# The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?



## U2Edge (Jun 11, 2013)

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.86%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.86%*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 11, 2013)

Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 11, 2013)




----------



## g5000 (Jun 11, 2013)

The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


----------



## Trajan (Jun 11, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?





so now its changed, the exec. has zip to do with employment...got it. 


you get the silver.....


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 11, 2013)

Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...


----------



## Rozman (Jun 11, 2013)

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 11, 2013)

Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish. 

No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 11, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



Again, your dog could direct this country to 2.5 percent growth.  Record welfare, unemployment, fed pumping billions monthly into stock market, low gdp, 17 trillion in debt aren't exactly "turning it around".  This is sub mediocre at best.


----------



## regent (Jun 11, 2013)

Should the president be given the power to control America's economy?


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 11, 2013)

Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 11, 2013)

LordBrownTrout said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



You're probably right, though one must consider the judgment of a dog that would stay with Franco.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 11, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Yes, I too, feel sorry for that dog.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 11, 2013)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



So you credit Bill Clinton with the 4% UE he left for GW Bush?


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 11, 2013)

Stupid talking points and ridiculous insults- the dupes' repertoire lol...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 11, 2013)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



It wasn't the greatest until after we had 5 years of Obama's economic policies.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 11, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



Bush was also handed an economy headed into a recession.  Furthermore, the issue was compounded by 9/11.

No one feels any sympathy for Obama.


----------



## rdean (Jun 11, 2013)

Lakhota said:


>



Republicans support this and pretend they don't at the same time.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 11, 2013)

The US middle class lost half ther assets thanks to Bush, and he wrecked the rest of the world too, unlike the .com crash. Obama's policies? LOL, the pubs have blocked all real jobs bills, and everything else, since 2/2010, as well as costing 1% growth by the debt limit crisis and now the sequester...ALWAYS a disaster, dupe.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



You obviously care given that you responded. 

Because it occured while the President was in office. You can debate till the cows come home about the Presidents impact on the economy during his whole time in office, but the fact remains, these were the unemployment conditions for Americans while they were in office. 

         Obama at 53 months has the worst record since World War II. By the time he is at 96 months and leaves office, he may very well still have the worst average unemployment record since World War II.


----------



## velvtacheeze (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



But Bushed caused the unemployment, and the GOP House has stopped future stimulus.  

Most Americans realize this, which is why Mitt lost.  Mittens is part of the party most Americans hold responsible for the unemployment, and so they justifiably defeated him. 

Conservatives only have themselves to blame.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



So if anything that happens during a president's tenure is the president's fault then we can blame the explosive increase in AIDs cases in the 1980's on Ronald Reagan.


----------



## J.E.D (Jun 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...



The economy 5 years after Obama took office is worse than it was when he first took office? 

Damn, son, your Obama Derangement Syndrome is really bad.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Not unexpected. Obama is incompetent. 

-Geaux


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



If you're claiming a cause and effect relationship then the best presidential policy model for employment must be Lyndon Johnson's,

you remember, the guy who started Medicare and Medicaid and the president most closely identified with the war on poverty.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



        Ah yes, lets blame the President who has the most months of any President in US history of unemployment rates below 6% for the worst average unemployment rate since World War II?

         Will Hillary Clinton also get to blame Bush when she becomes President in four years for her economic problems? How about the next President after that?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

But but but but BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



           You can sure debate it. There are definitely bed-wetting liberals out there that do blame Reagan for the exlposive increase in Aids cases in the 1980s.  Whether or not they deserve the blame is another matter.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



           That is not what Lyndon Johnson is primarily known for. Medicare and Medicaid were relatively small programs back in the 60s compared to today. The best way Johnson fought the war on poverty was by achieving high employment levels through fighting the Vietnam war as well as continuing the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Average defense spending during this time was over 10% of GDP. Millions of men were drafted or volunteered while he was in office. Women were still primarily stay at home moms. The result is the lowest average unemployment rate in US history!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Thats horrible.....Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 12, 2013)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



really, since the great depression huh?
good grief, you too


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 12, 2013)

> Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?



 yes he did CHOOSE it when HE decided he should RUN for President..
but what did we expect from a JUNIOR SENATOR who never ran anything in his life..
Just more lame excuses for this man.........


----------



## lynn63 (Jun 12, 2013)

I wouldn't consider just 4 million jobs added since 2010 to May 2013 an improvement.  We need more like 20 to 30 million new jobs to get back on the right track, especially in manufacturing and production.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 12, 2013)

with Obama, mediocre is OK for those who voted for him...as long as he gives lip service  about how he cares and is looking out for the, little people under him..

how sad for our country this a ACCEPTABLE now...if this had been a Republican President...he would be crucified..


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 12, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> > Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes he sure did..

He chose to take over an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs a month
He chose to take ove an economy with its stock market in collapse
He chose to take over an economy with negative GDP in 5 of the last 6 quarters


For a JUNIOR SENATOR

He is adding close to a million jobs a month more thann he started with
He has DOUBLED the stock market
He has had positive growth for 16 straight quarters


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > > Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?
> ...



He has not added 48+ million jobs
He has not doubled the stock market... and perhaps you should look at the issues with the stock market due to increased money printing, etc...
The growth rate is less than that if there were no government intervention into a recovery

But don't let those little things get in the way of your worship


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 12, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



-750,000 jobs to +160,000 jobs a month is a net change of close to 1 million
Stock market was at 8150 in Jan 2009 it is over 16,000 today
Your "what ifs" on the growth rate are rightwing fantasies


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There are barely more employed today than what were employed the month before he took office
The stock market is trumped up after additional money printing, bailouts, etc... And gains beyond that have nothing to do with stock market.. lest we not forget the recovery that had to start after the huge drops due to the Clinton era bubble burst, 9/11, etc... but back to the fact that the President does not ultimately cause ups or downs in the market
THE GROWTH RATE IS BELOW THAT WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO NO INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER.. AND THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN NUMEROUS TIMES... as a matter of fact the 'recovery' under Obama is the slowest or second slowest since WWII (depending on which numbers you look at).. the economy remains weak... call us when there is over 3% sustained growth (and you won't be calling us with these policies in place)


----------



## tjvh (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Then my tax dollars Obama tossed at Solyndra were for what exactly?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 12, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Repeating your lies does not make them true


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



repeating your's isn't working so you might as well give it up..


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Ok, so you're admitting you cannot show any cause and effect between unemployment rates and Obama being in office.

IOW, your thread is pointless trolling.  Obama Derangement Syndrome.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



NOTHING I sated is a lie...

The employment rolls now are slightly higher than when he took office.. Labor participation rate is 0.1 off of a 30 year LOW
The stock market is artificially high with all that I said going on.. and the other gains have nothing to do with the President.... lest we forget how when the market was gaining with W, you and your ilk said the same exact thing
And the growth rate is below that of what would happen with no intervention... it is also indeed fact that this is the slowest or second slowest recovery since WWII

You are the one continually lying on this shit....


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!








Talk about a dupe.  He turned NOTHING around.  The unemployment went down because people quit looking.  I am amazed you can feed yourself...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



So you're admitting that it's pointless to compare unemployment rates from one president's term to another's since the domestic and international conditions are not the same.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



So losing 700,000 jobs a month vs. gaining 200,000 jobs a month is about people not looking for work?

lol, are you a mental retard?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

tjvh said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



After Bush spent 12 billion a MONTH in Iraq for 5 years straight, that is your big Obama complaint?

lol you phoney fuck.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Except that is not really true.. now is it???

Nor is WrongWinger's claim of 1MIL per month difference during his term.... 

Hmmm.. as stated.. not that many more employed now than when he took office.. and the labor participation rate is 0.1% above a 30 year low


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Oppose the continuation of the war or not... Military is a charge of the federal government.. propping up private companies is not


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 12, 2013)

Game

Set

Match

Championship


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



          Obama stated that he would be able to keep unemployment from going above 8%.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > > Did Obama get to choose what the unemployment rate would be when he took office?
> ...



Here are the last 6 quarters prior to Obama taking over:

 2007 03   2·9531
 2007 04   1·7049
 2008 01  -1.7652
 2008 02   1.3241
 2008 03  -3·6629
 2008 04  -8·8903

*So its NOT 5 of the last 6 quarters with negative GDP growth but 3 of the last 6.*


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



               53% of Americans don't even own stock. Yes, the Stock Market is doing well which means the RICH and the Wealthy are doing well.


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 12, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



             I never said that. I said that its open to debate. What is not debatable is that while in office, Barack Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. Thats a fact, that most people including yourself were ignorant of but for I posted it. So, its not pointless, as you have become better informed thanks to the thread. 

             The only people who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, are those that think Obama is not responsible for anything bad that happens while he is President. 

              This has to be the first time in US history where supporters of a President were willing to pass off anything bad happening while their guy was in office on a former President, even into his second term!


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 12, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



I'm thinking franco is more of a cat person.......you know, the kind that has a feces encrusted house with 73 cats.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



             Not at all. The fact still remains is that was what the job market was like on average under each President. These comparisons are made all the time, and will continue to be made well into the future. Unfortunately for Obama, his record on this account is the worst since World War II, and will likely still be the worst once he leaves office. Be prepared to have that brought up and compared for decades to come!


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



                 Money well spent and I might add, total US defense spending as a percentage of GDP for defense and the wars while Bush was President, *was less than total US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s as a percentage of GDP!*


----------



## kaz (Jun 12, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Stupid talking points and ridiculous insults- the dupes' repertoire lol...



Obama never had a real job, what made you think he could create one?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 12, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 12, 2013)

the only jobs Obama created was more Government jobs that we the people get to PAY FOR..

he is so thoughtful of us in the country creating more jobs for taxpayers to support, he should be called, the great creator..


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 12, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



big 0 didn't run on his economy or UE numbers. big 0 ran on nonsense.  constant and ever changing nonsense.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That's a small fraction of what Obama is spending.


----------



## regent (Jun 12, 2013)

Should the president of the United States be given the power to create jobs, control the economy and prepare America's budget?


----------



## AquaAthena (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...






 

YES.....*.you are an honorable man* who loves his country and as president, wanted to see it prosper, even though you were a bit "spendy."


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The monthly jobs numbers have turned around a net 900,000 jobs per months since Obama became president.

No president since WWII has a better record than that.

GDP has turned around by a net +8 percentage points since Obama became president.  No president since WWII has a better record than that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Really?  Then tell us all how much per month Obama is now spending in Iraq.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Okay, then post some actual provable cause and effect regarding the unemployment rate and President Obama's policies.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 12, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Money well spent why?  Name one vital national interest that necessitated the Iraq War.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia. 

2. The errosion of the key measures of containment on Saddam Hussian, sanctions and the
weapons embargo.

3. The fact that starting in the year 2000, Saddam was getting away with selling Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market. 

4. The fact that Russia, China and France were all violating UN Security Council resolutions meant to contain Saddam. China specifically by providing fiber optic communications for Saddam's military as well as improving Saddam's air defense capabilities which meant a greater liklely hood of coalition aircraft being shot down in the no fly zones. Russia and France both restarted commercial flights to Iraq, again in violation of sanctions. 

5. Syria completely disbanded all sanctions on its border with Iraq by 2001 allowing anything to pass through. Even Turkey was becoming lax in its enforcement thanks to bribes from Saddam and his growing oil wealth. 

*6. This erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo meant that containment was no longer possible. Without containment, the only option was regime change.*

7. Saddam still posed a threat to the large oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This threat would only grow with time now that the sanctions and weapons embargo were crumbling. 

8. Saddam's military before he was removed was one of the largest in the middle east. Saddam had over 400,000 people in the armed forces, 2,700 tanks, over 300 combat aircraft, over 2,000 artillery pieces, over 2,000 armored personal carriers. Large stocks of various types of ammunition, rockets, artillery shells, shells for tanks, bombs, cluster bombs, mines, missiles. Total ammunition stocks after Saddam was removed were determined to be larger than any other country in the world except Russia and the United States. 

9. The fact that Saddam did maintain the ability to produce Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons in violation of the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement.

10. The fact that Saddam failed to pay Kuwait and locate *THOUSANDS* of missing Kuwaiti's from his illegal invasion, occupation, and then annexation of Kuwait in 1990. 

11. The fact that Saddam is the only leader since Adolf Hitler to invade and annex another country. 

12. The fact that Saddam used WMD not just on his own people but upon foreign troops and upon civilians and soldiers in a foreign country. 

13. The fact that Saddam was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance. 

14. The fact that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement.

15. The fact that Saddam had succeeded in surviving and staying in power despite all attempts to remove Saddam short of launching a full scale invasion. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. There were even record uses of Cruise Missiles and records for tons of bombs dropped in a matter of days, like operation Desert Fox in 1998. 

16. Given all the above, it was absolutely necessary to remove Saddam from power in 2003.


                But hey, don't just take my word for it, listen to Democratic President Bill Clinton on Saddam:

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998

*"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."*

*"other countries posses weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with Saddam there is one big difference, he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing scud missiles against the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Barain, and Iran. Not only against foreign enemies, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam will use these terrible weapons again"*

*"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors, he will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them"*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



       Why don't you go ahead and prove to us that Obama has had NO impact on any of the economic figures the country has had for the past 53 months. I'm just stating the facts of what people have experienced since he has been in office compared to all the Presidents since World War II. What I presented in my first post, the topic of this thread, are irrefutable facts!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Did I use the word "Iraq" in my post?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

Love how they get caught in the misdirection or flat out lies and they scurry like cockroaches when the light turns on


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 13, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah that's right there have been no bailouts, no quantitative easing, no dot com bubble, no 9/11...

Are you on drugs?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Wrongwinger is a habitual liar.. He has been nailed to the wall again on it... so he will scurry... and he will repeat the same debunked bullshit in another thread


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Simply put.....

If you threaten someone with a gun, you better be prepared to use it.

Hussein was in breach of his treaty.

We told him he will suffer the consequences if he did not abide by the terms of the treaty.

He dared us.

If we did nothing?

Our word would mean squat in the international arena.

That in itself is detrimental to our national security.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



The president doesnt decide whether GM sells cars.  The president doesn't decide to find bin Laden.  The president doesnt decide how high the Dow is.
Why is it everything good is due to Obama.  Everything bad is either not due to Obama or due to Bush? Do you guys ever take responsibility for bad stuff?


----------



## lynn63 (Jun 13, 2013)

Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment.  His insurance mandate has stalled the economy.  If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.

A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed.  We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track.  That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment.  His insurance mandate has stalled the economy.  If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.
> 
> A few of the States, there are more unemployed than their are employed.  We need at least 20 to 30 million new jobs, preferably in manufacturing and production to get us back on track.  That doesn't appear remotely possible at the moment or in the near future.



Whereas I agree with you as it pertains to policy and how the current administration policies are hindering economic growth, I need to offer my sentiments as it pertains to overall job creation....

The recession actually opened the eyes of many employers. They found they were overstaffed to begin with.

Example.....

In 1995 a company had 50 employees broken down this way:

2 receptionists/clericals
8 exempt employees (managers/supervisors)
5 order processors
5 Warehouse/shipping and receiving personnel
30 machinists turning lathes and making product from stock

From 1995-2007 they never adjusted their staff size. They were prosperous and ...well.....you dont fix it if it aint broken.

However, during that time, they installed a new phone systemn with direct line voice mail; they installed a new inventory program (high tech) and they installed CNC and eliminated manual lathe turning.

Then the recession hit. Orders went down, and they laid off....

Gone is one receptionist
Gone are 3 warehouse personnel
Gone are 10 machinists

So in 2009, they now had 35 employees....and that staff met the decrease in demand.

Then demand increased again.....

But....

with direct line voice mail, they realized they do not need another receptionist
with the high tech inventory system, they dont need to rehire anyone else in the warehouse
With CNC lathes, each machinists puts out twice the prodcut they used to manually

So output increases, but the need for an increase in personnel is not there.

Unless we ENCOURAGE people to start new busineeses, I believe we will see 7.5% unemployment as the new normal.

That brings me back to policies.

Obam,a is not encouraging risk taking. Thats a problem.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Do you give Obama credit for getting the country out of recession within 6 months of taking office?

Clue:  that's a yes or no question.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is definitely responsible for the worst record for unemployment.  His insurance mandate has stalled the economy.  If you review each state, you will find that half of the 18-64 age bracket is employed and the other half is not employed.
> ...



What do you want Obama to do to encourage 'risk taking'?

Why is that encouragement important?  Isn't demand for whatever goods and services a new company plans to provide the single most important factor in determining whether or not one should risk starting a business?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



If you're only point was to remind us all of some historical statistics, why didn't you post this in the history forum?

This is the politics forum.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



By that logic you must believe that an invasion of North Korea is and has been 'necessary' for decades.

Who do you blame for not invading North Korea?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?

Are you implying that we are so dependent on Middle East oil for our national security that we must start wars to protect that oil,

like we did in 1991?


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




And if that's the case, why did China get first dibs on developing Iraqi oil fields?


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



          The United States did not start the war in 1991. Saddam started it by invading and annexing Kuwait. The Planet has been dependent on Persian Gulf Oil supply to support the growing global economy for decades. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who first declared in 1943 that it was in the national security interest of the United States to defend Saudi Arabia. Every President since that time has agreed. So much of the worlds natural gas and oil is located in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that the loss of that oil from the market would cause a global economic depression. 

           The world is more dependent on Persian Gulf oil now than it was in 1991 thanks to rising demand in the third world as countries like India, China and all of Africa develop and grow larger populations. In 1991, Saudi Arabia had the ability to make up for a sudden loss  of production from say a country like Kuwait. Thats why Saudi Arabia was the worlds only swing producer. Today Saudi Arabia does not have that ability anymore as the level of demand vs current supply is smaller meaning Saudia Arabia no longer as the ability to make up the difference quickly if there is a loss of production somewhere, which increases the likely hood of huge price shocks if production in certain area's is shut down for some reason. 




> What were those threats specifically and why would they threaten the vital interests of the US?



                     The United States like the rest of the world is impacted heavily by the price of energy. Saddam's potential seizure or sabotage of Persian Gulf oil supply could cause a global economic depression that would be extremely damaging to the United States, its Allies, as well as the rest of the world. Saddam's Iraq is in close proximity to much of the worlds supply of oil and natural gas which means he only needs minimal military capability to threaten it. 

