- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Despite your hysterics, that all began before Obama became president.Wow !
From your job numbers out of context to your Trayvon Martin Misinformation, not one thing under your name is accurate.
You libs ALWAYS leave our the massive drop in the workforce, the substantial increase in dependency, the massive new debt, the perpetual QE, the shrinking of the middle class, the increase in poverty rates among adults and Children.
1 in 5 for American Children. Is that part of Michelle Obama's Child Obesity initiative ?
To starve the little carpet crawlers through chronic poverty ?
I don't know who your'e trying to impress, or convince but I think even you can do better than that mess you just posted.
Looks like double to me
It only looks that way to you because you don't see real numbers.
The funniest part is watching you cherry pick between nominal and real figures to support your position.
For example ... during Reagan's terms, nominal figures were more favorable than real figures.
You cherry picked the nominal figures for Reagan because they were better.
During Obama's presidency, nominal figures are also more favorable than real figures.
For Obama, you cherry picked the real figures since they are worse.
And don't think for a second I'm the only one here who notices your dishonesty.
:coffeepap
Tell your story to the 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers out there and the hundreds of thousands of contract employees and business owners who have lost their jobs and businesses. I posted the actual numbers so you have some explaining to do, how can 7.2 million jobs be created and still have fewer people working than 2007 by 2 million and only 177,000 less employed today than when Obama took office. Apparently that is a success to a liberal with such low expectations. Is that how you operate in real life, low expectations, low results means satisfaction? Are you ready to admit that Obama hasn't met your expectations or are they really this low?
I look at the numbers as they were during the timeframe involved just like most normal people would as well. I cherry picked nothing wonder if the 17 million jobs created are "real" or nominal?
I believe this is a game on your part for no one is dumb enough to continue to buy the Obama rhetoric when the results are quite different.
21 million? That's fewer than we had under Bush. And he's your hero! You said you would even vote for him again if he were running.
Proves your standards are lower than you claim mine are.
Stop lying, Con.
You're using nominal figures for Reagan but real figures for Obama.
How can you possibly type with a straight face that you're not cherry-picking??
Call it what you like, millions are investing right now, Con. Why is that so hard to comprehend?Yes, I forgot the new liberal normal, high unemployment, low economic growth and massive debt. Yes millions are investing in that Obama economy as the numbers show.
Oh wow.....an ad hominem.....I didnt' see that one coming.This really has been a waste of time. You are why I need a break every now and then from this forum. You symbolize a true Obamabot and before you report this an Obamabot is an official definition of an Obama supporter from the urban dictionary
Urban Dictionary: Obamabot
You simply have no concept of investment, return on investment, and the role of the Federal Govt. Maybe if millions more would just trust Obama and Obamanomics like you we wouldn't have these economic numbers but bet we would have more bankruptcies.
LOL...this is coming from the guy who loves Reagan?Great, so the rich get richer under Obama. How does that help the millions of unemployed, under employed, discouraged along with the contract employees and business owners who lost their business but aren't counted?
or like Bush had over his followers, right, Con? Take yourself, for example ... even though Bush increased under/unemployed from 10½ million to 22 million, far worse than what Obama has done, you still would have voted for him again had he been running in 2008.Fewer? Still on the Bush kick and blame game I see. Doesn't matter what Bush did because we are almost 5 years into the Obama Presidency and these are the Obama numbers. Wonder if people like you ever admit that Obama has been a disappointment and not generated the economic results you believed he would? He sure has a hold over people like you kind of like Hitler had over his people, believing the rhetoric and ignoring history.
or like Bush had over his followers, right, Con? Take yourself, for example ... even though Bush increased under/unemployed from 10½ million to 22 million, far worse than what Obama has done, you still would have voted for him again had he been running in 2008.
You have a problem with the BEA numbers take it up with them
Why would I have a problem with the BEA numbers when you're the one dishonestly switching back and forth between nominal and real figures, depending on which numbers you personally prefer?
The problem is with you using nominal figures for Reagan, but then switching to real figures for Obama. What on Earth does the BEA have to do with that?
Now you're conflating GDP with employment???So tell me, were the Reagan 17 million jobs created nominal or real numbers?
You've already demonstrated you will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is. Doesn't matter who it is. I have no doubt that you would vote for Obama had he run as a Republican.I would vote for anyone with more experience than Obama which would have been any candidate running against Obama.
