monetary policies of the Fed at the time (versus the relatively non-existent ones the Fed has now) and you'll have a "double-dip".
What you're going to see in the next two years after Obama does nothing to extend the "Bush tax cuts" in 2013 as his way of saying, "**** ya'll" on the way out the door, and the implementation of further regulations as the result of Obamacare (provided SCOTUS doesn't declare it unconstitutional or a GOP president/Congress repeal it) is another double dip, if one hasn't hit already. Mind you, we got nailed with the 2008-09 recession because gas prices very briefly hit $4/gal. We're almost there already, having had $3+/gal gas for well over a year now, and almost at record highs, which pretty much EVERYONE is saying will be shattered by Memorial Day.
Think that isn't going to **** over Obumble's reelection chances?
Oh, and while you're at it:
http://american-business.org/2684-recession-of-1937-1938.html
-
Your view is complete horseshit since Obama started we lost between 600 and 700,000 government jobs , all the jobs being created are private sector this is a fact you're going to have to deal with
Uh, try again.
-
Google: "housing bubble."
Google: "Community Reinvestment Act." Which president signed it into law? Which president expanded it? Explain how giving loans to those previously unable to qualify could lead to potential bubble.
"Freddie and Fannie are basically sound." Which Congressman uttered those words? Was he right? Was there a possible conflict of interest between him and the leadership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Short answer.
Carter, Clinton, Fwank and yes.
How'd I do? ....and even though it was an open book test, I didn't have too.
-
No I don't agree. I think your post is a lie, and you are a bigger partisan fool if you think Carter created more jobs than Reagan.
I never said Carter created more jobs than Reagan
Carter's or four years Reagan served eight do you understand that ?
I claimed that when Reagan took office the pace of job creation slowed dramatically
If any of you ****ing idiots disagree with the OP then I urge you to post the name of the Republican
Strange everybody calls me a liar but nobody can post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise
-
I never said Carter created more jobs than Reagan
Carter's or four years Reagan served eight do you understand that ?
I claimed that when Reagan took office the pace of job creation slowed dramatically
If any of you ****ing idiots disagree with the OP then I urge you to post the name of the Republican
Strange everybody calls me a liar but nobody can post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise
I'm still trying to figure out where the hell you got 2.6 million jobs per month at.
-
You guys keep telling me how wrong I am but all of you refuse to post the name of the Republicans that proves me wrong
why ? why not just post the name that proves me wrong ? I already Doubledare you ****ing idiots
If I am wrong then post the name
-
I'm still trying to figure out where the hell you got 2.6 million jobs per month at.
It's called the bureau of labor statistics perhaps you heard of it
-
You guys keep telling me how wrong I am but all of you refuse to post the name of the Republicans that proves me wrong
why ? why not just post the name that proves me wrong ? I already Doubledare you ****ing idiots
If I am wrong then post the name
When one of the main points of your failed argument falls apart, what's to prove wrong? Now, back to that 2.6 million jobs per month.
-
It's called the bureau of labor statistics perhaps you heard of it
My God, he is retarded.
-
I claimed that when Reagan took office the pace of job creation slowed dramatically
No doubt--and can you tell us WHY?
-
You guys keep telling me how wrong I am but all of you refuse to post the name of the Republicans that proves me wrong
why ? why not just post the name that proves me wrong ? I already Doubledare you ****ing idiots
If I am wrong then post the name
Considering we don't accept the veracity of your BLS BS.
Like I started asking:
what're the stasts of official UE vs real UE?
public vs. private sector?
What're those jobs paying?
What were consumer prices?
What was GDP growth?
What were the interest rates?
What % of the population is participating in the workforce vs. what % is drawing benefits?
What was the monetary burden of regulations?
Raw numbers = shit
You're entire argument also contradicts the liberal mantra for a welfare state. Employed people don't need welfare, yet liberals preach the gospel of never being able to survive without somebody else paying for it.
-
No doubt--and can you tell us WHY?