            Here is a more detailed explanation of all the problems that Saddam posed for the United States in the Persian Gulf area. It explains how the failure of the containment policy meant that regime removal became an absolute necessity given Saddam's past actions, crimes, and survivability.

1. Saddam Hussian's continued threat to the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf region, particularly in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia. 

2. The errosion of the key measures of containment on Saddam Hussian, sanctions and the
weapons embargo.

3. The fact that starting in the year 2000, Saddam was getting away with selling Billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market. 

4. The fact that Russia, China and France were all violating UN Security Council resolutions meant to contain Saddam. China specifically by providing fiber optic communications for Saddam's military as well as improving Saddam's air defense capabilities which meant a greater liklely hood of coalition aircraft being shot down in the no fly zones. Russia and France both restarted commercial flights to Iraq, again in violation of sanctions. 

5. Syria completely disbanded all sanctions on its border with Iraq by 2001 allowing anything to pass through. Even Turkey was becoming lax in its enforcement thanks to bribes from Saddam and his growing oil wealth. 

*6. This erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo meant that containment was no longer possible. Without containment, the only option was regime change.*

7. Saddam still posed a threat to the large oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This threat would only grow with time now that the sanctions and weapons embargo were crumbling. 

8. Saddam's military before he was removed was one of the largest in the middle east. Saddam had over 400,000 people in the armed forces, 2,700 tanks, over 300 combat aircraft, over 2,000 artillery pieces, over 2,000 armored personal carriers. Large stocks of various types of ammunition, rockets, artillery shells, shells for tanks, bombs, cluster bombs, mines, missiles. Total ammunition stocks after Saddam was removed were determined to be larger than any other country in the world except Russia and the United States. 

9. The fact that Saddam did maintain the ability to produce Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons in violation of the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement.

10. The fact that Saddam failed to pay Kuwait and locate *THOUSANDS* of missing Kuwaiti's from his illegal invasion, occupation, and then annexation of Kuwait in 1990. 

11. The fact that Saddam is the only leader since Adolf Hitler to invade and annex another country. 

12. The fact that Saddam used WMD not just on his own people but upon foreign troops and upon civilians and soldiers in a foreign country. 

13. The fact that Saddam was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance. 

14. The fact that Saddam was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement.

15. The fact that Saddam had succeeded in surviving and staying in power despite all attempts to remove Saddam short of launching a full scale invasion. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 through 2003. There were even record uses of Cruise Missiles and records for tons of bombs dropped in a matter of days, like operation Desert Fox in 1998. 

16. Given all the above, it was absolutely necessary to remove Saddam from power in 2003.


                But hey, don't just take my word for it, listen to Democratic President Bill Clinton on Saddam:

President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998

*"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."*

*"other countries posses weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with Saddam there is one big difference, he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing scud missiles against the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Barain, and Iran. Not only against foreign enemies, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam will use these terrible weapons again"*

*"Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world, and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors, he will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them"*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > lynn63 said:
> ...






No sir. You are incorrect. Demand for a product is the single most important factor in determining whether or not the concept of a business selling that product is valid.

The single most important factor in determining whether or not one should RISK starting a business selling that product is the return on investment.

How much will I risk and how much will I get in return.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

C'mon carby... say you're sorry for lying


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



             Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply. 

             In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



if you are attmepting to equate the two situations, then you are admitting to how naive you are as to the contents AND the motivations of the two treaties.

And if such is the case, then I am wasting my time debating with you on this topic for it is futile to debate with someone who is unaware of the basic facts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2013)

Nothing bad is *ever* Barry's fault...

That's the progressive "rule" here at USMB.  It's either W's fault...those awful Republicans in Congress...or "rogue" governmental employees acting without White House knowledge.

On the other hand...anything good is due to Barry's skillful leadership.

Raid that kills Osama bin Laden?  Barry is THE MAN!!!  Debacle in Benghazi?  Barry didn't know a thing about it!!!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Well then it shouldn't be difficult to point out the differences.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



It already was by U2Edge.

Why did you ignore it?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



1.  North Korea has violated the ceasefire agreement
2.  North Korea has sought, and has, WMD's
3.  North Korea has oppressed its own people
4.  North Korea has given weapons to terrorists

Those were all the reasons we were told it was NECESSARY to invade Iraq.  Now tell me why those same exact reasons do not equate to the necessity of invading North Korea.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, I did, and you responded to it with a retarded claim that Obama has spent more in Iraq than Bush did.

Either that or you were responding to something I didn't say, which would also make you retarded.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Funny how they used to howl when anyone called Iraq 'blood for oil', going back even to 1991,

but now they've latched onto it as one of the justifications for that disaster.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Hmmmm, no, I didn't say that.  I said Obama has spent many times what Bush has spent.  Obama flushed it down the welfare sewer. 

Somehow you believe only spending on Iraq is bad for the economy.  I'll have to add that germ to the list of dumb remarks liberals have posted in this forum.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



you specifically asked what national interest was met by the war in Iraq. I answered. You then compared the answer to the N. Korean treaty...which has no similarity.

Now you are referring to the Bush administration talking points.

You are adjusting the debate so you can "win" the debate.

Stay on topic.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Since you cite nothing showing the lack of similarity, your post means nothing.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 13, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It seems to work for the liberals.  They keep repeating them...year after year after year.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The US has a ceasefire treaty with North Korea?

Are you sure?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Actually, liar, he did.... You just keep dodging and weaving.. spewing lies and shifting around.. then you get caught giving bogus statistics and other lies, and you just come up with new ones... par for the course for you


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I told you already...U2Edge already did......there is no reason to reiterrate what he wrote.

Why you ignored it is beyond me...

But it is par for the course for you.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

And even while posting in other threads.. Carby and Wrongwinger, caught with their lies, abandon the thread... laughable...

Gonna bookmark this one for the next time they spew the same shit or say that others are liars


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Given that Article II of the armistice ending hostilities in the Korea War is entitled Concrete Arrangements for CEASE-FIRE and Armistice, which of course you've never read or you wouldn't be stupid enough to make a post like the one above

I think the answer is self-evident.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire



I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next?  WMD's?  lol.  Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



1. Yes, but it was in terms of brief border violations and occasional aggressive contact with South Korean forces over the years. The ceacefire agreement never made any restrictions on weapons levels or WMD. You don't go to war because a patrol went 100 meters into an area they were not supposed to be. You do go to war when a country is potentially amassing WMD that increases the threat to global energy supplies from the Persian Gulf. 

2. Yes, North Korea has WMD, and so do many other countries. The difference is that Saddam has used this WMD not once, but multiple times killing thousands of people both in his own country and in foreign countries. 

3. Yes, North Korea has oppressed its own people as have many governments around the world. Saddam did far more than oppress his own people. He invaded and annexed an independent country. *The last time that happened was when HITLER did it in the early 1940s!* The need to remove Saddam was not dependent on his actions against his own people. It based on his threat to the region, the United States and the world. 

4. That might be true, but it has not been on a large scale enough to significantly threaten the security of any particular region let alone the world. 

             What I said before is true:

Thats a different situation, plus Saddam's violations of the Gulf War ceacefire agreement are only part of the problem. North Korea has not launched an invasion of another country in over 60 years. It did has not invaded and attacked four different neighboring countries like Saddam did. North Korea has not launched ballistic missiles at neighboring countries. North Korea has not used chemical weapons against another country on a large scale. North Korea does not sit in close proximity to much of the planets oil and natural gas supply. 

In addition, military action against North Korea could very well lead to a war with China. The fact that North Korea has had a relatively conservative foreign policy compared to Saddam, holds Seoul South Korea's 10 million essentially hostage with its massive levels of artillery along the DMZ, and would likely be backed by China in any war, means that military action is largely off the table as a means of dealing with North Korea.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



          Well, until you understand the impact that energy has on the economy, your not going to understand the need to protect it. Energy impact everything, from your ability to connect to the internet and type this post, to driving a car, to the price you pay for the food that you put into your mouth!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



So you're justifying wars of aggression as US energy policy.  As in 1991, when we had no other interest in invading Iraq other than an assertion that our access to oil was in danger.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Then if we can deal with North Korea satisfactorily without going to war, then we could have dealt with Iraq satisfactorily without going to war.

You still haven't offered anything of substance that demonstrates the war with Iraq was necessary.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire
> ...




             North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. *So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.*

           Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. *There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953.* That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws. 

*Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!*


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



         On the contrary, I have clearly explained the differences between Iraq and North Korea. It is because of those differences that removal of the leadership in Iraq was a necessity while not being so in the case of North Korea. 

         Being able to deal with some situations peacefully does not mean you will be able to deal with all situations peacefully. 

         I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



         Defending the planets energy supply from seizure and sabotage is NOT a war of aggression. Iraq's invasion an annexation of Kuwait in 1990 cut off one of the worlds largest energy suppliers off from the global market. This helped to cause the 1990/1991 recesssion. *The United States responded and removed Saddam's military from Kuwait because of the damage it had done to the global economy, the threat of more damage, as well as to reverse the illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait, the first time that has happened since ADOLF HITLER did it in the early 1940s!*


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Actually.. for once, carby is correct.. there is no peace treaty, but there was a cease fire.. although NK did later state it did not recognize and did not have a need for the cease fire
> ...



Uh huh .. you were wrong and FLAT OUT LIED IN THIS VERY THREAD

There are potshots across the DMZ... not quite the same as the regime ordering fire against planes, etc... not quite like the regime trying to assassinate an ex president...

And there was a complete list of violations that justified the re-opening of hostilities against Iraq that should have been finished when we were there, ready to move, the first time... Yet you and your ilk repeat WMD over and over and over... there is much more than that.. simply read the resolution

They are not the same situation.. no hiding or preventing weapons inspections, etc... even though I am no fan of NK, there is no reason to invade and overthrow..


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Care to retract, liar??

And the link http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rate-since-world-war-ii-is-4.html#post7369212 so people (or you) can see the snapshot of the real numbers


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You'll get crickets.  Until the next thread when he will repeat the exact same lies as if this conversation never took place.
Libs have trouble learning.  That's why they stay in school so long.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You want me to retract something I didn't say?

Let's look at the proof of the accuracy of what I did say:

The payroll numbers:







The GDP numbers:


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Saddam didn't have WMD's.  Even Bush has admitted that.

There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam in 2003 posed a sufficient threat to the national security of the United States to justify invasion.  The war was not necessary.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Iraq did not have WMD's.  That was all made up.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



The word here is 'necessary', not 'I can make a legal case for it'.  There's a difference.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Why are you posting charts of cherry picked data on GDP to argue about the unemployment rate?

I was right in my last post.  You wont address the issues and will keep repeating the same failed arguments over and over.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Who made it up?

The 10,000 Iraquis that died during a "test" of the WMD's?

Or was it the intelligence agencies of many countries that made it up?

Or was it GWB who not only made it up but somehow got the CIA and the intelligence agencies of other countries to lie for him?

Who was it?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I was just  proving that what I said was true to fat fucks like you who accused me of lying.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It was made up by people like Dick Cheney who said he knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's.

It was made up by people like Colin Powell who went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's, and made up by whoever sent him.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



US: North Korean Ship Attack Violated Armistice, Not Act of Terrorism

Is that enough violation for you to make it comparable to Iraq?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



So your feelings.. got it..

and way to skirt your bogus statistics and lies, yet again...


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



No.. he argued SPECIFIC NUMBERS... which I showed were completely made up and WRONG....


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Really?

So explain the following:

1) How did Cheney and company get foreign intelligence agencies to lie for him?

2) How did Cheney and company get the CIA to lie for him without a whistleblower expoosing it.....for now we see how whistleblowers capitalize on things....?

3) If "fake" pictures were used, why has there not been a criminal investigation seeing as "lies and fake pictures" were used to convince congress to send over 4000 Americans to their death?

LMFAO...admit it NYC.......you were duped by Hillary when she used the old "cherry picked intel" line when asked how she could be so AGAINST a war that she voted for....

6 years later and yet there is still no evidence that fake pictures were used and intel was cherry picked.

Yet fools are still claiming such as fact.

Pathetic.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Again.. you neglect to recognize all the other justifications (not just WMD, that you love to harp on) with Iraq...

The 2 are not even close in comparison...

Look officer... that one kid pushed that other kid... look officer... a second kid stabbed another kid, sprayed him with mace, violated parole, stole his bike, and then stole his mom's purse...
You: they are comparable


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Your specific lie and false information


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yes.. the oft repeated conspiracy theory of the far lefty...

No truth in it.. but ones like you really love to claim it as truth


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Excuse me?  Are you denying that Cheney said for CERTAIN there were WMD's?

Are you denying that Powell went to the UN with pictures that could not possibly have been WMD's...

...because there weren't any?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



They sank a fucking warship you illiterate moron.

They were listed as a state sponsor of terror until 2008.


----------



## Jarhead (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



lol...

You truly are pathetic.


I have had enough with your childish posts.

You dont debate. You cling onto bullshit and spew it all over the board. You never offer concrete responses.....and you avoid posts that debunk your crap.

You are not worth my time anymore.

Cya.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Did not say they did not...

I said the 2 are not the same.. the situations and violations are not the same...

You keep saying they are...


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



1) I contest your 'fake' conclusions.. of which you have no proof, only a conspiracy theory
2) There were indeed WMD found.. though ones like you think it was supposed to be ICBM's and silos filled with stuff made 12 hours prior
3) I contest your incessant lying and misdirection


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

Jarhead said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



There were no WMD's, period.

Therefore,

Cheney had to be lying when he said he knew for certain that the WMD's existed, because it is impossible to know for certain that something exists if it is non-existent.

Likewise, the pictures taken to the UN had to be fake, or had to be misrepresented, because they could not have been WMD's, 

because there were no WMD's.  Period.


----------



## squeeze berry (Jun 14, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...




did Obama run on a jobs platform?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?


----------



## kaz (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?



Be honest, you already know that answer to that question...


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



              Not finding WMDs in 2003 after the invasion completely misses the point and the necessity of removing Saddam from power. 

                WMD's were not found after the United States invaded and removed Saddam in 2003, although intelligence indicated that he did. But that says nothing about the WMD's he did have before that, nor what he would have developed in the future. *Saddam did have programs related to the production of WMD's that were in violation of the Ceacefire agreement from 1991.*

 I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.

            Please, listen carefully to what Democratic President Bill Clinton said about Saddam on December 17, 1998 just after launching military operation Desert Fox against Saddam!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]


*If you ignore and remain ignorant of why the United States went to war in 1991, and why Iraq was slapped with massive sanctions and a weapons embargo after 1991, then you will not be able to understand why invasion and regime removal had become a necessity by 2003. Every option of dealing with Saddam short of invasion and regime removal had been tried and failed. Given the collapse of containment, the only option of dealing with Saddam other than regime removal, regime removal automatically became the only option left to deal with Saddam. Failure to remove Saddam in 2003 would allow Saddam to re-arm his military with conventional and unconventional weapons and would gradually provide him with the means to pose an even greater threat to the region and the world. By acting in 2003, the United States removed Saddam when he was not as strong as he would have been in the future. This meant a less costly invasion in terms of blood and treasure! *


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?
> ...



Yeah I've learned that libs can't read a graph worth a darn.  Critical thinking? Nah. They dont need that either.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



They prove I was telling the truth.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



             No WMD's were found in 2003, but that misses the point. Iraq did have one of the worlds largest stocks of WMD's and used them on a massive scale in its wars with other countries and against its own people. Thats a fact!  


               North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws. 

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No, they actually don't. Sorry.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



               The case for the necessity of removing Saddam is overwhelming and is based on multiple factors from Saddam's 24 year history in power, and the failure to contain Saddam short of invading and removing him. There were only two options for dealing with Saddam, containment and regime removal. Containment failed and collapsed. That left regime removal as the only option, hence the absolute necessity of removing Saddam.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



North Korea sank a South Korean warship in 2010. I guess you want to tell me that wasn't a ceasefire violation either.

And thanks for admitting that Iraq did NOT have WMD's in 2003.  That PROVES that the war wasn't necessary, because without WMD's Iraq represented little or no threat to the security of the US, or to our vital national interests,

and certainly not an imminent threat, 

so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,

than I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraq war was UNNECESSARY, 

and therefore, at least in moral terms, it was a crime against humanity.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



          Did they also create the thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who died horrible deaths in Sarin Gas attacks by Saddam?

         Please, watch the following three minute video and that tell me if you think Dick Cheney fabricated this as well:

         I must warn you, you will see dead victims, including women and children, in this video from Saddam's use of Sarin Gas:

                    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



So you dispute Bush's admission that there were no WMD's?

lol, that's the kneeslapper of the day.  You people really are braindead.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



You just admitted there were no WMD's in 2003.  Your video is irrelevant.  You have lost the argument.  Stop being a fucking asshole for jesus sake.  What is wrong with you idiots that show up here clueless?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You keep posting falsehoods even after they've been shown to be so and you accuse others of being brain dead?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Did you miss the point of his post?  Yes, you did.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



              It was a ceacefire violation, but the Korean War ceacefire does not have any automatic trigger that authorizes the use of military force if the ceacefire is broken. The 1991 Gulf War ceacefire authorizes the use of all means necessary including military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions. 



> And thanks for admitting that Iraq did NOT have WMD's in 2003.  That PROVES that the war wasn't necessary, because without WMD's Iraq represented little or no threat to the security of the US, or to our vital national interests,



                   I meant that WMD's were not found in 2003. That does not necessarily mean that Iraq did not have any. In addition, whether or not Saddam needed to be removed was not dependent on his WMD stock pile or lack of one during the month of March 2003. It was dependent on the ability to keep Saddam contained, because without containment, the only way to deal with Saddam was through regime removal. As I explained in detail before, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo against Saddam had by 2003 collapsed. This meant that Saddam could begin re-arming on a massive scale thanks to the ability to acquire weapons and materials from abroad plus the ability to sell Billions of dollars of oil to pay for such weapons as well as a build up of his military strength. 