Well given that every Republican president has done worse than every Democrat president since the BLS has been keeping stats, with the lone exception of Reagan edging out Carter by 1/10th of one percent -- I say with complete confidence that we are better off with Obama than either McCain or Romney.You have no idea what any other Candidate would have done but we do know what Obama has done. A big disappointment for his supporters except for those who believe in big govt. and penalizing producers.
Clinton | -2.3 | -32% |
Johnson | -2.2 | -39% |
Kennedy** | -1.2 | -14% |
Obama | -0.2 | -3% |
Reagan | -0.1 | -1% |
Carter*** | 0.0 | 0% |
Bush | +0.8 | +19% |
Eisenhower | +1.4 | +48% |
Nixon | +1.5 | +44% |
GHW Bush*** | +1.9 | +35% |
Ford* | +2.0 | +36% |
Inflation is too new???Still waiting are the 17 million jobs created during the Reagan term real or nominal numbers? If you are going to use real numbers to judge what happened during the Reagan term then use them for the employment numbers as well. Apparently you don't seem to understand what you are doing, using inflation driven numbers 20 years after Reagan left office and then complaining that you cannot do the same thing with Obama whose numbers are too new to be inflation driven is typical liberal bs and why you have no credibility.
Now you're conflating GDP with employment???
Do you think that's a rational substitute for you getting caught dishonestly cherry-picking GDP number that you personally favor?
You've already demonstrated you will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is. Doesn't matter who it is. I have no doubt that you would vote for Obama had he run as a Republican.
Well given that every Republican president has done worse than every Democrat president since the BLS has been keeping stats, with the lone exception of Reagan edging out Carter by 1/10th of one percent -- I say with complete confidence that we are better off with Obama than either McCain or Romney.
Here's the list of presidents, along with the level of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 53 months in office...
Clinton -2.3 -32% Johnson -2.2 -39% Kennedy** -1.2 -14% Obama -0.2 -3% Reagan -0.1 -1% Carter*** 0.0 0% Bush +0.8 +19% Eisenhower +1.4 +48% Nixon +1.5 +44% GHW Bush*** +1.9 +35% Ford* +2.0 +36%
* = in office 29 months
** = in office 34 months
*** = in office 48 months
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Inflation is too new???
:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo
Oh, I see you like to shorten up what I typed out. That's OK. I never expect honesty out of a liberal, never. Not a single one of them have it in them. He probably did say something like that. But it had nothing to do with what caused the housing crash.
Holy ****! :dohWe will wait 20 years to compare Obama's numbers to the President at that time.
Holy ****! :doh
Forget about comparing Reagan's numbers with Obama's. Your claim, as bizarre as it is, is that we should factor in inflation from 2009-2013, but not when looking at the numbers from between 1981-1988.
Inflation affects ALL of the numbers, not just for Obama.
But again, you like the nominal figures better between 1981-1988, just so you could make the fallacious claim that he doubled GDP, when in fact, he didn't.
No I am not, if you are going to use inflation as an indicator then use inflation adjusted employment numbers. Just goes to show how stupid your argument is. It really is a shame how little you know about leadership and yet how you follow someone who lacks basic good leadership skills in that he says "do as I say not as I do" and like a good little soldier you follow. You have no concept of basic economics, no understanding of basic human nature including your own, and honestly think you are fooling anyone with the numbers you post that are totally irrelevant. Can you imagine what tripling the debt would do today but somehow 1.7 trillion increase or tripling of the debt is worse than 6.2 trillion in debt which is a 60% increase. A better percentage change in unemployment numbers are also irrelevant because they don't recognize the individuals involved in those numbers. When did Ford have 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers? Talk about cherrypicking numbers, you do that all the time with percentage change which means nothing.
Seriously, you still think that is a proper substitute for you getting caught pulling a switcheroo on the GDP numbers between Reagan and Obama??Right, I believe we ought to adjust the Reagan job creation for inflation as well. Wouldn't that be about 35 million jobs or so? You really are a joke, a true Obamabot.
Holy ****! :doh
Now you're comparing 8 years of Reagan with 4½ years of Obama. And you're ignoring the fact that Reagan did not inherit a recession while Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Holy ****! :doh
Forget about comparing Reagan's numbers with Obama's. Your claim, as bizarre as it is, is that we should factor in inflation from 2009-2013, but not when looking at the numbers from between 1981-1988.
Inflation affects ALL of the numbers, not just for Obama.
But again, you like the nominal figures better between 1981-1988, just so you could make the fallacious claim that he doubled GDP, when in fact, he didn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?