Doubt it. He's also so intellectually-retarded that he doesn't realize populations grow and that if Jimmuh was creating 2.6 million jobs per month, we must have been forcing kids and retirees into jobs and kidnapping millions of Mexicans and Canadians to work here. I don't think he's good with big numbers. They seem to be too complex for him.
-
What I'm trying to figure out is why a retarded flaming liberal waddles into a conservative web site, waves his dick around (or what he thought is his dick) and announces that he can't find it anymore?
Fat Bastard, is that you? :rotf:
-
Considering we don't accept the veracity of your BLS BS.
Like I started asking:
what're the stasts of official UE vs real UE?
public vs. private sector?
What're those jobs paying?
What were consumer prices?
What was GDP growth?
What were the interest rates?
What % of the population is participating in the workforce vs. what % is drawing benefits?
What was the monetary burden of regulations?
Raw numbers = shit
You're entire argument also contradicts the liberal mantra for a welfare state. Employed people don't need welfare, yet liberals preach the gospel of never being able to survive without somebody else paying for it.
Apparently, Hog's Breath gets a little Sloppy Joe about supplying support for his claims.
-
I'll try to make this simple....for the simple minded.
I was self employed for over 40 years. I hired employees and paid income taxes under republican presidents. I laid off and aquired tax credits due to losses under democrat presidents.
-
I'll try to make this simple....for the simple minded.
I was self employed for over 40 years. I hired employees and paid income taxes under republican presidents. I laid off and aquired tax credits due to losses under democrat presidents.
You hate America
-
Would never post a link showing how many jobs were created last month or the month before you can forget about it this is something you should be informed about go inform yourself you ****ing idiot
What's that? No proof to back up your bullshit?
Nothing new here, just another dick-smoking liberal running its suck muscle....
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/wasp69/colorkidcopy7cp.jpg)
-
Even Politifact calls bullshit on you, trollboy...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/20/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-jobs-increased-faster-2010-8-yea/
-
Can anybody post the name of the Republican that saw job creation rise when he replaced a democrat in the White House ?
Simply post the name or admit that it's never happened in the history of our planet , I Doubledare you idiots to post the name
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Now, go back to your papa bear.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/wasp69/bush_middle_finger.png)
:-)
-
You hate America
Yes, but we need more who hate America in just the same way.
-
Hmm. Could one make the argument with the OP's numbers that the D presidents rode the wave created by the Rs, and the Rs had to rebuild the shitboxes created by the D presidents?
Unless and until I see the real numbers from our friend, I can definitely make the argument. I'm sure he'll be along to cite stuff soon, though. He may be passed out on Duval Street.
-
Hmm. Could one make the argument with the OP's numbers that the D presidents rode the wave created by the Rs, and the Rs had to rebuild the shitboxes created by the D presidents?
Unless and until I see the real numbers from our friend, I can definitely make the argument. I'm sure he'll be along to cite stuff soon, though. He may be passed out on Duval Street.
Doing the Duval crawl. I saw him logged in when I logged on.
-
Hey guys you just need to simply post the name that proves me wrong
Just pos the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
-
Hey guys you just need to simply post the name that proves me wrong
Just pos the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
Nice to have you back KeyWestlib. Do you have a lot of lib company down there ? Someone already posted a name, if you were paying attention you might have noticed.
-
Hey guys you just need to simply post the name that proves me wrong
Just pos the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
Just post the name
Instead of furiously typing while trying to fondle yourself, you might want to do some reading. Reply #107, for example.
-
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Now, go back to your papa bear.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/wasp69/bush_middle_finger.png)
:-)
His second term, to be specific. Better than Carter's by your numbers.
By the way. How are you coming on the Obama source? Good luck!
-
How many times do we have to show you that Reagan did far more for job creation than did Carter or Clinton, or that Bush, while a goat**** his second term, wasn't the sole reason for the shit-tanking of the economy in 2008-09?
And that Barack Obama (PBUH) has in fact HINDERED any real meaningful recovery because of his policies?