*As long as Saddam had the ability to threaten Kuwait, Saddam was threatening Vital US national interest. Kuwaits oil supply and reserves are vital to the US economy and global economy, not just in terms of supply, but more importantly in terms of the global market price for oil. *



> and certainly not an imminent threat,
> 
> so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,
> 
> ...



*Do you realize that just claiming that someone is not a threat does not make it so?*

           Unlike you, I have provided mounds of evidence as to why Saddam was a threat to vital US national interest and why he had to be removed from power. 

            You keep saying it was unnecessary and that Saddam was no threat, but you don't provide any evidence at all except that no WMD's were found in Iraq in over the specific time period of Spring 2003. You have nothing at all to say about Saddam's past behavior, the collapse of the containment regime and the fact that with containment gone as an option, the only option left was regime change. You cling to the idea that just because WMD's were not found during a few months during 2003, that everything is fine and dandy and that there is nothing to worry about. 

              The fact that Saddam did not use WMD's against coalition forces in 2003 because he did not actually have them at that specific time or chose to hide what he had is a blessing. It means the United States invaded at the right time. It is foolish to believe that it would be better to wait until Saddam had amassed mass stocks of WMD before invading. Doing so would have caused much higher casualites and loss of life among US troops, and the Civilian casualites would have been staggering.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



                I said that there were no WMD's found in 2003. That does not mean there were none and it also misses the point. 

               Did you even look at the Video? Do you believe this video was created by Dick Cheney?

               Here it is again. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Feel free to prove that anything I've said here is false.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Wait a minute.  Now you want to argue that the Iraq War was _*necessary*_ because we needed to take out Saddam BEFORE he amassed WMD's?

lol, doesn't that make the argument that invading North Korea was/is *necessary*  BEFORE North Korea gets nukes?

You think it was wrong to wait until, if ever, Saddam got, for example, nuclear WMD's, 

but, you think it's perfectly fine to wait until North Korea gets nukes, which they probably already have.

That's funny.

Want to talk about Iran now?  And their nuclear program, and why invading Iran should be considered *necessary* by someone like you???


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 14, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I said the following:

The monthly jobs numbers have turned around a net 900,000 jobs per months since Obama became president.

No president since WWII has a better record than that.

GDP has turned around by a net +8 percentage points since Obama became president. No president since WWII has a better record than that. 


The first chart show payroll numbers going from losing over 700,000 a month at the end of Bush's term to gaining 200,000 a month in Obama's presidency.

That is a net positive turnaround of 900,000 jobs a month.

The second chart shows GDP at -6% at the end of Bush's term, and rising to well over 2% in Obama's term.

That is a net positive turnaround of at least 8 percentage points.

So fuck off.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Here is a little lesson for you to explain what makes Iraq different from the other cases. I've mentioned these all before, but since you don't remember, don't comprehend or didn't read it to begin with, here they are:

1. Saddam's Iraq invaded and attack four different countries while Saddam was in power!
*North Korea by contrast has not invaded another country since 1950, plus it was done just after Korea was divided between North and South.*

2. Saddam annexed Kuwait, the first leader to annex another country *since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s!* 
*North Korea has never annexed another country!*

3. Saddam fired Ballistic Missiles at multiple different countries.
*North Korea has never fired Ballistic Missiles at any country!*

4. Saddam has used WMD more times than any leader since World War I on foreign countries and his own people.
*North Korea has WMD, but has never used it!*

5. Saddam's Iraq sits in close proximity to much of the worlds vital energy supply. The seizure and sabotage of such energy supply could cause a devastating economic Depression. 
*North Korea is hundreds if not thousands of miles from any major energy resources.*

6. Saddam's Iraq was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of force to bring about compliance.
*North Korea is not in violation of any UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.*

7. Saddam's Iraq has violated multiple times and in multiple way the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement for the Gulf War. This Ceasefire agreement authorized UN members to use military force if Saddam violated the agreement. The Ceasefire agreement required Iraq to abandon its WMD programs, both weapons and the ability to produce such weapons, as well as paying reperations to Kuwait for the demage they did to the country. Saddam's Iraq failed to do either. 
*While North Korea has violated the Korean War ceasefire, there is no authorization for military force from UN members to bring about compliance with the ceasefire or to rectify any violations. In addition, North Korea is not required under the cease fire to not have any particular types of weapons.*

8. Saddam's Iraq has had all kinds of different types of WMD and has used them multiple times killing thousands of people. *North Korea, has WMD, but has never used them. France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Israel, Syria, and many other countries around the world also have WMD. Simply having WMD is not the reason for taking military action against another country. Its the having WMD, using it, especially in ways that grossly violate human rights, which make it a serious threat to the international community requiring military action. Again, the key here is Saddam's behavior plus WMD weapons or past WMD capability as well as the means to produce it again which make military action a necessity. *

9. Saddam's Iraq was under a large sanctions and weapons embargo in order to contain him. This sanctions and weapons embargo began to collapse allow Saddam to sell oil in the black market and obtain weapons and materials for WMD freely. 
*North Korea has never been under such a sanctions and weapons embargo and receives large scale aid from China and Russia in addition to buying weapons. They often receive food aid from the United States, South Korea and Japan.*

10. Saddam's Iraq was ordered to disband all of its WMD programs in 1991 by the UN. It was also ordered to destroy all stocks of WMD, Chemical, Biological. It was under no circumstances allowed to develop Nuclear related energy or actual weapons. *North Koreas was never placed under such restrictions and its possession of chemical and biological weapons is not in violation of any UN security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, just as the United Kingdom and France are not violation of any UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. of the UN. *


11. It is _Saddam's passed behavior plus possession of WMD or WMD related programs or the potential for build WMD which make make regime removal NECESSARY unlike with North Korea or Iran!_ *North Korea has actually had nuclear weapons since 1994 and has had chemical and biological weapons since the 1970s. Its only in recent years that they have exploded nuclear devices for test purposes.*

12. Finally war with North Korea would likely mean war with China with all the costly consequences that would entail. In addition Seoul South Korea has a population of 10 million people within artillery range of the DMZ. Millions of people would become casualties within the first few months of any conflict.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 15, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



None of that makes the case that war was necessary.  You can repeat bullshit as many times as you like but it's still bullshit.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 16, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



             It explains why Saddam's Iraq is a far different situation than North Korea. Apparently, you didn't read it. 

           Because of Iraq's brutal invasion, occupation and annexation of Kuwait in 1990, the United States and other countries, then UN, passed a number of resolutions against Iraq sanctioning them and ordering them to get out, and threatening military action if they failed to comply. Iraq failed to comply and the 1991 Gulf War started. Iraq's forces were defeated and pushed out. Saddam's actions and potention future actions were a grave threat to the global economy given that much of the worlds energy supplies is in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia and the sudden loss of that supplies would cause a world collapsing Economic Depression. A ceasefire was signed in which Iraq agreed to multiple conditions. In lieu of actually removing Saddam in 1991, the coalition put a large scale sanctions and weapons embargo in place to contain him and also launched limited military strikes year after year, and place a no fly zone in the north and a no fly zone in the south of Iraq. This was the containment strategy and was done in the hopes that it could succeed as the only alternative to it was invading Iraq and removing Saddam. But after 12 years, the strategy had failed, and the key components of containment, the sanctions and the weapons embargo had fallen apart. Saddam was not able to sell billions of dollars worth of oil on the black market and could begin rebuilding the huge military force that he once had at the end of the 1980s. With containment option gone, the only option to deal with Saddam was invasion and regime removal. Waiting to do that would only allow Saddam to grow stronger and would mean a far more costly invasion. So the decision to invade and remove Saddam was made in early 2003 as it remained the only effective way to deal with Saddam, plus doing in now rather than later would save lives and cost less money. *That briefly explains why removing Saddam had become a necessity. My last post explained why North Korea is a completely different situation from Iraq!*


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 21, 2013)

The monthly unemployment rate for June was 7.6%. This is Obama's 54 month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from 8.86% to 8.83%.

        Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.83%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.83%*


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 13, 2013)

The monthly unemployment rate for July was 7.4%. This is Obama's 55th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from 8.83% to 8.80%.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.80%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.80%*


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 13, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July was 7.4%. This is Obama's 55th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from 8.83% to 8.80%.
> 
> Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



Totally understandable. He don't want folks to work. He just wants the 1% to pay for his votes

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW (Aug 13, 2013)

A) Obama was the only president since WW II presented with the country in free fall DEPRESSION, and total obstruction from the opposition. Total BS, like the new BS GOP.
B) Raygun, Rummie, and Darth got in bed with Saddam in the 80's- and Osama in Afghan - how did that all work out? One big chickenhawk idiot disaster. Ronnie gave him chemicals and didn't mind him using them.
C) Anyone supporting the GOP now are greedy assholes or racists or fools or likely all the above lol...


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> A) Obama was the only president since WW II presented with the country in free fall DEPRESSION, and total obstruction from the opposition. Total BS, like the new BS GOP.
> B) Raygun, Rummie, and Darth got in bed with Saddam in the 80's- and Osama in Afghan - how did that all work out? One big chickenhawk idiot disaster. Ronnie gave him chemicals and didn't mind him using them.
> C) Anyone supporting the GOP now are greedy assholes or racists or fools or likely all the above lol...








Sheer and utter bullshit.  Just like you.  Obama had a two YEAR period at the beginning of his reign where he had BOTH HOUSES of CONGRESS you asshat.


----------



## Duped (Aug 13, 2013)

Obama doesn't give a shit; his ideology is the only thing he cares about.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Duped said:


> Obama doesn't give a shit; his ideology is the only thing he cares about.







I used to think that.  Now I think he just wants to get paid.


----------



## francoHFW (Aug 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > A) Obama was the only president since WW II presented with the country in free fall DEPRESSION, and total obstruction from the opposition. Total BS, like the new BS GOP.
> ...



Is that right, brainwashed functional moron/ tool of the greedy a-hole idiot rich? Well, ACTUALLY, on planet earth Obama had from 7/7/2009 till 2/4/2010, and if you subtract the days Kennedy was on his death bed and days out of session, he had 13 DAYS. 

Do you enjoy having your hypocrite party making a fool/a-hole out of YOU everyday. Everything you know is wrong- change the channel, hater dupe. Hoping for your recovery.


----------



## birddog (Aug 14, 2013)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



The amount of national debt is paramount, so the answer is "whoever is elected in 2016."

Obamacare puts the icing on the cake, so to speak.

The unemployment numbers are actually much worse when you consider underemployed, part-timers, and those no longer looking for work.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 23, 2013)

The monthly unemployment rate for November was 7.0%. This is Obama's 59th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.80% in July at 55 months to the average 8.70% in November at 59 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.70%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.70%*


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 23, 2013)

President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his

Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> 
> Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president



Cant spin failure, Nutsucker.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 23, 2013)

When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8.  The latest number was 7.0.  After five years of unprecedented quantitative easing by the Fed and massive amounts of money spent on stimulus a reduction of the unemployment number of .8% is hardly something to be proud of...especially if you factor in all of the people who have simply given up and taken themselves out of the labor figures or the ones that became so desperate that they took part time work and hence weren't counted.  Then there are the people who are getting full time hours cut back to part time so their employers can keep the number of employees under the ACA cutoff.  Three part timers doing the work of two full time employees doesn't REALLY equate to job growth...except in our oh so questionable unemployment formulas.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> 
> Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president



That only takes into account the single montly high, and the single monthly low. This is about the *AVERAGE PER MONTH*. Essentially, on average, what were the Bush years like, what were the Obama years like. You need to look at all the months they were in office in order to see that. The momentary one month high and one month low are just two months out of the 96 months Bush was in office and the 59 months that Obama has been in office. 

         Also, the economy has to create 200,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So a net increase of 1 million jobs is nothing to sing about.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 23, 2013)

The sad truth is...there is almost ALWAYS a "bounce back" from an economic recession but the policies of this Administration took the air out of that bounce.  Passing the ACA might have been a great strategy for liberals to take advantage of their Super Majorities to get us headed down the path to government controlled health care but it was terrible strategy for creating jobs and helping the economy recover.


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 23, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> ...



And of course they never account for the numbers leaving off MANY MANY who have just been 'looking too long' etc...

The labor force participation rate tells a much better story....


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 23, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8.  The latest number was 7.0.  After five years of unprecedented quantitative easing by the Fed and massive amounts of money spent on stimulus a reduction of the unemployment number of .8% is hardly something to be proud of...especially if you factor in all of the people who have simply given up and taken themselves out of the labor figures or the ones that became so desperate that they took part time work and hence weren't counted.  Then there are the people who are getting full time hours cut back to part time so their employers can keep the number of employees under the ACA cutoff.  Three part timers doing the work of two full time employees doesn't REALLY equate to job growth...except in our oh so questionable unemployment formulas.



Just to add, when Obama took office, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%. Its now down to 62.8%. 

              If the labor force participation rate were still at 65.7% like it was in January 2009, the current unemployment rate *would not be 7%, it would be 10.9%, worse than it was in October 2009 when it peaked at 10%.!*

              All of Obama's improvements in the unemployment rate have been because the labor force participation rate has shrunk several percentage points for the first time in history!

           Millions of people have been forced into early retirement or have yet to even have a job if their young, 16-24.

            The real story that needs to be told is how all these people are fighting to survive since Obama has been in office.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> ...



Stopping the Bush Depression is not failure


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 23, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> ...



What does average have to do with anything?

Bush was given a thriving economy and 4% unemployment....he left a near depression and over 8% unemployment

Losing 770000 jobs a month is not something to brag about


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually.. the economy was not thriving... the false boom/bubble was bursting

Yet Bush II took responsibility.. Not that I praise him for a whole lot else, but it was not a BUT CLINTON excuse every time he turned around...


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 23, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



I'm curious... with statements like these do you think they helped or hurt unemployment???

1)Obama wants higher gas prices... "_I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly_"   LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
2)"_Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket_." Obama: I?ll make energy prices ?skyrocket? « Hot Air
3)_"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program" _Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

So IF a president WANTS higher gas prices, doesn't that mean the cost of living goes up?  And if it goes up consumers buy less. Meaning businesses have to let people go!
If a president says electricity rates would skyrocket... doesn't that mean cost of living goes up and consumers have less to buy and businesses have less business..letting people go???
If a president WANTS  a single payer what happens the 1,300 other payers that pay taxes and employ 400,000 people if they go out of business they will let people go?

These are just 3 statements made by Obama who obviously doesn't see the connections between businesses that are successful HIRE instead of FIRE people!

But you don't really care do you?  It is so blatantly obvious that your boy was so out of his element administering the worlds largest economy having NO business experiences as 
Obama worked almost only for non-profits that paid his salaries out of philanthropy that was generating by EVIL capitalists' profits (See W. Annenberg!)
Annenberg Foundation that paid him in Chicago. Annenberg (March 13, 1908  October 1, 2002) was an American publisher, philanthropist, and diplomat most of his wealth coming from TV Guide!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I heard the stimulus prevented a nuclear holocaust.  Right?
Yeah the truth is Obama's economic policy has been a total failure.  had he played golf for 5 years and never entered the Oval Office the economy would be growing at over3.5% with UE undr 6.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



     Because the average accounts for *EVERY MONTH THE PRESIDENT was in office, in this case 96 months!* Your figure only looks at TWO MONTHS. Mine looks at all 96 months. 

             Is it more accurate to rate a President on two months of work rather than 96? I think not. 

       Yes, the unemployment rate was low when Bush entered office. But it went up, there was a recession. The unemployment rate went all the way to 6.3% in 2003. Bush brought it back down to 4.4% by 2006. It was still at 4.9% in February 2008, only a few months before Bush left office. 

        But you see, you miss all that when you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. Guess what, there are 94 other months that have to be looked in order to accurately rate the President. 

         Students grades are not based on the first week of the semester and the last week of the semester. Employees job performance is not based on the first week of work and the last week of work. Everything in between counts!


----------



## Freewill (Dec 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yes, and the dot.com crash, Y2K wind down, a recession and the makings for 9/11


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Hey dumb fuck, the crash was in 2008, under George W. Bush. A result of the GOP way of removing regulations from banking, and hobbling the SEC. Next you will be posting that FDR was responsible for the unemployment after 1929.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Actually FDR was responsible for unemployment after 1929. 
What regulations were removed from banking under Bush?  Yeah the argument always falls apart at that point.


----------



## racewright (Dec 25, 2013)

For OLD ROCKS in the head

Oh my god after the GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY MAN bullshit was found to be a hoax with the world nations just trying to steal hundreds of millions you still have extremely idiotic views supported by the non achievers that think other peoples monies is there's to spend.

How can you post go back to school and get a refund and start over...God knows you need to be reeducated.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



*Hey MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!*

                  The Crash in 2008 was the result of deregulation that started long before Bush came into office, but at the same time was not reigned in while Bush was in office. 

                   It was President Bill Clinton, who signed the Glass Steagal act which was the single largest deregulatory event that could be claimed  to have impacted the 2008 crash. 

               Assigning responsibility for the economic stats during any administration is a debatable and complex task. *What is NOT debatable though is that these were the conditions that the average man on the street had to deal with while a certain President was in the White House!*


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



And GW explicitly encouraged the Housing Bubble, ignored the Southern Border and eliminated the requirement to seek a US citizen for employment.
And GW STILL thinks the Housing Bubble IS A SUCCESS.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



When the economy is growing, foreign workers and emigration to the United States is good for the United States. Its why the United States will never have the same degree of demographic and economic problems of *OLD EUROPE!* Its also why the United States will be able to compete with countries like India and China in the future. 

        Did GW formally help pass any laws, legislation that created the Housing Bubble? If yes, please post the name and date of signing!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

Which president was GIVEN the worst unemployment rate since WWII?


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



When the RATIONALE proposed before Congress is that Americans have NO SKILLS, your explanation doesn't hold water.


----------



## rdean (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Funny, that's the same president handed the worst economy since WWII.  Odd how that works.


----------



## rdean (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Which president was GIVEN the worst unemployment rate since WWII?



By the last day of Bush's last budget, unemployment was over 10%.

And it wasn't just jobs.  Republicans fucked up the economy, the country, foreign policy, two other countries, the world economy, the justice department.  And you saw the highest jump in health care costs ever and the most bankruptcies.  Bush was like Midas.  Only everything Bush touched turned to shit.