So, rate you can spin any number of ways. For my money, I'll take Zombie Reagan over Carter's Second Term any day, ****er.
Tell ya what--what do YOU think would have happened had Carter been elected to a second term? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Oh, and thanks for addressing my earlier comments. Deflection? Not in my house, ****tard.
-
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Now, go back to your papa bear.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/wasp69/bush_middle_finger.png)
:-)
On average Reagan created 2 million jobs per year
On average Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year
My math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0 , what does your math tell you ?
-
On average Reagan created 2 million jobs per year
On average Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year
My math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0 , what does your math tell you ?
You must have ejaculated, because you're now repeating yourself. Just throw the sock in the laundry and lay down and take a nap, mkay?
-
On average Reagan created 2 million jobs per year
On average Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year
My math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0 , what does your math tell you ?
My math tells me Reagan spent most of the first term (until about late 1983/early 1984) cleaning up the messes his predecessor made.
Next?
-
The facts are that when Reagan took office job creation fell that is a fact
-
The facts are that when Reagan took office job creation fell that is a fact
Yeah, those 21 percent interest rates and 15 percent inflation might have had a bit to do with it.
-
You're claiming Carter "created" over 10 million jobs ? Is that net gain ? or is that a gross figure ?
-
The facts are that when Reagan took office job creation fell that is a fact
:trolls:
-
My math tells me Reagan spent most of the first term (until about late 1983/early 1984) cleaning up the messes his predecessor made.
Next?
But your math doesn't tell you Obama is cleaning up the mess Bush left?
-
But your math doesn't tell you Obama is cleaning up the mess Bush left?
If you think owebuma is doing a great job, and you can pull yourself away from your owebuma worship altar long enough to go vote for him, have at it, lib.
-
On average Reagan created 2 million jobs per year
On average Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year
My math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0 , what does your math tell you ?
See, here's the problem. I can't find evidence of "your math." All I see is job creation stats that show Reagan's overall job creation in his second term was greater than Carter's.
When you're done with doing your Obama research, could you provide a link to support your point? Thanks.
-
Yeah, those 21 percent interest rates and 15 percent inflation might have had a bit to do with it.
Congratulations you're the first person in nine pages to agree with me
Take a bow
Now maybe you can tell these dumb ****s that what I posted is accurate
-
Congratulations you're the first person in nine pages to agree with me
Take a bow
Now maybe you can tell these dumb ****s that what I posted is accurate
Do you have a Carter shrine right next to your owebuma altar ?
-
See, here's the problem. I can't find evidence of "your math." All I see is job creation stats that show Reagan's overall job creation in his second term was greater than Carter's.
When you're done with doing your Obama research, could you provide a link to support your point? Thanks.
Of course RR created more jobs in 8 years than Carter did in 4 years
What I am saying is that after RR took office , job creation fell , get it yet ? , job creation slowed when RR took office
-
Congratulations you're the first person in nine pages to agree with me
Take a bow
Now maybe you can tell these dumb ****s that what I posted is accurate
What was the unemployment rate when Carter left office? What was Reagan's? What were interest rates when Carter left office? What were they when Reagan left office? What was the average price for a gallon of gas when Carter left office? What was it when Reagan left office?
-
Of course RR created more jobs in 8 years than Carter did in 4 years
What I am saying is that after RR took office , job creation fell , get it yet ? , job creation slowed when RR took office
No. Reagan's SECOND term. I'll type slower next time.
-
Of course RR created more jobs in 8 years than Carter did in 4 years
What I am saying is that after RR took office , job creation fell , get it yet ? , job creation slowed when RR took office
Correlation is not causation. Liberal policies are anti non governmental job growth. Conservative policies are pro non governmental job growth. It's just a fact you libs are going to have to live with. Get over it, lib.
-
Congratulations you're the first person in nine pages to agree with me
Take a bow
Now maybe you can tell these dumb ****s that what I posted is accurate
He's not agreeing with you, dumbass.
-
1+1=potato. That's all this idiot understands. He can't understand dynamics.