Then you have the Republicans, even before Obama was sworn in, trying to destroy his presidency, BY ANY MEANS.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It's like playing poker and bragging that for most of the game you were way ahead........but neglecting to tell people you were busted when you left the table.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


A president by himself is pretty much restrained by the checks and balances of the Constitution.  No president can solve all the problems by HIMSELF.  Bear in mind that President Obama has had to work with the worst Congress in the history of the United States.  Thanks to the party of "NO," the Congress can take equal responsibility for the poor jobs number.  Remember this:  "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  But, hay, don't let the truth get in the way of your bitching and bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 25, 2013)

rdean said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Which president was GIVEN the worst unemployment rate since WWII?
> ...



Bush's last budget was no longer in force the day they passed the "stimulus," so that's a non sequitur.



rdean said:


> And it wasn't just jobs.  Republicans fucked up the economy, the country, foreign policy, two other countries, the world economy, the justice department.  And you saw the highest jump in health care costs ever and the most bankruptcies.  Bush was like Midas.  Only everything Bush touched turned to shit.



Everything you spout is horseshit.  How much have healthcare costs increased just this year, 50%, 90%?



rdean said:


> Then you have the Republicans, even before Obama was sworn in, trying to destroy his presidency, BY ANY MEANS.



That's standard operating procedure for liberals.  Pay-back is a bitch, ain't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The economy is not a game, nimrod.  If  you have 4% unemployment the last month, and 15% unemployment every other month, you haven't won the "game."  That means you had long 8 years of untold misery and suffering.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



If you were given 15% unemployment and leave with 4% unemployment, you have won the "game"


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not if you had 15% unemployment for most of 8 years.  That's a despicable record.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.



The main problem with your theory is that Obama asked for the job.  He said his "stimulus" bill would keep unemployment under 8%. Every time any kind of good economic news comes out, turds like you give Obama the credit.  Whenever bad economic news comes out, you claim he's not responsible, and you usually blame Bush.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > In my view, this issue really shines a light on the hypocrisy of the right. The economy isn't the responsibility of the President. He shouldn't get the blame for a sluggish economy nor the credit for an expanding one. Because he shouldn't be formulating policy to manipulate the economy in the first place.
> ...



Find a post where I've given Obama (or Bush for that matter) credit for the economy, good or bad. Otherwise can the bogus accusations. The government shouldn't be interfering in economic matters. Period.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.


That's probably because you have never read or tried to understand the Constitution.  Here is the Preamble of the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do you suppose that phrase "... promote the general Welfare .... " means?  Wouldn't helping people obtain jobs be promoting the general welfare?


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.
> ...



Yeah, good ole "promote the general welfare", the go to loophole for power mongers since the Constitution was signed..


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



That's odd, cuz Obama passed a trillion dollar stimulus and claimed republicans were holding the country hostage by not allowing him to pass another.... This all was based on Obama's claim that  he in fact could and would influence the UE number. Maybe you should have told Obama that the stimulus wouldn't work seeing as it didn't and you believe Obama couldn't make people work... 

Thanks for supporting Obama waste a trillion dollars only to turn on him later. Should have listened to all of us.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Actually, your statement just shows your ignorance.  When gwb took office his poll numbers were average for an incoming president.  After 9/11 his poll numbers jumped up into the 90% to 95% range.  There were no attempts to sandbag bush or make his presidency fail.  His poll numbers came down a bit after Afghanistan but they were still well above average and the Democrats in Congress were not trying to force him from office.  In fact, had any Democrat made the statement that they "wanted bush to fail" they would have immediately been attacked by the republicans (and Democrats) for being unpatriotic and un-American.
bush's number dropped a bit more when he took us into Iraq but they were still well above average.  His numbers finally started to drop when no WMD were found and knowledge of his lies started coming out.  His handling of Katrina was the final nail in his coffin.  
Still, during his entire presidency I do not recall Democrats taking the position they would not work with him.  Yes, there were occasional filibusters but the number of filibusters during the bush years is well below the records set during Obama's first term.  For the most part, Democrats were willing to compromise and work with bush.
In other words, your gloating merely shows your ignorance. 
One final thought, the republican party has opened the door for war.  If the republicans ever regain the presidency you can expect the Democrats to do exactly what the republicans are doing now.  The majority of Democrats will put enormous pressure on their Congressmen NOT to work with the new president and to do everything in their power to obstruct everything he tries to do.  THEN THE PHRASE "PAY-BACK IS A BITCH" WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN ON THE REPUBLICANS AND THERE WILL BE CRYING AND GNASHING OF TEETH.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> 
> Obama has had a net employment increase of 1 million jobs a month since he became president



That's weird, cuz in a few seconds I can prove less people are working today than in say, 2009... Wana go down that road that proves you willfully ignorant? And remember, cuz I know you're a bit stupid, you claimed UE is down 2%.... But then how is it possible less people are working .... HHHmmmMMmmmm.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You have refused to answer my questions and have tried, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the phrase "promote the general welfare."
"Promote the general welfare" means EXACTLY what it says. It means the government is tasked with trying to make the lives of its citizens better. Wouldn't having jobs make their lives better? Wouldn't having jobs improve the economy for this country and isn't that a good thing, for EVERYONE!!!! Ignore it if you wish to continue to look ignorant but the founding fathers recognized that one of the functions of the government was to improve the lives of its citizens and not to turn their back on them in time of need. Perhaps it was the founder of the republican party who said it best. Wasn't it Lincoln who said that government should be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." What do you think "for the people means?"
Unfortunately "promote the general welfare" is just one part of the Constitution that conservative choose to ignore.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> ...



The main reason the unemployment rate has gone down is the millions that have left the workforce.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


Exactly right. It wasn't easy to have the GOP fighting the administration from the night he was inaugurated.
While the inaugural balls were happening, the GOP was meeting in DC to plot his defeat at every turn.

Rep. Pete Sessions: Taliban is 'a model' for how GOP can become an 'insurgency.' | ThinkProgress

In an interview with Hotline, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said the Republican party will have to be come an &#8220;insurgency&#8221; to counter Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and added that the Taliban can serve as &#8220;a model&#8221;:

&#8220;Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,&#8221; Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. &#8220;And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person&#8217;s entire processes. And these Taliban &#8212; I&#8217;m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that&#8217;s not what we&#8217;re saying. I&#8217;m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.&#8221; [...]
<more>


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama has cut his unemployment rate by 2% while Bush doubled his
> ...



Math has never been a strong suit for Conservatives

If you go from an economy that was losing 770,000 jobs a month to one that is gaining 230,000 jobs a month, you have a net increase of one million jobs per month


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something. Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


"The economy is not a game...."
What a strange statement coming from a member of the party of "NO."  Are you saying shuting down the government wasn't a game?  Are you saying a record number of filibusters wasn't a game?  Are you saying refusing to pass a jobs bill wasn't a game?  Are you saying refusing to compromise on ANYTHING wasn't a game?  I'm sorry but the republican party has been playing games with America and the economy for the last 5 years even if you are to ignorant to notice.  THERE IS A REASON THE CURRENT CONGRESS HAS THE LOWEST RATING IN HISTORY. EVEN FORMER REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERS HAVE CONDEMNED ITS CURRENT LEADERS FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Using the powers itemized by the constitution were to promote the general welfare.  That did not mean that the federal government has the unlimited power to do anything it sees fit in the name of promoting the general welfare.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Correct, and no where in the constitution does it allow the federal Government to create things like Obamacare, MC/MC/SS or food stamps. And now we suffer massive deficits, increased people living in poverty and a division in this country literally divided by those that pay taxes and those that collect "welfare."


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



So let us know when to tune in and see you protesting on Capitol Hill.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.
> ...



Dunce.
If that were the case then the federal gov't would have unlimited power to "promote the general welfare."  They could mandate eating eggplant every day if they wanted.  That would eviscerate the idea of limited gov't.  If what you wrote was true why does the Constitution lay out what powers Congress has?  t would be unnecessary.  It could just have said Congress has the power to promote the general welfare and left it at that.  But it didnt.
The Preamble is not the functioning legal part of the document.  It is a statement of intent.
Geez no wonder Obama got elected twice with nudniks like this running around.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


"incorrect. To promote something does not mean give something."
*pro·mote*
verb (used with object), pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing. 
*1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.*

*(It seems to me that this is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE SPEAKING OF WHEN THEY USED THE WORD: PROMOTE.*
*Wouldn't helping people find jobs be helping them to "flourish" or "exist?")

*2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote.

3. Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes. 

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings). 

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity. 

Also "welfare" means something different today than it did when the constitution was written... 

*wel·fare*

noun 
*1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.* 
*(Here again, doesn't the definition above seem like something the FF's would want for the citizens of this country. Or do you believe the FF's wanted poverty, poor health, and a life misery for its citizens?)*
2.welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare. 

4. ( initial capital letter ) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.
Not to mention the FF's simply don't agree with your dictatorial definition of their laws meant to restrain Government. 
How do you know this. Were you privy to what the FF's were thinking? No! All we have is the document they forged which is their expression of the duties and responsibilities for the government. A person, you for example, cannot just dismiss their words and say they really meant something else unless you can provide valid definitions. You should be wise enough to know this. 
What you are trying to do is to avoid acknowledging that when the government takes steps to help the people they are acting ACCORDING to the Constitution and the wishes of the founding fathers just as the FF's specified. Go and find the definitions of promote and welfare that existed in 1779 to make your case. Those words have been in existance a long time and I doubt that the definitions have changed a great deal down through the years.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



I protest in that I don't vote Republican or Democrat.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Incorrect again. Read the federalist papers and you will quickly realize that your odd interpretation is in fact the opposite of what they wanted. In fact they discuss that under your interpretation there would be no need for the constitution as you could do anything.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Hehe... yeah, this shit again.

But hey, maybe you're right. Maybe the founders _really _meant the general welfare clause of the taxation power to be a general grant of power that undermined the entire concept of limited government. Based on my reading, I doubt they were that stupid - but it IS possible. If that's what you're insisting, however, then I'll say flat out that I have no intention of abiding by such idiocy, original intent or not.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Alas, some of our fellow voters actually see it that way - just ask the eggplant lobby! For them, government is just another way to get one over on your neighbor.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Typical!!!  What you are trying to do is to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to accept.  The Preamble is a valid part of the Constitution which sets out the reason for the government to exist!  You cannot dismiss it because you disagree with a part of it.  It is just like saying I am a Christian but I only believe 7 of the 10 commandments.
AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE."  All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal.  And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant.  (I love it by the way:  Dipped in a beaten egg wash and coated with a combination of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese and then baked in the oven it is delicious.)
The Preamble is a statement of the purpose of the Constitution and the general duties of the government.  The rest of the Constitution goes into detail in explaining how those duties are to be handled. 
Now obviously the FF's could not go into detail on promoting the general welfare.  They could not say establish an EPA, an FAA, a Interstate Highway System, etc.  They could not see into the future.  By not going into detail the Preamble can be flexible on such things as what promotes the general welfare.  Nixon promoted the general welfare by establishing the EPA.  Eisenhower did it by the freeway system.  And on, and on, and on.  Each president can to promote the general welfare according to the challenges of the time and it would have been impossible for the FF's to look into the future and forsee what needed to be done.
Now, I have not called you any names or insulted you in any way.  If you wish me to drag this debate down into the shit just continue as you are doing.  I assure you I can be as gross and insulting as anyone on this board.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I credit the dotcom boom for Clinton's 5.2% average low unemployment rate as well as a responsible Congress that almost balanced the budget.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


So if one party controls the strings of government then they have unlimited power to achieve "the general welfare"??
Really?  You must have failed any civics course you ever took.  Oh, wait.  They dont teach that in schools anymore.  No wonder.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE."  All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal.  And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant....



I appreciate your candor about the implications of your views, if nothing else.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


So let me get this straight..

If We the People elect one party to majorities in the House, Senate and White House, and what they do passes Constitutional muster

They don't get to provide for the general welfare?


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > AND YES, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED POWER TO "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE."  All you need is one party, Democrat or republican, to control the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal.  And yes, they could order people to eat eggplant....
> ...



As a matter af practicality, Ron is right.  However, I don't beleive that's how the founders intended it to be.

Obamacare is the law, upheld by the Supreme Court.  Those in power have the ability to spit in the face of our founding fathers that wrote the constitution.  This includes the republicans when they are in power also.


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



You're talking in circles. The bolded portion is what's in question. Some people think the general welfare clause is a wildcard, an "anything goes" power that lets government dictate everything we do, as long as, you know, it's "for your own good".


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


Oh, but it does!  Under the right conditions the government can do ANYTHING it wants to.  All you need is one party to control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and it is a done deal.  Under those conditions the government can make any law or rule it wishes.  For example, if they wished to strictly adhere to the Constitution they could close the Interstate System, the FAA, the FDA, the National Park System, the FCC, the Dept of Education, NASA, NORAD, INS, and on and on and on.  Not one of those programs or departments is listed in the Constitution.  Not one!!!!!  The government could take this country back to September 17, 1787 if they so wished.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Article 1, Section 1 provides Congress the authority to pass laws.

Congress does what needs doing (unless you are talking about this congress)


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


With total control of the government, exactly WHO is going to stop them from making any law they wish?
(Unfortunately here in America we have an idiot who is still a birther.)


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



And you wonder why people are opposed to your views? Do you realize how utterly fascist they are?


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I believe Congress can only pass laws under certain conditions. 
When Congress passes a bill it is sent to the president to be signed into law.  If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the only way it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Fallacy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



OK, so your argument is might makes right.
You're dismissed, comrade.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Your knowledge of the consitutional process is a piece with everything else.
Article I Section 7


> Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Exactly..

Checks and balances protect the general welfare of we the people


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


Bob, I agree with you.  I do not think the founder's could envision a close minded House of Representatives like we have today.  If they had been able to see such a thing I am sure they would have worked to ensure some check/balance to protect the nation.
If you have read how the Constitution was written then you would be aware that it involved compromise.  In fact, the whole Constitution was basically a collection of compromises.  I do not think they could for see a party that would be so desperate for power they would completely abandon compromise.  I have no doubt they would be shocked and disgusted by the republican party of today.  Gosh, wouldn't you love to see Jefferson or Franklin discussing the fate of the union with Rand Paul.  I'd pay BIG BUCKS to see that!!!!!!!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Some people still struggle with our Constitution


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


They can choose to provide OR NOT to provide as they see fit.  The "general welfare" is not defined in the Constitution.  Even today, sadly, not everyone sees general welfare the same.  The Democrats believe that you are promoting the general welfare when you are feeding people who cannot feed themselves.  The republicans believe otherwise.  In fact, the republicans pretty much tend to ignore the phrase "promote the general welfare."  To them it is socialism.  Better the people starve in the streets to avoid being socialists


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Yes, and everyone knows it was W that drove the economy to the edge of disaster.  He walked away and propped his feet up on his front porch rails...


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are certainly among those. I appreciate your admission of gross ignorance.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Everyone with a maximum of two brain cells. That would include you.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You used Cut & Paste to repeat what RightWinger summarized already.

Go ahead, insult for pointing out what you just did.
And have some Geritol.


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...


No.  And as a matter of fact, people are not opposed to my views.  Now, I am merely pointing out what could occur under the right conditions.  I am not advocating for it to happen.  
What I want to see is an intelligent, fully functioning Democratic Party and an intelligent fully functioning republican Party working for a better America.  In the past when a problem arose the Democrats would sit down and write a bill to solve the problem.  The republicans would also sit down a write a bill to solve the problem.  After neither bill passed both parties would sit down and hammer out a third bill which was a compromise of the first two bills.  The Democrats would give up some of the things they wanted.  The republicans would give up some of the things they wanted and the final bill would be a better bill than either the Democrats or republicans proposed.That is what you once had in this country.  COMPROMISE.  A willingness to work for the common good of this nation.  We do not have this today thanks to the tea party and the ultra right gaining control of the republican party.  If any republican politician dares to use the word COMPROMISE the tea party and the ultra right immediately try to rip out his throat and "primary" them.  Consider Texas senator John Cornyn (R).  According to a group that tracks such things he votes the conservative party line 98% of the time.  However, recently he committed the ultimate sin of agreeing with a compromise position.  IMMEDIATELY, the tea party and the ultra right grabbed a candidate even farther right than Cornyn to run against Cornyn in the primary.  What we are speaking to here is a party gone MAD!!!!  What we are speaking to here is a party destroying itself.  What we are speaking to here is a party that puts itself over country.  Being against that is not fascist.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Zmas night and maybe you ate a heavy meal.
Read the paragraph I quoted again.  Then read what Nutsucker wrote.  Then tell me precisely why I quoted this and what was wrong with what he wrote.
Go!


----------



## dblack (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Heh...well, I'm here to tell you otherwise. I know of several personally.



> ...  Now, I am merely pointing out what could occur under the right conditions.  I am not advocating for it to happen.
> What I want to see is an intelligent, fully functioning Democratic Party and an intelligent fully functioning republican Party working for a better America.  In the past when a problem arose the Democrats would sit down and write a bill to solve the problem.  The republicans would also sit down a write a bill to solve the problem.



Intelligent would be awesome. I'd like to see both parties muster enough intelligence to recognize that not every problem we face as a society is a government problem, and that most of them, in fact, are actually better dealt with through voluntary cooperation rather than coercive state mandates.



> We do not have this today thanks to the tea party and the ultra right gaining control of the republican party.



There's much about the current incarnation of the Tea Party I take issue with. But their stubbornness on matters of what DC calls "compromise" isn't one of them. We have to say "no" to the crony capitalism that is the status quo in DC. The Tea Party is one of the few political groups taking a stand on matters of principle, however clumsy and imperfect it might be.



> What we are speaking to here is a party that puts itself over country.  Being against that is not fascist.


Opposing the Tea Party isn't what I see as fascist about your views. What I see as fascist is the primacy of the nation-state as the be-all, end-all of our society. I refuse to grant government unlimited power over our lives. It should have narrowly scoped purpose and limited means, and it should answer to the people, not the other way around.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I read it three times and you should read what RightWinger wrote even ONCE.
He presented what happens in REALITY and you tried, as usual, to nuance him into the "You're wrong!" corner using a Copy & Paste.
Yes, he skipped ONE TINY step that he posted from his BRAIN, to HIS credit, and you ran for Wikipedia because the administrative process involves active thought.

The bottom line is...
What RW said is correct.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So I suppose you would like to be judged only by your first day on the job and the last day, right? To hell with the 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in between those days, right?


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


OK, I tried, really.
For starters it was Ron, not Nutsucker.
Second, what he wrote was: 





> If the president chooses NOT to sign the bill the* only way *it can become law is if the Congress over rides the veto.


Note the words in bold: The only way.
Now see where I quoted from the Constitution:


> If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,


Because you'e proven yourself a complete moron, and I mean a total incompetent clown, I'll spell out that there are two ways, not one way, that a bill becomes law.
1) The president signs it.
2) The president does not send it back to Congress and takes no action.
SO there are two ways, not one way.  "The only way" indicates one way.  Which is wrong.
So you've committed three errors here:
1) You attributed the statement to Nutsucker, not Ron
2) You failed to heed my advice and read over the post carefully
3) You failed to understand the difference between "the only way" and the two actual ways the Constitution lays out.

This is why I know you have low normal intelligence.  You cannot read and understand a simple paragraph or the simple meaning of words.  They all mean pretty much the same thing to you.  No attention to detail.  This is why your screen name is misspelled.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



         But you see, its the average person on the street that is actually in the game. In the 8 years it takes to get to 4%, he may have lost his house, cars, family, and maybe even his own life. Is that winning?

         Again, its about what the the person struggles with all those months and years. That's what ages people. Spiking the ball for a touchdown in the final two minutes does not change or erase what came before.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Well....let's look at how we judge Presidents

What were you given and what did you leave the next guy with

Bush was given a thriving economy and a balanced budget

He left office with an economic collapse, losing 770,000 jobs a month, a stock market that had lost 6500 points

Did I mention two wars


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Well, while *W.* was in the White House, the economy averaged only 5.27% unemployment over that 8 year 96 month period, and the labor force participation rate averaged 66%, the highest in the nations history. That's what the Bush years were like. Good Times!


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There is far more to judging Presidents then just that. You've got 8 years to look at with Bush, and simply looking at the first month and the last month tells you almost nothing about what the entire 8 years were like!

      Yes, there were Wars in which Bush toppled Saddam from power in Iraq and toppled the Taliban form power in Afghanistan. Those are good things! America and its allies are safer today thanks to those actions!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hmm, Bush got a surging al Qaeda after the first WTC bombing, the Somali disaster, and other attacks that went basically unresponded.  Bush got the dot com implosion and plummeting federal revenues.  Bush turned those around and didnt experience a terrorist attack after that.  Bush inherited a militant Ghaddafi and got him to give up his nuclear program, and eventually out of power.  Bush got a Saddam violating evey accord he ever signed and murdering Iraqis and got him out of power.  Bush got a Taliban terrorizing their own people and harboring al Qaeda and got them out of power.
Then disaster. Bush got a Democratic Congress in '07 and it was downhill.  He tried working with them and they took advantage and denounced him every chance.  The GOP tried reining in Fannie/Freddie and the Dems thwarted them.  Then the economy went down hill.
The Dems passed 67 resolution condemning the Iraq war but wouldnt actually do anything to stop it.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So as I explained before, you searched for a nuance that nobody else cares about and are now tooting your "superior" intelligence.
In fact, you NEVER state anything more than, "You're stupid" to ANYONE.
You simply wait in hiding for someone to slip up a tiny bit.
A great debater that does NOT make.

AND I notice how when I am WIDE awake and post a clear explanation of a topic, such as earlier today, with how Health Facilities run and deal with The Census, you run and hide like the zero dimension wing nut you are.

You are a zero.
Now work on at least being a .01.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



GW was not a leader and left us with the LARGEST Depression in US history.
I don't care HOW he polled or polls.
He had Conservative Talk Radio and FoxNews at his disposal and NEVER ONCE made a personal appearance anywhere to stop the CDSs and improper Lending practices.

He's a VERY WEALTHY moron with an equally moronic following.
At least admit that Clinton/GW/Obama suck and get on to the next loser Conservative.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



So a guy who earns 20K/year and has Lenders giving him hundreds of thousands in approved loans is bad in your opinion, yet GW is a righteous dude?


----------



## ron4342 (Dec 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I'll take your individual comments.
You know of people who don't like my views.  I know of people who don't like yours and the fact Obama was elected twice seems to tell me that there are more who agree with me than with you.

Oh please, that voluntary cooperation is a perfect example of pie in the sky.  Last year there were 2 million individual bankrupcies.  By a large margin most of them were caused by medical bills they could not pay.  Explain exactly how "voluntary cooperation" is going to help those people.  Suppose you work all your life for a pension and your company collapses and the money is gone.  How is voluntary cooperation going to solve that problem.  GM has had several bad years and is going to go under and 100's of thousands will lose their jobs.  How is voluntary cooperation going to solve their problems.  Food banks around the country are close to running on empty and still more people keep coming.  Eventually there is no one who can volunteer.  Eventually you reach a point where there are so many poor that demand outstrips supply.  If there is no one to voluntary cooperate what do you do.  Should government let them die?  You can deny it but one of the goals of government is to solve problems that individuals cannot solve.
And the tea party please!!!!  They have to be some of the dumbest and easily led people in the world.  There they are protesting the government by carrying signs reading "Government, keep your hands off my medicare."  Duh!!!  You defend a party that would elect and then actually listen to cruz!  Please!!!!!!!!
Be upset with me if you wish but what I am pointing out are facts.  
IF the people elect a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House and IF the majority of appointees on the SC are from Democratic Presidents, then the government will be in complete control of the Democrats and anything they do will be answering to the people.  After all, weren't they elected to their positions BY THE PEOPLE?
The same applies if the republicans were elected to control government.  You may be as unhappy as hell but the idea behind a democracy is that the majority makes the rules.
Now, I do not accept your view of government and I certainly do not want the type of government I mentioned above.  I believe that if a government can help its citizens, it should help its citizens.  You believe it should stay out of the way.  Coolidge and Hoover did that back in 1929 and we had the worst depression in our history.  What good is a government that does not try to make the lives of its citizens better.  What good is a government that is willing to let its citizens starve to death when it can help them?  Why don't you just call for a king and be done with it.
I want a government of two fairly equal parties who are concerned with what is best for America and FOR ALL OF ITS CITIZENS, NOT JUST THE WEALTHY AND NOT JUST THE POOR.  I want a government where the two parties are not at war with each other.  I want a government where the parties can compromise and work for all Americans.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 25, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



Yes.... but the preamble are not rules.... the rules come after. Holy fuck you people wonder why no one respects you, you argue purely to argue. It's amazing how a constitution that was clearly (un-debatable) set to limit Government could so easily be overridden by "challenges of our times" based on the GWC despite the FF's clearly saying NOT to use the GWC like that. 

The question is simple, with your worthless interpretation of the GWC tell us all a single thing you couldn't do under the gauze of the GWC? You could literally euthanize people under the GWC, all you need is people like you defending the GWC.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I guess we better excise that "General Clause".
The Preamble serves as an assay.
The fact is that the majority of rules one faces in life come from Municipality, County and State government.
Heck, even Federal taxes are hiked simply to "trickle" back down.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



On the current UE trajectory, Obama will drop below Ford and Reagan by the end of his presidency.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Want to look at eight years of Bush?

Gave up the worst terrorist attack in US history
Attacked two countries unprovoked
engaged in torture
Did nothing during Katrina
Did nothing as the economy collapsed


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Surging AlQaeda?

Then why did he ignore it?

gave up the worst attack in US History


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Got rid of Saddam in Iraq, rid of the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, had average unemployment rate of 5.27%. Seems pretty righteous to me!


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



I certainly hope so!  It will be a real bitch though if the employment participation rate increases. Unemployment right now would be about 11% if the employment participation rate was as high as it was under W. .


----------



## asterism (Dec 25, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Making the cease-fire matter again.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're retarded.  Merry Christmas.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Attacked two countries unprovoked?!?! LOL I think not. 

         The Taliban harbored and supported Al Quada which meant they had to be removed. 

        In the case with Saddam, the United States was already at war with Saddam. The war started in August 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait! There was a ceacefire after Saddam's military was pushed out of Kuwait, but that ceacefire was broken again by Saddam which resulted in the United States bombing Iraq every year from 1992 through 2002, then the invasion to remove Saddam in 2003, followed by 8 years of stabilizing and rebuilding the country so it could stand on its own without American troops on the ground. 

           Oh by the way, Bush did not create Katrina. Obama copied what Bush did to end the recession and by the third quarter of 2009, there was positive GDP growth again.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 25, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



As a general rule...when you make the statement "everyone knows it", Jim...you're talking out of your ass.  Everyone does NOT know that George W. Bush *drove* the economy to the edge of disaster!  W. simply happened to be President when policies given to us by BOTH Democrats and Republicans caused a melt-down.  It would have been no different if Al Gore or John Kerry had been in the Oval Office.

As for your contention that Bush "walked away" from the crisis?  Bush is the one who gave us TARP...the main reason we didn't go over that "edge of disaster" you refer to and he is the one who used TARP as it should have been used...as a short term loan to prop up financial institutions which would then be repaid.

In reality the people who "walked away" from the recession were Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  They put the economy on a back burner while they went after the ACA.  Five years later the unemployment rate is STILL abysmal because to that decision.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Sorry bud, Moron GW still talks like his Cocaine Addicted economy never crashed.
He wasn't a leader and left millions unemployed and foreclosed upon.
You don't get to average out incompetency.

And you know what?
If O doesn't change the Clinton/GW/Obame policies we have, HE'S gonna go down as a schmuck also.
The ACA is a bad band-aid, NOT a solution.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 26, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



If that were really the case, Bush would have been easily defeated in 2004. Instead, a country that had been leaning to the left for some time re-elected Bush!

         Bush did well for his time in office, and while he was in office, the country was working, people had jobs, roofs over their heads, and food in their mouths. That's what the average man on the street remembers about the years 2001 through 2008.

         He also removed bad men, dictators from power over seas, that threatened the world. That's a good thing, unless of course your a Saddam Lover or worship the Taliban.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 26, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Exactly what I expected from a low life like you.  I take great pains to show why you are completely wrong and missed a very important point and you belittle it, call me names, and bring up incorrect and irrelevant info.
Everyone here should ignore your uninformed ignorant ass and you should go away and die somewhere.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 26, 2013)

ron4342 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The President is responsible for keeping us employed? Never saw that in the Constitution.
> ...


I don't think you understand the difference between promote and provide.  Let Me use an example to help you.

To promote the General Welfare, government is responsible to ensure that no laws are enacted that would deter from infringing on My rights as an individual.  To promote that general welfare, they are required to maintain an environment in which those rights can exist.  The Second Amendment right to own arms is "Promoted" by ensuring that anti-gun people do not prevent My ownership of arms.

This right does not mean that Government is required, in fact they are forbidden from doing so, to give me a firearm.  The government does not provide guns in order to promote the Second Amendment.

The very same thing occurs with other issues.  Economic prosperity can be promoted by government to ensure that those who chase "Life, Liberty, and Happiness", can in fact find and achieve it.  However, government is not responsible, and in truth is restricted from, providing economic restoration to the individual.

The singular difference between providing the general welfare and promoting the general welfare is that the former enslaves the citizen through dependance, while the latter frees the citizen to achieve every dream they desire, provided they make the effort to chase it.

The General Welfare Clause is NOT cart blache for the government to do as it pleases.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 26, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Not even close...

Promote the General Welfare means do what is in the best interest of the country. If that means helping people who need help....so be it


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 26, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Semantic nitpicking on the definition of the word *promote* does not negate the meaning of the word* welfare*.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



That isnt promoting the general welfare.  That is promoting the welfare of specific people at the expense of other people.
Another fail.  Then again, you're crazy.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



I disagree.

I understand promoting the general welfare  as meaning to suggest to the people what is in the bet interest of the country.

When one promotes a product he/she does not force you to buy it. They explain why it is in your best interest to buy it and suggest you buy it.

The government is not promoting the general welfare. It is forcing you to do what it perceives is for the general welfare.

Therefore it does not promote. It enacts.


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


No.  Semantic nitpicking it is not.  There are very specific differences between promoting and providing.

To promote the general welfare is exactly as I stated.  It is the difference between teaching someone to care for themselves (promoting) and having someone care for you (providing).

I can promote the general welfare by making accessible to the citizens, a means of moving goods or labor to a market.  Which is why no one of common sense decries maintenance of roadways.  However, to provide the general welfare is to 'keep' people as chattel under the guise of doing what is best for them.  

When it is interpreted that the general welfare must be provided, then there is no longer a basis for the rule of law.  When it feels good, or some people feel, that the masses must exist to support the few, then we truly live in a system of chaos and the men we have provided power to begin to ignore the laws in favor of their own power.

It is akin to rewriting a law to favor a political position to keep power.  Much like the unauthorized rewriting of the healthcare law without the authority to do so.

After all, if it is the law of the land, it should be followed to the letter, no?

This is the danger of rewriting the meanings of words like "Promote" and "Provide" and dismiss critics of the misuse of power as 'nitpickers'.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 26, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



No law affects each person equally. Typically any law you pass helps one person at the expense of another


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 26, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Promoting and providing are not mutually exclusive. 

You can promote the General Welfare by providing help to some people


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 26, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Answer: For partisan political reasons.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Dec 26, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Certainly.

1st three months demonstrate confidence or doubt in policy and leadership.


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 26, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Riiiight.....

Another made-up rule by the far right wing fundamentalist Republicans.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Dec 26, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Made up ?

You size up a new situation, boss, job, leader in the first 3 months and act accordingly.


----------



## dblack (Dec 26, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So, equal protection is just a wash, eh? 

No, there's an important difference between laws that are established to protect our rights equally, and those that divide us into classes and deliberately treat people differently depending on what special interest group they belong to.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 26, 2013)

Again libs think the function of government is to assure predetermined ends, like equality.  By which they mean equality of outcome not equality before the law, which is the actual meaning.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.65%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.65% *


----------



## chuckklr98 (Jan 16, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



Funny how the Unemployment #s drop, but never the SNAP/Welfare %'s. They keep going up.............................makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Once you start moving the goal posts, you can come up with any result you want.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No you can't.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah.  Laws against stealing affect thieves more than they affect honest people.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



nothing like creative lying and I guess you have failed again When FDR came to office unemployment was at 24.9% ... FDR in 1937 still had an unemployment rate of 13.2% in 1937 which actually rose to 19.8% a year later. the rise was caused once again by dems listening to republicans ... FDR then reversed his position and unemployment went down before WW2 ... at the start of the war  it was 14%...  so nice try in spinning your lie here ... on and by the way the crash was caused by republicans deregulating the banks ... sound Filmillure ??? ...

P.S. 
unemployment is at 6.7% right now


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Notice that he said "SINCE WW II."

Apparently you are illiterate.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

chuckklr98 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December was 6.7%. This is Obama's 60th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.70% in November at 59 months to the average 8.65% in December at 60 months.
> ...



it appears you have been looking things up ... welfare has drop a lot in the past 20 years ... where have you been ??? oh that right watching fox noise ...the misinforming network .. when you say hummm do you hear a buzzing in your head???


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


I realize your historical Knowledge is limited ... but we all knew that... according to historical information WW2 started in 1939 ... I realize you don't seem to be well educated and the war did start in the beginnings of 1939 ... as my post stated in 1939 it was at 14%, as I'm pointed out to you, the real  illiterate one here is you, that WW2 started in 1939 ... I realize the united states entered in 1941, but hey the guy did say SINCE WW2 ... he didn't say SINCE the United states came into the war, he clearly said SINCE WW II. ... so if you want to name call, I guess you dumb fucked www2 started in 1939 ... 
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 
do you ever get tired of fucking your self over time and time again???? 
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



it crack me up when morons like bripat goes on about Welfare ... if he took the time to look it up he would know you can only be on welfare for 2 years ... second it has dropped in numbers since Clinton passed the law change back in the 1990's ...  third: it is only .11% of the national budget... in other word I guess stealing a dime is unbelievably dishonest ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jan 17, 2014)

If this were a GOP administration, not only would the average lib be constantly blaming the president for the unemployment #'s, but they would be joined by a constant drumbeat from the mainstream media.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> If this were a GOP administration, not only would the average lib be constantly blaming the president for the unemployment #'s, but they would be joined by a constant drumbeat from the mainstream media.



lets look at a recent statement about unemployment by Chris Christie ... he was telling new Jersey citizens that since he's been governor unemployment has dropped to 7.8% ... he was bragging about these numbers to the press and they all wrote about it on how a great job he's doing ... yet Obama has brought down the unemployment numbers to 6.7 % and all along the way where he did his best, with no help from the right, not one of you righties here or in the country, has said he did a good job where everybody in Jersey are happy as hell over Christies numbers ... why's that???


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense



You really are _that _stupid, aren't you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense
> ...



See, welfare is actually a stimulus to the economy because all that money gets spent, right?  So it's like free money to the government.
Really some people actually believe that shit.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense
> ...



the real question on whose stupid or not, is what do you know ??? or on how much the tax payer spends on welfare ... by your ignorant statement here it says you're a typical repub-lie-tard, who hasn't a clue in what it cost you as a tax payer .. its obvious you don't know other wise you would have appear so stupid here .11 percent of the national budget goes to welfare


----------



## hangover (Jan 17, 2014)

> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?


That war put everybody back to work. It was the GREAT DEPRESSION before the war, caused by the republicans, that had the high unemployment. Like the economic collapse of 2007....caused by the republicans, again....That's why they were thrown out of power....again.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


Depends on how you define welfare.  ABout 40% of the budget goes to transfer payments.
But even one dime to someone who doesnt deserve it is too much.  Someone like you for example.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

hangover said:


> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> 
> That war put everybody back to work. It was the GREAT DEPRESSION before the war, caused by the republicans, that had the high unemployment. Like the economic collapse of 2007....caused by the republicans, again....That's why they were thrown out of power....again.