-
But your math doesn't tell you Obama is cleaning up the mess Bush left?
Actually, quite the opposite--because despite a Democrat-led Congress, Reagan LOWERED taxes overall, and despite the tax increases he did pass--which were supposed to be countered by $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases--a promise on which the Dems reneged--the economy was in far better shape by 3 years into Reagan's first term than we are three years into Obama's.
You can in fact draw some significant parallels for about the first 12-18 months, but after that point, you have to admit that if any sustained, measured improvement were to have occured under the current administration, it would have occured by now.
The fact that it hasn't shows that Obama's policies are in fact COUNTER-productive, and a second Obama term would be an outright disaster, especially come around 2014.
-
No. Reagan's SECOND term. I'll type slower next time.
Go ahead , post the proof
-
Go ahead , post the proof
You first.
-
Actually, quite the opposite--because despite a Democrat-led Congress, Reagan LOWERED taxes overall, and despite the tax increases he did pass--which were supposed to be countered by $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases--a promise on which the Dems reneged--the economy was in far better shape by 3 years into Reagan's first term than we are three years into Obama's.
You can in fact draw some significant parallels for about the first 12-18 months, but after that point, you have to admit that if any sustained, measured improvement were to have occured under the current administration, it would have occured by now.
The fact that it hasn't shows that Obama's policies are in fact COUNTER-productive, and a second Obama term would be an outright disaster, especially come around 2014.
Yes, when owebumacare REALLY kicks in.
-
Congratulations you're the first person in nine pages to agree with me
Take a bow
Now maybe you can tell these dumb ****s that what I posted is accurate
Numerically? Maybe. Realistically? Not a ****ing chance. Reagan inherited those conditions from Carter. Unlike Obama, he actually did something POSITIVE to remedy the situation, as opposed a huge increase in the scope, size, and reach of government.
Maybe when you can explain to me the concepts of leading and lagging economics, you might get a bit of credit. Until then, you're just another ****ing KoolAid chugger.
-
Unemployment rate age 16 and over:
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS14000000_12443_1332349690606.gif)
Source: BLS (http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)
-
The facts are that when Reagan took office job creation fell that is a fact
The facts are the BLS chart is cherry/dingleberry-picking bullshit.
It says nothing useful. It's a raw stat with no meaningful data behind it.
2.6 million is false on its face, especially when "official" unemployment during Carter's mismanagement was ~7% with an upward trend during his presidency.
As BLS counts part-time employment as a "job" your stat is bullshit if it were compared to 2.0 million full-time jobs.
private sector jobs are an economic gain while public sector jobs are an economic drain
Factor in GDP
etc etc etc
When you come in with only 1 stat with no internal and a dead-set refusal to accept all other data you betray the fact that you aren't looking for answers.
-
On average Reagan created 2 million jobs per year
On average Jimmy Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year
My math tells me 2.6 is larger than 2.0 , what does your math tell you ?
That you have no proof to back up your assertions.
I asked you on page 3 to post your BLS numbers.
Still waiting.....
-
What I am saying is that after RR took office , job creation fell , get it yet ? , job creation slowed when RR took office
Okay, why did that happen?
-
Hey! This is interesting!
(http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/10/12/image002.jpg)
Boy. Obama isn't doing that great, huh?
National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy)
-
Hey! This is interesting!
(http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/10/12/image002.jpg)
Boy. Obama isn't doing that great, huh?
National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy)
Is that from the BLS? :hyper:
-
Is that from the BLS? :hyper:
I figured somebody should post some honest stats. Keywester won't.
-
I figured somebody should post some honest stats. Keywester won't.
:lmao:
-
-the economy was in far better shape by 3 years into Reagan's first term than we are three years into Obama's.
Carter handed Reagan mild recession
Bush handed Obama a very very deep recession
And you want to compare the two ?
Reagan entered the WH with UE around 7.3 % .... 4 years later UE was around 7.3 %
And you idiots thought it was "morning in America"
-
Carter handed Reagan mild recession
Bush handed Obama a very very deep recession
And you want to compare the two ?
Reagan entered the WH with UE around 7.3 % .... 4 years later UE was around 7.3 %
And you idiots thought it was "morning in America"
You're still repeating yourself. Stop playing with yourself and go play in shark-infested waters.
-
Carter handed Reagan mild recession
Bush handed Obama a very very deep recession
And you want to compare the two ?
Reagan entered the WH with UE around 7.3 % .... 4 years later UE was around 7.3 %
And you idiots thought it was "morning in America"
MILD??? AYFKM? Again, 15 percent inflation, 21 percent interest rates, and oil prices at record highs (even when adjusted for inflation.) Credibility in the shitter after giving away the Panama Canal, Iran, boycotting the Moscow Olympics, etc., etc.
Believe me, scooter, what Bush handed off to Obama ain't SHIT compared to the late 1970's. Maybe if you remembered it a little better you'd understand.
-
MILD??? AYFKM? Again, 15 percent inflation, 21 percent interest rates, and oil prices at record highs (even when adjusted for inflation.) Credibility in the shitter after giving away the Panama Canal, Iran, boycotting the Moscow Olympics, etc., etc.
Believe me, scooter, what Bush handed off to Obama ain't SHIT compared to the late 1970's. Maybe if you remembered it a little better you'd understand.
My God is that funny
During this last recession everybody said this is the worst recession since the Great Depression nobody and I repeat nobody from either party said this is the worst recession since Jimmy Carter
You stand-alone with that view
The stock market lost half its value we were losing 750,000 jobs per month but you think the Carter recession was worse
Holy shit are you ignorant
-
Talk about ignorance, which party was controlling the purse strings from '07-'January 09? Which party controlled EVERYTHING from '09-January '11?
-
Your idiot president has blown 5 trillion dollars of OUR money to accomplish nothing but an even more ****ed up economy, you ****ing idiot. He's a lightweight, a mental midget, an idiot, in WAY over his head, economically and fiscally-illiterate, and doesn't know what the **** he's doing. He's gone in November.
-
There was 227,000 jobs created last month
I tried to start a thread about this a couple times but it keeps getting deleted because the information is too damaging to the GOP
-
There was 227,000 jobs created last month
I tried to start a thread about this a couple times but it keeps getting deleted because the information is too damaging to the GOP
It's not being deleted, dumbass. You're just too stupid to click your name ---> show posts ---> find your post
-
There was 227,000 jobs created last month
And unemployment is still in the mid to high 8% range.
What's your point?
-
...and 227,000 jobs added doesn't do dick. Try that for about 4 years and get back to me. BTW, how are you idiots going to address the debt the idiot got us into? Ignore it?
-
Your idiot president has blown 5 trillion dollars of OUR money to accomplish nothing but an even more ****ed up economy, you ****ing idiot. He's a lightweight, a mental midget, an idiot, in WAY over his head, economically and fiscally-illiterate, and doesn't know what the **** he's doing. He's gone in November.
When he took overwe were losing 700,000 jobs a month
Last month we created 227,000 jobs but you think that's worse than losing 700,000
When Obama took over we had negative GDP today we have positive GDP
Concerning the economy tell me what got worse....
-
Gonna need to buy a BUNCH of pillows this November Keystereater.
-
Bush's median UE was 4.5
What's Obama's? 9 something?
-
When he took overwe were losing 700,000 jobs a month
Last month we created 227,000 jobs but you think that's worse than losing 700,000
When Obama took over we had negative GDP today we have positive GDP
Concerning the economy tell me what got worse....
When Democrats controlled the purse strings. Thanks for playing.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/GDP.jpg)
-
...and that "positive growth" isn't that damn promising considering he spent 5 trillion dollars of OUR money for that menial growth and an above 8% UE rate. He's a failure. An utter disaster.
-
BTW, the GDP's "growth" seems to be corresponding with the time Republicans took over Congress. I know, strange, right?