Your knowledge of history comes from reading comic books, doesn't it?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



its not free money ...but it does stimulate the economy more they it cost the tax payer to pay for it ... food, rent, clothing, and so on where ever they spend it, it creates a stimulus in the economy... this has been proven time and time again ...but you righties just are stuck on the thought of doing nothing and getting money ... according to the welfare laws you have 2 year to get job train which they will help you get trained ... if you refuse the job training, you will be off the welfare rolls in 2 years that's the law created by Bill Clinton, a liberal ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



well its Apparent  he knows where it came from where you don't ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



See, it's "free money" because it delivers more than it costs.  The whole country should just go on welfare and we'll all be RICH!
Clinton was a centrist and stole welfare reform from the GOP, just like NAFTA.
You're a 'tard.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



welfare is only .11% of the nation budget ...how ever you want to spin, it's your choice ...but facts are facts and that's one thing you can't change ... who are you who determines who get welfare or not ... you're a nobody ... you haven't any say in the matter if I go on welfare or not ... if they accept me if I qualify  to go on welfare then I get to go on welfare, where still you haven't any say in that matter ... as for me being on welfare, I haven't ever been on welfare or any government assistance program ... but if I "choose" ( a word your repubbies hate) to sign up for one that's my choice and you still haven't any  say in that matter... you don't get to choose who gets to be on welfare, deal with it ... I'm not talking about transfer payments I'm talking about welfare ... stop putting in shit that doesn't belong their ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Im not going to waste my time on you any more... you're just another ignorant repub-lie-tard ... a waste of time ..go educate yourself


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > If this were a GOP administration, not only would the average lib be constantly blaming the president for the unemployment #'s, but they would be joined by a constant drumbeat from the mainstream media.
> ...



I see you repub-lie-tards haven't any answer ...


----------



## hangover (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


NAFTA was Raygun's baby, just like GATT. Clinton just signed it into law given to him by a con congress. You should except REAL history instead of trying to re write it. Your "comic book history" just makes you look like a moron. Funny how morons don't see themselves as such, they just call others 'tards, because sandbox banter is the best they have.


----------



## Wildman (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense



WoW!! are you really THAT stupid ?

please do not reply, it would only confirm my observations of you.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



still waiting for you brilliant remake here ... cat got your fingers???


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

hangover said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



ribbie never looks up anything ... he goes to his handler ... his  asked his handlers please sir tell me what to say... handler says tell them its freebies and nobody benefits ... ribbie does what he's told cause he's a good little  Rabbibott for his handlers ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

Wildman said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > welfare is a non-issue when it comes to a government expense
> ...



what it confirms is your inability to look up facts ... that's what it confirms...  which confirms my observation of you... will give you a Indian name ... onewithoutfacts ...


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 17, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



I'm just curious.
Why would a President say the following:
"_Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket_." Obama: I?ll make energy prices ?skyrocket? « Hot Air

Either he is an idiot about how business works or he wants rates to skyrocket.  Either way it is NOT a presidential aspiration that rates skyrocket as skyrocketing
rates mean businesses and people pay more.  If they pay more either way there is less money for more jobs!

So then he hires and puts into place AS the President EPA management that sole objective is to destroy businesses that employ people!
"EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year,  
while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and  destroy *7.4 million jobs.*

Boiler MACT Rule: EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas.  
The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.
Articles: Obama's EPA Plans for 2013 

So THIS is how a President AFFECTS employment very quickly very simply!

AGAIN when Obama says.._I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly_"   LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

WHAT will employers do when delivery truck gas prices climb?  Stop delivering or raise prices.  Means no drivers.. means unemployed!

Why in any sane world would a President say he'd like higher gas prices???  Ignorance?

Finally do you comprehend when someone says "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program"
IF OBAMA is a proponent... that means he is against the 1,300 health insurance companies existing!  400,000 jobs GONE!!

Do you understand when any president wants higher utility prices, gas prices and destroy 1,300 companies... THAT is NOT what Americans want!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 17, 2014)

Averages mean shit....

What matters is where did you start and where did you end up

Bush doubled his unemployment rate
Obama has dropped his by 2%


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

hangover said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



I can't take anyone seriously who writes "except" for "accept."  really.  Are you hung over all the time or just when you aren't drinking?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are a dunce and a half.  Like that wasn't obvious.  Whenever anyone says "since WW2" that means after 1945.  Quit trying to make yourself look better than the gross ignoramus you obviously are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



hmmmm . . . where did I say a thing about welfare?  However, your figures are wrong, moron. About 80% of the budget is welfare.  I include Social Security and Medicare in that figure.  Anyone who claims they are not welfare is either lying or a moron who doesn't understand what welfare is.


----------



## JimH52 (Jan 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


 
You conveniently leave out the fact that Obama has pulled us out of the W induced worst recession since the great depression.  W left this country on the edge of ruin.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 17, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Averages mean shit....
> 
> What matters is where did you start and where did you end up
> 
> ...



And there ya have it.. five years in and it is still Bush's fault.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 17, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Boooooooooooosssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............


----------



## protectionist (Jan 17, 2014)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



And you get the booby prize, sort of.  He was right.  President's DON'T decide who works or who doesn't, when their congress impedes his job proposals.  What you could have said is >>  Obama does decide who works and who doesn't, by failing to sign a bill (or propose one) to ban affirmative action.  You could also have attacked his opposition to Arizona's defensive SB 1070 bill, against illegal immigration.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



If all illegal aliens were deported, and all work visas (and other visas) were stopped, and all immigration ceased, there would be NO UNEMPLOYMENT.  None.  Also, $48 Billion/year (in what should be US business) has been leaving the US, by way of immigrants' remittances$$$, and re-inserted into the economies of the immigrants' home countries ($25 Billion/yr to Mexico alone)


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 17, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



He did nothing of the sort.  All recessions end.  Normally, the sharper the recession, the more dramatic the rebound.  This recession has been an exception to that rule.  It's the slowest recovery we've had since the Great Depression.  You can blame Obama for that.  If he had just stayed out of the way, the economy would have been booming 2 years ago.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 17, 2014)

hangover said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



_"Just"_ signed it into law ?   His job is to VETO it, whenever it is improper, and harmful to the American people, as NAFTA was.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


the wisdom from the boards dumb fuck ... . Termanally stuck on stupid thinks he knows the term SINCE WW2 thinks he knows about welfare cost thinks he knows ... the sad part here is we have to suffer with Rabbiebott the boards dumb fuck
dumb fuck heres the dictionarys diffenition of since

*since  *

                                    1    *during or throughout the period of time after  *

 yet rabbiebott can't even define the word SINCE ...Rabbiebott is to stupid to look up its meaning ... its just like everything RABIEBOTT does ... he never looks up anything  ... Rabbiebott just  sits with shit all over his face like he's doing now...

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Bullshit.  Unless you think every job in America involves picking tomatoes.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Proving your stupidity over and over.  S0n, doubling down on stupid will get you nowhere.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


its that short term memory these repub-lie-tard have ... its cause from lack of Oxygen to their brain, from having their heads up their ass too long ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


coming from the boards dumb fuck who care what you will Accept


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


and the boards dumb fuck proves himself again ... illegals are in all Areas of our countires work force ... building, restaurants, farming, legal system, schools and on and on do ... you every pull your head out of your ass to get any oxygen cause you're going brain dead...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Averages mean shit....
> ...



when you compare isn't, well bush did it, you idiot... he's pointing out the facts .. what you refuse to accept (is that OK Rabbiebott Accept)... Bush fucked this country up ... where  Obama is slowly pulling it out of Bush's fuck up mess get it ??? is that hard to understand??? or are you too stuck on stupid....


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



so why do you keep doing it dumb fuck ... oh that's right you're brain dead .... never mind ... can't stand it when some one is smarter then you ... the thing is you're too easy ... you never look up anything ... you just blurt it out, well here's me blurting out of my ass on you... 

the word SINCE means During the war, throughout the war, and the time after the war ... seems you have a Comprehension problem Rabbiebott


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



since when...  did you look at all the bill ??? or just the nafta part...  deals were made ... on the other hand nafta was the biggest fuck up both parties allowed ... in my opinion and this TPP is even worse ... but your republicans are pushing it big time and another dem is buying into it hope it gets voted down


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Listen nimrock, you put the 'S' in Stupid.  Obama isn't pulling anything out, he's penetrating your ass right now and you're to dumb to ask him to stop.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 17, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



I have to check myself to be sure that Billy isn't just camping up the pro-Obama shit to screw with us.  I have a hard time believing people actually think that way.
In any case, I've always thought of Obama as more of a bottom guy.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



translation=he's asking me to have gay sex... that's how these repub-lie-tards hit on the same sex ... you put the "H" in homo ... sorry I like women ... hey here's a Idea ... try Rabbiebott he's in to (_o_) fucking ... just like you are... puff !!! puff !!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


 every body knows your a DI#K smoker rabbiebott ... thats why RKMBrown sit trolling for gay sex .... have fun gays I mean guys ... PUff Puff Rabbiebott or should that be Rapbbiebutt ....  RKM brown stand for Really Kinky Mother ... brown is what his di%k looks like when he's done ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Your a pos pussy.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Do you understand the term "since World War II"!? Were talking about unemployment rate since the END of World War II. 

Sorry, but Obama has the highest average unemployment rate of any President since World War II, currently at 8.65%. The monthly unemployment rate for December 2013 was 6.7% but that is just for the month of December 2013 *AND IS NOT THE AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE OBAMA BECAME PRESIDENT! UNDERSTAND?*

Also, the average unemployment rate during World War II from 1939 through 1945 for the United States was 7.34%. SO *EVEN* if we accepted your definition of "since World War II", Obama would still have the highest average unemployment rate of any of the Presidents!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > If this were a GOP administration, not only would the average lib be constantly blaming the president for the unemployment #'s, but they would be joined by a constant drumbeat from the mainstream media.
> ...



The the labor participation rate was not at 62.8% and still at 66% as it was under Bush, the unemployment rate would be 11%. The unemployment rate has dropped the last few years because people have dropped out of the labor force!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 17, 2014)

Just for more clarification, the data for the statistics in this thread come from the bureau of labor statistics monthly unemployment statistics. Monthly unemployment have only been kept by the bureau since January of 1948. Trumans average is based on January 1948 through December 1952. There are no monthly statistics prior to January 1948 although there are annual figures.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


see's what happens when they are exposed here ... they get mad ... call ya nasty names and everything ...yet you still have been able to out do me yet ... see thats what happens when you're not informed RKMBROWN


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



RKMBROWN thinks he's John Wayne ... thats John Wayne Gacy


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Obama's presidency has 3 more years to go.

The UE average his presidency has seen in 5 years is about the same as Reagan's was after 5 years.

...not to imply that any of this is relevant to anything regarding a presidency.


----------



## The Breeze (Jan 18, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I guess I'd be angry too if I were trying to support this failed administration. It will be OK little man, it will be OK.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



As I pointed out to the other 2 idiots who tried to defend your position the word since is defied as followed

*since*
1) *during or throughout the period of time after ...
*

you didn't say when they US inter, you didn't say after, you said SINCE WW2 if you don't comprehend what your writing or talking about then stop it... WW2 started in the beginning of 1939 ... in 1939 according to wikipedia unemployment rates were 14% if you can show me different then so be it ... as for obama's unemployment rates, they are at 6.7% still better then the rates that you tried showing us here as being better ... so if you want to make him look bad, fine ...but you need to understand what you're talking about .... in this case you fucked it up big time trying to slam Obama down... try again...


----------



## Votto (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



This actually helps the democrats.

More people out of work = more people dependent upon government.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



that didn't work under bush and it won't work here under obama ... people have dropped out ... how many have dropped out???  you have a number on that ??? where they have counted by some body ??? do you have a number on how many people who dropped out ???? didn't think so so ... if you're going to say it doesn't count under republicans, guess what ??? it doesn't count under Dems ... you can't have it both ways ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

The Breeze said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


and the pompous ass has arrived hey little man, are you mad that you didn't get Included in their HOMO invitation ??? hell all ya got to do is ask then present you back side to them, or you lips ... which ever you like bestPuff puff The Breeze


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 18, 2014)

Votto said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


actually it means more people able to get government jobs ... you know road work, utility work, things of that nature the government does it best... and most important more votes at the ballot box BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 18, 2014)

francoHFW said:


> Stupid talking points and ridiculous insults- the dupes' repertoire lol...



How ironic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

The government doesn't make jobs period.  Best they can muster is a bureaucrat.  That is not a value added job.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

Fair warning liberal pond scum, I'm back.


----------



## hangover (Jan 18, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



 Obviously you couldn't refute the NAFTA/GATT part so...Thanks for proving my point, that sandbox banter is all you got. Hungover or 
"hung over"? Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## hangover (Jan 18, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> The government doesn't make jobs period.  Best they can muster is a bureaucrat.  That is not a value added job.


I'm surprised you've never heard of the pentagon. They employ millions of military contract workers.



> Fair warning liberal pond scum, I'm back.


Oh goody, the town clown is hear to entertain us.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

hangover said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The government doesn't make jobs period.  Best they can muster is a bureaucrat.  That is not a value added job.
> ...



Thanks for identifying yourself as pond scum, I would have figured it out pretty quick anyways.

When you work for the government, you're a bureaucrat dimwit.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 18, 2014)




----------



## rdean (Jan 18, 2014)

Lakhota said:


>



How do USMB Right wingers ignore these comments?  There are plenty of Republicans suffering from GOP obstructionism.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

Deflection is your only friend rdean.  You know, not only is the unemployment rate extremely high, but the jobs that actually are being created are LOWER paying ones.  That coupled with the fact employment will not recover during Obama's term is damning.


----------



## hazlnut (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



I'd tell you how that has more to do with W. and the do-nothing congress, but you wouldn't understand.


----------



## hazlnut (Jan 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




It's called willful ignorance.

They know what they want to know and nothing else.

It's always the black guys fault in their head.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

The really sad part is this recession/depression didn't have to last this long.  Obama's very policies are how it last this long.  No one to blame but himself.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




Why "since WWII"?

Because FDR also inherited a depression from a clueless Republican.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



You mean FDR that lied the US into WWII and attacked a nation that did not attack the US?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 18, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



And the far left Obama propaganda drones continue to post their mindless drivel based on the DNC programming.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 18, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



And the far left plays the race card once again.

Same tired old talking points.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 18, 2014)

Thanks for that post Kosh, I see Larry, Moe and Curly still hangout here.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




No, the FDR who inherited a depression from a clueless Republican.

Just like President Obama (praise be unto Him!)


----------



## Votto (Jan 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



These fools are on your side.  

They mock the Tea Party and pass budgets that spend trillions in deficit spending every year.

These two are merely tools for progressives like yourself.  They have the added bonus of being blamed for all the worlds problems, because God knows Obama and the rest of his cronies are blameless saints.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Look, its pretty obvious what I meant even if the English I used to express that was technically wrong. 

But that's really irrelevant because it appears that you do not understand the other things in the thread title.

1. This is about the *worst AVERAGE unemployment rate since World War II, or as I should have said to make more clear, since the END of World War II.*

2. A Presidents average unemployment rate is ALL the monthly unemployment rates added together and then divided by the number of months in office. THAT IS THE AVERAGE. It is NOT last months unemployment rate of 6.7% or the unemployment rate for the year 1939 which was 17.2%

3. If your starting year is 1939, then Roosevelt would be on the list with an average unemployment rate of 7.34%. You get Roosevelts average by adding up the annual unemployment rates from 1939 through 1945, the last year he was in office. *Its NOT 14% in 1939 or 1.2% in 1944. Those are unemployment rates for single years and NOT the average from 1939 to 1945.*

4. *Obama has had 60 months in the White House. The average unemployment rate during Obama's time office, those 60 months, is 8.65%. Obama is still an active President with 36 months left in office and as time goes by and those unemployment rates become known they will be averaged in to his running total which will present a new number.*

5. The average unemployment rate during George W. Bush's 96 months in office was 5.27%. For Clinton it was slightly lower at 5.20%. The Average unemployment rate for a President is NOT the first month he was in office or the last month he was in office, it is the average of all the months the President was in office!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



It counts under everybody, but the labor force participation rate while Bush was in office was almost always around 66%. That's the highest in the nations history with the exception of a few months under Clinton when it reached 67%.

Now for the first time in history, the labor force participation rate has been steadily dropping. As the labor force shrinks, it masks the true level of real unemployment through out the country. The monthly unemployment rate only counts people actively looking for employment and receiving compensation. People that are without work and are not actively looking are  not included in the monthly unemployment rate.

Hence, if the labor force participation rate was still at 66% like it was under Bush, the monthly unemployment rate would be about 11% based on the number of people currently employed and the population of people aged 16 and over in the country.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



That's great, but its still a fact that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any US President since the end of World War II. Debate why that is, but its not going to change that fact.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



No, its because the Bureau of labor statistics did not start to compile monthly unemployment rates until January 1948 which is what the above statistics are based on. There are annual rates before 1948, but those are more difficult to find and not on the Bureau's website, plus they are not available for all years. 

But The Bureau of labor statistics does have monthly unemployment rates listed for every month from January 1948 to December 2014. The average for the Presidents above come from the Bureau's chart which only goes back to January 1948.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Explain why Ford's and Reagan's are so high, absent a depression, or even a recession anywhere close to what Obama inherited.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

I thought the wingnut argument was that government doesn't create jobs?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

But government sure can eliminate jobs:

*Public sector jobs -- positions in federal, state and local  government -- have declined by 718,000 jobs since Obama took office*, according to the economics blog Calculated Risk. 

*Under  his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, the number of  public sector jobs swelled by 1.75 million*, the blog found. 

 There's  a big caveat with the findings, though. *Most of the public sector jobs  lost during Obama's tenure are due to cutbacks at the state and local  level*, the study notes. While reductions in federal spending might have  affected state and local employment, the decisions to reduce headcount  would have been made at those local levels.​Big government under Obama? Not so much- MSN Money

Does Obama get blamed because Rick Scott or Scott Walker decide to fire thousands of state employees?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

Well, I guess that shut everyone up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Odd, the BLS shows it to have been in 1982 at 10.8%










What is "average unemployment rate"?

The maximum yearly rate is still 1982 at 9.7%


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Oh, you mean a wingnut lied?

It must be a day just like every other day.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Seems to be the case.