-
One other thing, notice anything different about this place and DU? Notice what you can do here that you can't do at DU? And we're the fascists trying to shut down free speech? :popcorn:
-
Bush's median UE was 4.5
What's Obama's? 9 something?
George Bush collapsed the entire US economy it cratered in on itself
Do you think that played a part in the high unemployment during Pres. Obama's first term ?
-
George Bush collapsed the entire US economy it cratered in on itself
Do you think that played a part in the high unemployment during Pres. Obama's first term ?
You're entitled to your own opinion; you are now, however, entitled to your own facts.
-
Can I ask a favor from the mods?
When they become known as liberal trolls since I know we don't ban them like our counterparts do.......can we at least give them a different avatar to identify them?
-
Carter handed Reagan mild recession
:lmao:
Carter gave Reagan a muddy pile of shit: Stagnant economy, high interest rates, high unemployment, a rode hard and put away wet military that had seen it's funding gutted.
Bush handed Obama a very very deep recession
Bush handed Obama an economy that was in trouble, there is no doubt - one trillion in debt for which Obama voted for every dime. He also managed to hand him a AAA bond rating which was among the many things Obama squandered.
Problem is the extremes to which will end the tenures of Presidents Reagan and Obama: Reagan left the country and the world much better than he received it.
And you want to compare the two ?
There is no comparison between Obama and Reagan, this is no mystery.
Reagan entered the WH with UE around 7.3 % .... 4 years later UE was around 7.3 %
Hardly.
When Jimmy Carter took office in January of 1977, unemployment was at 7.5%. When he left office, and Ronald Reagan assumed office, in January of 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. That makes a net gain of zero, zip, jack shit for the second worst president in the history of the United States.
When Ronald Reagan took his second oath of office after the historic ass kicking he handed the liberal democrat Walter Mondale, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. So, in 4 years of having to clean up after a worthless, liberal democrat, President Reagan had a gain of 0.2%. Which, btw was obviously much better than anything Jimmuh ever did. Click on the below link to see for yourself.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
Incidentally, the highest unemployment numbers for Bush and the lowest for Obama (7.8%) were in the same month the two served (January 2009).
That's just tragic, isn't it?
And you idiots thought it was "morning in America"
Compared to ugly sweater Jimmy and pump up your tires Obama, it was.
-
George Bush collapsed the entire US economy it cratered in on itself
Really? He did that all by himself? Do tell!
Do you think that played a part in the high unemployment during Pres. Obama's first term ?
As much as it did when Carter left and Reagan took over.
-
A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show. The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html
-
Obama to tout green energy ‘investments’ at solar facility employing 5 workers, relying on $54 million in taxpayer subsidies
BOULDER CITY, Nev. — President Obama will tout investments in “renewable†energy Wednesday at the local Copper Mountain Solar 1 plant, although the plant has only five full-time employees.
The plant, owned by San Diego-based energy company Sempra, was built in late 2010 at a cost of $141 million. Funding included $42 million in federal-government tax credits and $12 million in tax-rebate commitments from the state of Nevada.
Construction of the plant involved over 300 part-time jobs, but currently only five full-time employees operate the plant, a Sempra spokeswoman confirmed. That comes out to $10.8 million in tax-dollar subsidies per employee.
---LINK--- (http://nevadajournal.com/2012/03/20/obama-tout-green-energy-investments-solar-facility-employing-5-workers-relying-54-million-taxpayer-s/)
What a ****ing idiot. Not to mention Solyndra and all the other companies owned by his buddies he paid off. Obama is a criminal. Plain and simple. A slimey-assed crook.
-
The credit re investment act is the time bomb that slowly exploded after Carter signed it into law that wrecked our economy. Maybe more like a sinkhole that the economy slowly but surely got eaten up by. There have been republicans that have been complicit in continuing the policy, but make no mistake, it was a lib/dem/socialist that planted the sinkhole, and almost exclusively lib/dem/socialists that have used CRA to crater our economy. A small portion of the blame should go to the GOP, but more than the lions share is the lib/dems/socialists.