----------



## hangover (Jan 18, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



This is how the cons con America. They cause a total economic collapse, then obstruct all efforts to bring the economy back, and blame Obama. The GOP is Al Qaeda's best weapon.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Many would argue that the 1981-1982 recession was worse than the 2008-2009 recession. The monthly unemployment rate got up to 10.8% in November 1982, higher than the 10% it reached under Obama. The rates continued to be high for some time.

     Ford was not President for a long time, and during the months he was in office, the unemployment rate did reach 9% during one month.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Nobody with half a brain would argue that.

Name someone who takes that position.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



The 10.8% figure under Reagan was the monthly unemployment rate for November and December 1982. *Its NOT an average!*

The average unemployment rate for each of the Presidents in the list is obtained by adding up all the monthly unemployment numbers for each month that the President was in office and then dividing that number by the number of months they were in office. That is how you find out what the average unemployment rate was for the WHOLE time that President was in the White House. 

Were not looking at a single month or a particular year. Were looking at the average for the whole time they were in office!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Many economist do and if you were to just go by peak monthly unemployment, the 1982 recession was worse in that sense.

Another thing that made 1982 worse was INFLATION. The late 70s and early 80s saw very high inflation. If there is one thing that Obama has done well with the economy vs other Presidents its inflation. The inflation rates under Obama have been lower than most other Presidents. 

So the 1982 recession had very high rates of unemployment, but in addition to that very high rates of inflation.

The "Misery Index" which is unemployment plus inflation, was far worse in 1981-1982 than in any year under Obama. 

But there are other ways and metrics for measuring economic distress. 

I'm not saying definitively that one recession was worse than the other, just that there is definitely a basis for arguing either way, as well as explaining why unemployment rates were high in the Reagan and Ford years.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



See the bottom graph?  That is the BLS yearly rate.

Who made up this "average rate definition?"  

If I came up with a measure, and found that the BLS didn't use such a thing, my first reaction would be to figure out what is wrong with my measure.  Labor statistics is, after all, their job.  And I don't see no numbers matching yours.  So, without doing the calculations myself, I gotta go with the BLS.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm using the BLS figures to come up with the average rate for the time period that each President spent in office. The BLS simply reports the monthly figure every month. It appears that have done averages for 12 month calander years as well. But you can do averages for any time period.

         The time period I used was the average monthly rate for each President in office. It is the BLS data for each month added together and then divided by the number of months to produce the average rate. 

         If you think I got my math wrong, you can check it yourself. Its all BLS data right from the site. 

        The BLS does not list the unemployment rate averaged for individual decades, but you can find that out yourself with a little math work, in the same way they calculate the average rate for individual years. I've done precisely the same thing, the BLS has done with the average for individual years, except the time frame that I am using is the time in office for each President instead of an individual year. 

         All the BLS figures for each individual year are simply the 12 monthly rates added together and then divided by 12. Bush average unemployment rate while he was in office is simply the 96 months of unemployment rates added together and then divided by 96. Its the same process and uses the same DATA!


----------



## hangover (Jan 19, 2014)

> Odd, the BLS shows it to have been in 1982 at 10.8%


Another consequence of the Raygun White House. Along with tripling the national debt, after promising to balance the budget in his first four years.(one of many con lies) And selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, smuggling weapons to the Contras from the profits of cocaine deals with Noriega, and wasting a trillion dollars on the Star Wars fantasy. And then blaming it all on his Alzheimers. Now there's a con hero.

All that plus the two Shrubs destruction, really makes the whining the cons do about Benghazi and Obama care look really trivial and perverse. I guess their strategy is to try to demonize that, so maybe the country will forget how bad things are when cons are in power.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 19, 2014)

hangover said:


> > Odd, the BLS shows it to have been in 1982 at 10.8%
> 
> 
> Another consequence of the Raygun White House. Along with tripling the national debt, after promising to balance the budget in his first four years.(one of many con lies) And selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, smuggling weapons to the Contras from the profits of cocaine deals with Noriega, and wasting a trillion dollars on the Star Wars fantasy. And then blaming it all on his Alzheimers. Now there's a con hero.
> ...



Are you drinking now or merely hung over?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 19, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Then you should have no trouble coming up with a link.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 19, 2014)

hangover said:


> > Odd, the BLS shows it to have been in 1982 at 10.8%
> 
> 
> Another consequence of the Raygun White House. Along with tripling the national debt, after promising to balance the budget in his first four years.(one of many con lies) And selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, smuggling weapons to the Contras from the profits of cocaine deals with Noriega, and wasting a trillion dollars on the Star Wars fantasy. And then blaming it all on his Alzheimers. Now there's a con hero.
> ...




Also including the deaths of 241 U.S. service personnel in the 1983 Beirut bombing due to Reagan's security negligence.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 19, 2014)

He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 19, 2014)

paulitician said:


> He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.



Hyperbole on steroids...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 19, 2014)

paulitician said:


> He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.



So, regarding the IRS, what crimes are you going to charge the president with in an impeachment,

and what evidence do you have to support the charges?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 19, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


How many of these Presidents spent their entire first term blaming the previous President for that unemployment rate?
Hint:  Just one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 19, 2014)

paulitician said:


> He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.


Obama has a (D) next to his name.
It's better than a get out of jail free card.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 19, 2014)

paulitician said:


> He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.



oNLY IN BRAINWASHED pUB PROPAGANDA wORLD, HATER DUPE LOL. nsa has only gotten oversight under Obama, IRS DENIED NOT A SINGLE rw GROUP, AND THE AZ atf SAID NO ONE IN wASHINGTON KNEW ABOUT THE GUNWALKING.The PPM and you are totally FOS. cHANGE THE CHANNEL, MORON.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 19, 2014)

OP- RW insanity, what with the economy in a meltdown losing 700k jobs a month when he was inaugarated, and total Pub obstruction and phony crises the last 4 years...a disgrace.


----------



## hangover (Jan 20, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


That must have been when Raygun blamed Carter, and then tripled the national debt with his own budgets.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 20, 2014)

hangover said:


> > Odd, the BLS shows it to have been in 1982 at 10.8%
> 
> 
> Another consequence of the Raygun White House. Along with tripling the national debt, after promising to balance the budget in his first four years.(one of many con lies) And selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, smuggling weapons to the Contras from the profits of cocaine deals with Noriega, and wasting a trillion dollars on the Star Wars fantasy. And then blaming it all on his Alzheimers. Now there's a con hero.
> ...



Interesting, and trying to blame someone else's relative blame, does nothing to lessen the current wrongs.  Maybe if you held Obama accountable to you and your party, and we did the same for ours, we might stand a chance of a bettter country.  Instead we get people like you who can't see past your own needs.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 20, 2014)

francoHFW said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > He's getting a free pass. His overall record is atrocious. Any other President would have been held accountable. His awful IRS and NSA abuses are Impeachable offenses. But his free pass was preordained. The NWO Globalists control the message. They own the Media. He could literally get away with murder. In fact, he probably has. 'Fast & Furious' was a heinous crime. Him and his henchmen murdered Brian Terry. And it has gone unpunished. These are very dark times for our Nation.
> ...



Obama = Your BOOOOOSH Boogeyman on steroids. The only difference between the two is, your guy is getting a free pass. At least Bush was held somewhat accountable for his abuses and incompetence.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 20, 2014)

It was all preordained. Obama would be the 'Savior' and given a free pass. The NWO Global Elite have a plan. Most other Presidents before him, would have been held accountable for similar awful abuses of power and incompetence. He is untouchable. The NWO Global Elite set it up that way. It's all just a game of thrones for them.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 20, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Here's the thing;

The unemployment rate for a time period is the average unemployment for that time period divided by the average labor force for that time period.

That is 

UNRATE = avg(EMPLVL)/avg(LF).  If the time period is one day, it is the day's average unemployment divided by the day's average labor force.

We can't take the average of the unemployment rates and get a meaningfull number.

Suppose we have the unemloyment and LF for two days.  

Day 1 is UNEMP1/LF1.  Day 2 is UMEMP2/LF2.  The unemployment rate for time period 1 to period 2 is  

UNEMP12=(UNEMP1+UNEMP2)/(LF1+LF2).

Trying to take the average of the two rate is 

AVGUNEMPRATES={(UNEMP1/LF1)+(UNEMP2/LF2)}/2.

Simplifing that is chore.  It requires cross multiplying then adding.

It gives {(UNEMP1*LF2)+(UNEMP2*LF1)}/(2*LF1*LF2).

I don't know what that is but conceptually,  LF1*LF2, itself, doesn't make any sense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 20, 2014)

hangover said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Neither of which happened in real life.


----------



## 1776 (Jan 20, 2014)

Shitbag....sending the DoJ, EPA and other goons after companies ends up harming hiring new workers. 

The only reason why there is any growth is because of oil production on "private lands" which was put in motion under Buuuuuuuuuush, shitstain. 



NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 8, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for January 2014 was 6.6%. This is Obama's 61st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.65% in December at 60 months to the average 8.62% in January at 61 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.62%  *

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.62% *


----------



## KNB (Feb 8, 2014)

Maybe the 1% should use their record-breaking corporate profits to expand their businesses, create jobs, pay higher wages, and lower unemployment.

Maybe?  Because that's the entire theory behind "trickle down" economics?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for January 2014 was 6.6%. This is Obama's 61st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.65% in December at 60 months to the average 8.62% in January at 61 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



When his second term is over, he will have a lower average rate than Reagan

We can revisit the thread at that time


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for January 2014 was 6.6%. This is Obama's 61st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.65% in December at 60 months to the average 8.62% in January at 61 months.
> ...



That is highly unlikely. There is an even chance he might do better than Ford in the last  months of 2016, but its far from certain. 

For sure, he'll never touch W.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



W left office after doubling the unemployment rate and losing 700,000 jobs a month

His legacy is the reason we are talking about Obamas average


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



11 months before W left office, the unemployment rate was sitting at 4.9%, historically low. His average for all 96 months in office is 5.27%, one of the best in the history of the United States Of America. The Unemployment rate did shoot up in his very last months in office, but that does not erase what happened throughout 90% of the time he was in office. When he left office in January 2009, the latest reported rate was 7.3%, which is NOT a doubling of the unemployment rate while he was in office.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Bush left office bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. No President since Hoover was as bad

Bottom line, President Obama will leave his successor a much better economy than he was given


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Your powers of prophecy are phenomenal, given Obama still has 3 years left.  At this juncture of course Bush would say the same thing.  He'd be right too.
Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

When all is said and done, Obama will be looked at as a President who saved us from a depression and left the country in much better shape than he received it

What more could we ask


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> When all is said and done, Obama will be looked at as a President who saved us from a depression and left the country in much better shape than he received it
> 
> What more could we ask



Again, your powers of prophecy are amazing.  There is a very good chance we will enter a recession again in the next 3 years.  Obama will be remembered as the president who instituted the biggest changes to the economy, and those changes resulted in the largest failures of public policy in history.
Every promise made for Obamacare will be shown to have been false.  It will go down as the Smoot Hawley of the 21st century.


----------



## jasonnfree (Feb 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Grasping at straws.  In the history books it will be "republicans crash economies."   The great depression and the republican crash of 2008


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

Who got us through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?   Bush?

Fraid not....it was President Obama


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



true that


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 8, 2014)

Worst president UE rate since WWII?

Easy.

Ronnie Reagan at 10.8% during the last quarter of 1983.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Who got us through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?   Bush?
> 
> Fraid not....it was President Obama



Got us through?  My grandmother got us through.
Who blew up the budget on a failed stimulus?
Who engineered the take over of better than 1/6th of the economy?
Who savaged bankruptcy law?
Who has the worst record of economic recovery post WW2 evah?


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




What's the time period that's being measured?

As [MENTION=26784]Agit8r[/MENTION] posted in another thread:









So, President Jimmy Carter handed Ronnie 7.50% unemployment in January 1981, which Ronnie turned into 10.80% unemployment by December of 1982!

That's 24 months!  By today's wingnut argument, Carter can't be held responsible for Reagan's 10.80% unemployment - *he's been in office for* *TWO YEARS*!!1!ZOMG!!!


----------



## paulitician (Feb 9, 2014)

Hey, did you know he's good friends with Jay-Z and Beyonce? Well, he is. That's bleepin JAY-Z and BEYONCE for God sake! They're awesome! So high Unemployment doesn't matter brutha. It's all good.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Aannnd, that argument is gone.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



The time period being measured is January 1948 to the most recent month for which unemployment figures are available which is January 2014. The Bureau of labor statistics has the monthly unemployment figures going all the way back to January 1948. Each month that a President was in office has that unemployment rate added up and then divided by total months in office to arrive at the average unemployment rate experienced while that President was in the White House. Its not about what the unemployment rate was the last month the President was in office or the first month. Its about all the months that they were in office, sometimes up to 96 months which is a very long time. The only way to assess all that time and those months is to take the average. Looking at just one month at the end or the beginning leaves out 98% of what things were like when the President was on the job!


----------



## paulitician (Feb 9, 2014)

Y'all just be hatin. He chills with Jay-Z and Beyonce all the time. And dats all that matters. Y'all need to quit the hatin. Fo reals.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 9, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Y'all just be hatin. He chills with Jay-Z and Beyonce all the time. And dats all that matters. Y'all need to quit the hatin. Fo reals.


That's funny.....is that how black people talk?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 9, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



of course if the numbers were lower you would be hailing Obama as a god claiming he was responsible for fixing the economy


----------



## paulitician (Feb 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all just be hatin. He chills with Jay-Z and Beyonce all the time. And dats all that matters. Y'all need to quit the hatin. Fo reals.
> ...



Ah, if a Republican had these same dismal numbers, you'd be the first little Obamabot loon to screech Impeachment. This one sums up you Bot meatheads perfectly...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ]Help Obama Kickstart World War III! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It's not gone.

Don't you see where it goes up to 10.80% at the end of 1982?  It's right there in your own chart!


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all just be hatin. He chills with Jay-Z and Beyonce all the time. And dats all that matters. Y'all need to quit the hatin. Fo reals.
> ...


in his head, yes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




That's not what I'm asking.

You didn't include a link for your OP, so you could have pulled those numbers out of your ass.

But assuming they are valid, are they comparing Reagan's 8 years to GHW Bush's 4 years?  That's not a fair analysis.

A Gerald Ford enthusiast could rightfully claim that his guy had the lowest % of increase in unemployment throughout his term.  May be true, but he was POTUS for 2.5 years.

Hell, you can make William Henry Harrison out to be one of our best presidents manipulating data like that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



11 months before W left office, Wall Street hadn't collapsed yet.

What was the figure on the day he left office?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



By 1988 it all but disappeared, just like your argument. Carter caused stagflation, Reagan inherited it. Had Carter not been toying around with interest rates, you wouldn't have seen them as high as 17-20% for loans and whatnot. The peak of the misery index is due to the lingering effects of Carter's malfeasance. Paul Volcker was a moron to boot.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2014)




----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


>



NIce.
Let's see if you can actually interpret a chart.  My money says no.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Yes, two years into his first term, when he was trying to clean up Carter's mess.  And what happens after that?  What was it when he left, compared to when he came in?
Yeah, I thought so.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



DEBT...PLUS 188.6% - % Change During his Presidency

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budget.
I knew you coudn't answer the question.
Pwned again.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Ever hear of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is where the information comes from. Its the monthly unemployment rates found at the Bureau of Labor statistics from January 1948 to the latest month January 2014. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

     Yes, the numbers compare all the Presidents regardless of their time in office. Its simply the average level of monthly unemployment while each President was in the White House. *I took all the data there was, from 1948 through 2014 and averaged the results for each Presidents time in office.* That is the only purely objective and fair way to do it. Its simply a pure objective presentation of RAW economic data for each Presidents time in office. No bias, involved at all!

             The Unemployment rate hit 9% under Ford, which at the time was the highest monthly rate of unemployment since World War II at that point. But that is just one month. The average looks at ALL 30 months or so that FORD was in office which gives a more complete and objective look at what conditions were like while he was sitting in the White House. 

        If you think a President can't be evaluated or compared given the number of months in office they spent, then that is a SUBJECTIVE factor that you bring to the numbers. The numbers by themselves are objective, unbiased and the truth as reported from the Bureau of labor statistics.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



7.3% was the latest figure at that time. But again, that is only a reflection of one month. Bush was President for 96 months. In order to get an accurate idea of what life was like while he was in the White House, you have to look at ALL 96 months. The average unemployment rate for W during his 96 months in office was 5.27% which is one of the lower averages of any President in history. So for the vast majority of the time that Bush was in office, people had jobs, could find jobs when they entered the work force, or could move from job to job with ease. On average, that is what the job climate was like while W was sitting in the White House!


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Just as Obama inherited Bush's rising numbers, Bush inherited Clinton's lower numbers, then started a war and created a massive new government bureaucracy, both of which created an enormous amount of jobs.

Please tell me whom you would like to start a war with, and which government agencies you would like to grow in size, and Obama's numbers will look as good as Dubya's.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Seriously?  That's your response?  That's lame and pathetic, even for you.


----------



## American4Americ (Feb 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




You fudged the numbers...

Ronald Reagan had a significantly lower unemployment rate.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Its not about the number you "inherit" at the start of your term, or the last month of your term. Its about all 96 months. 8 years. The economy can go up and down multiple times over such a long span of time, which makes the hand off from one President to the other largely irrelevant when you look at an 8 year, 96 month period of time. 

As for the Wars, they did not create many jobs, as the United States military grew very little during that time, and industry supplying weapons already had plant and employees they needed prior to the start. The impact on overall US employment was non-existent. Wars have a way of boosting an economy when a country is not prepared for war as the United States was not ready for World War II. But since then, the United States has always been prepared in peacetime for multiple wars, which means once war breaks out, the overall economic effect is rather small compared to the impact that wars had prior to 1950.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 10, 2014)

American4Americ said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Ronald Reagan did achieve lower unemployment rates for individual months towards the end of his second term. But the above list does not look at any individual monthly unemployment rates. Instead, it takes all of the monthly unemployment rates, adds them up and divides them by the number of months the President was in office in order to get what the average monthly unemployment rate was while that President was in the White House. Reagans average is very high due in part to the very high monthly unemployment rates experienced in 1982 and 1983. Reagan may have left office with a 5% unemployment rate in the last month, but the average for all 96 months was 7.54%.