-
Interesting that libs say the job picture is improving. If it is improving, it's been improving since the republicans took over congress.
I am trying to figure out Keywester's DUmmy name.
-
Interesting that libs say the job picture is improving. If it is improving, it's been improving since the republicans took over congress.
I am trying to figure out Keywester's DUmmy name.
I remember the DUmmies asking Boehner where the jobs were the day after he was sworn in as speaker. Now that the HOR has had time to have some effect, they want to give Obama credit for any apparent improvement. Improvement that was lacking when the Dems controlled both houses of congress.
-
Keywester and his party actually have bigger problems ~ something like 10 senate democrat seats are in play and people like Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill are running far behind their republican challengers. That's not really good news for incumbents or democrats or Barack Obama or Keywester.
:bigbird:
-
One other thing, notice anything different about this place and DU? Notice what you can do here that you can't do at DU? And we're the fascists trying to shut down free speech? :popcorn:
Bueller? Bueller?
-
Bueller? Bueller?
It's the kid's curfiew. Mom and dad probably pulled the plug for the night.
-
It's the kid's curfiew. Mom and dad probably pulled the plug for the night.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
Cut the damned cord permanently.
-
Bueller? Bueller?
He can't type while his husband's dick is in his mouth.
-
He can't type while his husband's dick is in his mouth.
:panic: just say NO male dick sucking !! :panic:
-
It's ironic, but when a troll starts his crapola, the resulting thread of answers is usually a well thought out response with comprehensive data that actually HELPS us internalize the reasons. I've noticed this in a couple other places as well.
-
Keywester and his party actually have bigger problems ~ something like 10 senate democrat seats are in play and people like Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill are running far behind their republican challengers. That's not really good news for incumbents or democrats or Barack Obama or Keywester.
:bigbird:
The Democrats have over 20 seats to defend in Nov. while the Repubs have only half that many. The Repubs should regain the majority in the Senate easily and 60 is not impossible. Many in the hierarchy of the Repub party are more concerned about the Congressional election than they are about the Presidency. They want Romney as the nominee because they feels like he will not drag down candidates in the other races. What idiocy...That's Rush's thinking.
-
The Democrats have over 20 seats to defend in Nov. while the Repubs have only half that many. The Repubs should regain the majority in the Senate easily and 60 is not impossible. Many in the hierarchy of the Repub party are more concerned about the Congressional election than they are about the Presidency. They want Romney as the nominee because they feels like he will not drag down candidates in the other races. What idiocy...That's Rush's thinking.
If Obama wins in November, but we get to 60 in the Senate, perhaps they will have the spine to derail any of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominations.
If by chance the the GOP takes the WH, regains control of the Senate and maintains control of the house. I hope that they will stop playing "nice" with the other side and actually start governing in a more conservative fashion.
IIRC, the last time that the GOP had control of all 3 they compromised way too much.
I wasn't very politically active back then and may be mistaken.
-
For some reason, the 'Pubs always want to be the nice guys. I cannot figure out why.
-
For some reason, the 'Pubs always want to be the nice guys. I cannot figure out why.
Perhaps from some misguided notion of fair play?
-
Perhaps from some misguided notion of fair play?
It is time to play hardball. The Democrate rule with an iron fist when they get control. For example, Pisslosi reign as speaker...we won, it is our way or the highway. We need some newcomers with a spine spine in the House and Senate that will challenge the old dogs. This go along to get along shit ain't working. Plus, we certainly do not need a cry baby as House Speaker. That is just pathetic.
-
It is time to play hardball. The Democrate rule with an iron fist when they get control. For example, Pisslosi reign as speaker...we won, it is our way or the highway. We need some newcomers with a spine spine in the House and Senate that will challenge the old dogs. This go along to get along shit ain't working. Plus, we certainly do not need a cry baby as House Speaker. That is just pathetic.
Boehner is a complete tool and I am embarrassed that he is from my state.