----------



## American4Americ (Feb 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> American4Americ said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



no


----------



## paulitician (Feb 10, 2014)

Massive Poverty and Massive Debt is this President's legacy. That, along with awful corruption and continuous assaults on our Constitution & Freedoms. If he were a Republican, every Communist wingnut on this Board would be screeching for Impeachment over such a dismal record.


----------



## RKMBrown (Feb 10, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Who was in charge of Congress at the time?


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 10, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



You are right!  Presidents don't decide but Presidents appoint and hire people that think like him.
So we have had these people that have told us in their OWN words how they would change our economy...

Obama himself..
Obama has said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program."Obama's words exactly!!
So Obama and you defenders... IF YOU WANT single payer, what happens to :
"I prefer to destroy the 1,300 health insurance companies that pay $100 billion a YEAR in Federal/State/Local taxes AND local property taxes on their office buildings!  I prefer to put out of work the 400,000 people that work in the health insurance companies!"
I prefer that the remaining 99% pay HIGHER TAXES BECAUSE I"VE destroyed coal companies, utilities, health insurance companies!
So IF Obama prefers ONE payer that means 1,300 insurance companies no longer are in business!

If Obama prefers to put out of business 1,300 companies what does that mean to those that work there???
This is certainly NOT a job creation statement!


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Give me a reason why my response is "lame and pathetic".  Use facts, logic and data.

I'm guessing you cannot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



For the last time, not all POTUS have served 8 years.  I don't know what's so hard to understand.

And, again, as I've already mentioned William Henry Harrison, but what if President Obama (praise be unto Him!) had become incapacitated after his 3rd month in office (maybe choked on a pretzel or something . . . ) and Vice President Joe "Cool" Biden had to take over?  Would you average those 3 months of inherited unemployment and conclude that Obama had the worst in your list?



> *As for the Wars, they did not create many jobs, as the United States military grew very little during that time, and industry supplying weapons already had plant and employees they needed prior to the start.* The impact on overall US employment was non-existent. Wars have a way of boosting an economy when a country is not prepared for war as the United States was not ready for World War II. But since then, the United States has always been prepared in peacetime for multiple wars, which means once war breaks out, the overall economic effect is rather small compared to the impact that wars had prior to 1950.



False.  Almost from the start of the Bush Quagmire there were desperate calls for more and better armored gear, which resulted in big contracts and large increases in employment, to supply them.  And Halliburton employed their own vast army of employees, hired specifically as sub-contractors, in all fields - these were not jobs that already existed.  The job of driving a supply truck for Halliburton in Iraq did not exist before the Iraq War, for example.

Same with KBR, and Raytheon, and Blackwater, and the company who had the armored vehicle contract, ITT, CACI, Titan Corp., DynCorp, General Electric, and all the electronics/IT companies, etc, etc, etc.  All these corporations hire a lot of people.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


----------



## Erand7899 (Feb 10, 2014)

francoHFW said:


> Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.



We are so close to a true depression right now, that it is hard for some to think that we are not in one.

Obama picked the same bogus fixes that FDR did, and is getting the same results.  Who would have thunk it?  

Apparently, the only way out is WWIII, or a fiscally conservative president and congress.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I recognize that not all Presidents have served for 8 years. That's obvious. I don't pick someone out of the list simply because they served 2.5 years, 4 years, or 8 years. Anyone that served as President in the White House from January 1948 to January 2014 is on the list. *That is the only OBJECTIVE way to present the information! It is the only UNBIASED way to present the information! I've presented the information just as it is from the Bureau of labor statistics. These are raw FACTS! That is what the list is, RAW FACTS!*

These are the facts about what conditions were like for Americans while the said President was in office. If you want to claim that a certain President was not responsible for those numbers or was not in office long enough, that's fine. *But that's a subjective OPINION, not a FACT!*

Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact. The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts. 

The companies that design and build up-armored personal carriers MRAPS, and provide other types of armor only employ a few thousand people at best. The Contractors only employ a few hundred thousand people over the course of the war, *the MAJORITY of them being foreign nationals and NOT US Citizens.*

So there, you are only talking about a few thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand people in an economy that employees over 160 MILLION people. That would not make a dent in anything! These employees already had jobs when they went to work for the contractors, they were drawn by the high pay these companies were offering. It had virtually no impact on the unemployment situation in the United States at all. 

Remember, we live in the 2nd machine age where robots, machines, computers, do a lot of the work that factory workers did in World War II. Companies don't have to employ as many people to produce large quantities of goods, like they did back in World War II. That's another reason why increase spending in some of these area's had little to no effect on the US labor market.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 11, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> *Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact.* The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.



Then, it's a useless fact, since it tells you nothing that correlates with reality.  For instance, every president's first year is spent under the previous president's last budget.  Where are you making the allowance for this?

Like I said: useless.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 11, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > *Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact.* The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.
> ...



Ah, didn't the budget that Obama "inherited" contain vast sums of stimulus monies that Barry turned around and used for wonderful things like bankrolling Solyndra?  Let me guess...that's Bush's fault as well because the money spent came from his last budget?


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet.  That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".


----------



## paulitician (Feb 11, 2014)

This President has been a disaster. Poverty is the worst it's been in 50yrs. His massive Debt has sunk future generations. And his record on Civil/Constitutional Liberties is probably the worst of any President in History. He has made no significant achievements. He has only committed awful blunder after blunder. Our Nation will be paying for his dismal reign for many many years. 

Ironically, the only ones who have benefited somewhat from his reign, are the Wall Street Fat Cats. Wall Street has done pretty well since the Dear Leader's been in there. But since Communists/Democrats are supposed to despise Wall Street profits, they can't even boast about that. There just isn't anything for the Dear Leader's followers to boast about. Yet they go on praising like brainwashed cult members. Like i said earlier, if a Republican were in there with this same dismal record, all of the Communist wingnuts on this Board would be screeching for Impeachment 24/7. They are poor lost Sheeple for sure.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 12, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > *Its a FACT that Obama has the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II. That's an indisputable Fact. Ford has the 2nd worst average unemployment rate. Another indisputable fact.* The list is based on their average unemployment rate over the entire length of time in office. If you want to give someone a cookie because they served less or more time, that's fine, but that is not what this list is reporting. Its reporting raw objective, unbiased facts.
> ...



It tells you the reality of the job market for Americans while said President is sitting in the White House. In addition, a First Year President is not powerless to influence the economy, so the idea that he is just sitting there unable to do anything is false. 

If that were the case, then Bush would get FULL credit for ending the recession on his own. The Recession ended after the 2nd quarter of 2009. The third quarter of 2009 saw positive GDP growth which in economics means the end of the recession. So your suggesting that Obama had no role in ending the recession and that it was all due to Bush's policies. 

Again, this is the data that is used for each President, not exceptions at all. Unbiased, objective facts. Much more informative than something that has been cherry picked in order to make one President or the other look good or bad. That is what happen when you start to add subjective commentary to these facts, claiming this counts but that doesn't. That's when things stop being objective and become biased. 

Hard facts are much more honest and informative.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 12, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I hear ya, but don't bother. These same programmed Obamabots would be screeching for Impeachment if a Republican were in there with the same miserable record. This President's legacy is...Massive Poverty, Massive Debt, and possibly being the worst President in History on Civil/Constitutional Liberties. But like i said, don't bother. Don't expect Obamabots to reboot and get real. It just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 12, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




No.  

Spend more time reading and researching, and less time spewing the first thing that pops into your head.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 12, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet.  That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".




No president "spends" money from the previous president's budget - it's already been allocated.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 12, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Complete bullshit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 12, 2014)

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




You're a complete fucking moron.  Obama hasn't committed a single impeachable offense.

You fucking idiot.


----------



## Londoner (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Republican comrade, please erase this thread. It shows that our greatest employment records happened when taxes were above 80% and 90% on the top earners. (LBJ, Truman and Ike). 

But it gets worse comrade. The top five best employment years happened with higher tax rates, including Clinton. The first Low tax, "Reagan level" tax rate is not until number 6, with GWB. This contradicts our propaganda that only the lowest taxes yield the highest job growth.

Attention brain dead moron OP.

Please research the tax rates of LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon ( and compare them to Bush and Reagan). Our greatest years happened during our highest taxes (far higher than Obama), when surplus wealth was taxed aggressively so we could create a more solvent middle class, one with unprecedented purchasing power. 

(Hint: when the middle class has more spending money, capital has an incentive to invest)

Dear Republican Moron/Friend: please take this poll down at once. It proves that the Democrats are right about the relationship between taxes and demand-centered fiscal policy.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



A recession is defined in Economics as two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP growth since the 3rd quarter of 2009 has been positive for every quarter with the exception of quarter 1 in 2011. As defined by economics, the recession was over by the start of the 3rd quarter of 2009. 

Of course, unemployment rate, poverty rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP have continued to increase. But the economy has grown every quarter since the 3rd quarter of 2009 with the exception of the first quarter of 2011. Not a lot, but it has been growing.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

Ah yes...the liberal myth that high taxes create economic growth!  I'm curious, Londoner...did you not take economics in college?  Let me guess...political science and philosophy?


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Londoner said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



I think tax rates should be 80% to 90% for top earners. I believe in low taxes or tax credits for low and middle income earners because they make up the vast majority of consumers and *its consumers that drive the economy and create jobs not the wealthy. *

But regardless of ones tax philosophy or political party membership, this is a thread about the unemployment rate for Americans and what Americans had to deal with while each of the above Presidents was sitting in the White House. Simple as that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Why would "top earners" continue to reside or even worse deign to start a business in an area that YOU controlled, U2?  Do you really not get the concept that investment capital is going to flow to wherever it's income potential can be maximized?  You COULD raise the tax on the wealthy to 80 or 90% but I can tell you without doubt what the result of that would be...you would see an exodus of capital headed elsewhere before that tax took effect!  Now if your goal is to grow jobs elsewhere while our own unemployment rate continues to languish then by all means push for much higher taxes on "top earners".


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

And just for your edification?  Jobs are created by an anticipation of profit by those with capital.  If you take away that anticipated profit then you take away the incentive to invest in job creating ventures.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm amused by the concept that spending money from a budget you took over from a preceding President shouldn't count against a sitting President's balance sheet.  That would fall under the heading of "creative accounting".
> ...




LIAR
 obama DEFICIT SPENT IN HIS FIRST YEAR; over and above money already allocated under Bush for FY 2009


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



Because they live there, they have family there, and they don't want to live in a country where they don't speak the language, live under a different set of laws, and don't have access to large amounts of land the way they do here. Tax rates are far from being the only reason for the rich to live in the United States. 

Hell, you could move to parts of Somalia and not have to pay any taxes at all, let alone have to obey any laws. But I don't know any rich people that are fleeing to Somalia, do you?

*Top Earners start businesses not because they have extra money on the side, but because they see the opportunity to make money from unmet demand. You start a business because of market conditions, where you notice there is high demand for a product or service. You don't start a business because you naively believe that if you BUILD IT, they will come!*


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

But that was just the first of four years of trillion-plus deficits. The last three budgets fall squarely under Obama. And, during that time, the federal government ran up deficits of $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 &#8212; for a total of nearly $5.2 trillion in deficit spending.
===========================================================


FROM LEFT-LEANING FACTCHECK.ORG:  "Obama's Deficit Dodge"


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

why are liberals such obtuse dunces?

 so because we had great employment "records" when taxes on the top brackets were 80% or higher that means the records were BECAUSE of the confiscatory tax rates on the top brackets?

nothing else was different than today right idiot left-wing nutjobs?

 and several hundred million CHINESE were still riding around on bicycles wearing gray pantsuits

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> And just for your edification?  Jobs are created by an anticipation of profit by those with capital.  If you take away that anticipated profit then you take away the incentive to invest in job creating ventures.



Where do you think the anticipation of profit comes from? It comes from watching what consumers do, what they buy. 80% of the economy is driven by consumers. Most consumers are lower to middle income. Those with Capital watch what low to middle income people are buying and then rush to try and fulfill unmet demand. It is the consumer that drives the economy and the market. Without the market, the wealthy can't make money, or more specifically, without the consumer the wealthy can't make money, start a new business, or have a new business succeed. The wealthy make their money from consumers and without the consumer, the wealthy would not be making any money. 

Without fans buying their music and concert tickets, Bono and U2 would not be multi-millionaires, with houses and property on every continent in the world. U2 makes a great music. But the reason their rich is because of the market, a market where consumers pick the winners.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?




that is the White House, Senate and House?
 or the 4 years you controlled both chambers of Congress?
 remember i'm saying proposed. did they even TRY?

 when? 

what pathetic little chumps and whiners libs are


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Most of the very wealthy already own properties in different countries, U2.  It isn't a choice between the US and Somalia and there are plenty of English speaking countries out there.  You're naive to the extreme about the rich and how they function.

Once again...businesses are started with the anticipation of profit...high demand doesn't really mean anything if that demand can't be met with a product that nets a profit.  As an example...demand for a $10,000 Ferrari would be through the roof but if the manufacturer lost money making that car it wouldn't matter if they were lined up around the block to buy it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital.  What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds.  That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because someone who actually studied economics in college told them that by doing so they'd bring an already slow economy to a shuddering halt?  Raising taxes is a great populist message to get votes from people who don't know better but actually DOING IT would mean that those people would understand how it affects economic growth.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That's irrelevant, because the fact remains that the CONSUMER must be willing to buy the product or service for the Business owner to make any money period. Whether he produces something that is cost efficient for him is his problem, the consumer does not care about that. The Business owner is not going to open a shop in area where the demand is low for that product or service. Consumer demand drives what business owners do, period. 

If the wealthy want to move or live in a different country that's fine. But most of the world lives in the third world and most of the rich live in the first world, where tax rates are typically higher. 

Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland still have plenty of rich people despite their high tax rates. There are only so many places that are comfortable and safe from a *rich person perspective to live in, around the world. *

Yes, you'll lose some rich people, but most will stay, just as they did in the 1940s and 1950s when US tax rates for the top earners were around 80% to 90%. *The United States did lots of great things when the tax rates were high and the standard of living for the middle class was still good. The United States ended the Great Depression, won World War II, and set up the world system that helped it to defend the world from Soviet Communism and prevent World War III.*


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital.  What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds.  That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!



Well, what happened in the 1940s and 1950s when tax rates were 80% to 90% on top earners. Did the rich put all their money into "safe" investments and stopped investing in business to try and make money? NO of course not.

When did McDonalds begin? McDonalds was started in the 1940s when the so called crushing rates of 80% to 90% tax rates should have squashed that idea flat according to you. 

Lower tax rates for lower income and middle income people or tax credits is good and helps drive the economy, because at that level consumers spend what they earn. Lower and middle income people make up more than 90% of consumers as well. 

The lower and Middle income people will buy more Bic Macs from McDonalds when you lower their taxes or give them a tax credit. But the wealthy 1% will not purchase any more Bic Macs in a single year if they get any sort of a tax cut.


*Again, wealthy people take a risk with their capital when they see unmet demand in the market that they could fill and profit from. They see what consumers demand and rush to try and fulfill that demand in order to make a profit. If there is no demand, then they are not going to start up a business. Without demand, there is no business start up. Without the consumer, there is no business. That's the #1 driving factor, not the top income earners tax rate.*


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > why didnt you sissified left-wing jerk-offs propose the huge tax rates you want on the tax highest tax brackets in the 2 years you controlled EVERYTHING?
> ...



Yep, those GDP growth rates were really slow during the 1940s and 1950s right? The growth rates were booming even though top earners were being taxed at 80% to 90% of their income. Most top earners stayed in the country because the market and the economy were strong and allowed money opportunities to make money.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...





YAWN

 again your premise seems to be that what was possible then can be done now simply because it was done then.

 iditoic on its face


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You don't get it...do you?  Demand is a given...you're not going to make something that people don't want but once you've determined that there is a demand for a product the next thing that any investor will look at is whether or not a profit will be derived from sales and if that profit is sufficient enough to risk capital.  When you raise taxes on profits you discourage investment because the profit is now less while the risk remains the same.

Do you really think that high tax rates ended the Great Depression?  That's an amusing concept.  

The reason that the United States boomed following WWII is that we were the only remaining industrial power who hadn't been decimated by the war.  Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Italy, France...all of these nation's infrastructures were in ruins at the end of that conflict whereas ours was untouched and operating a full throttle.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Once again you look at numbers and see something that doesn't correlate to our present circumstances.  What was our competition for manufacturing in the 1940's and 1950's?  A world either embroiled in war on their home soil or nations whose infrastructures were destroyed by the conflict that had just taken place.  Our GDP growth rate was high because our competitors were handicapped.

Now compare that to now...

Our manufacturers need to compete with manufacturers in China, India and Brazil...countries with extremely low labor costs.  It is now the US that is working with a handicap...but you want to ADD to that by lowering potential profits through higher taxes.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2014)

Let's face it, if a Republican were in there with this same dismal record, all the Dem-Bots on this Board would be screeching for Impeachment 24/7. Their Dear Leader has accomplished little. The awful damage he's done, far outweighs any perceived achievements. We'll be living with his Massive Poverty, Massive Debt, and Massive Surveillance Monster for many decades to come. So for all the loyal Dem-Bots out there, just pretend he has an (R) by his name. Then get back to us.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What you propose with your tax increase is to take away the profit motive from the holders of capital to risk that capital.  What you do is push them into "safe" investments like tax exempt bonds.  That type of investment doesn't create jobs it simply protects capital...and protecting capital is what the rich DO!
> ...



wow; seriously? another master if the obvious. demand is always present; as there are elastic and inelastic demands. Government has been really sh*tty at "creating" demand and not even so good at stimulating demand in the private sector; certainly not demand that lasts and is self-sustaining.

AGAIN; why doesnt; or bettter yet why didnt Democrats propose 80-90% tax rates for the top brackets if they're such a good idea and people of your mindset are so convinced no harm will result?

 what an obtuse argument you make. you leave out so much. businesses nowadays are also straddled with a million regulations that didnt exist in the 1950 or 60s. 
also the idea that the rich dont put money in the economy is patently absurd. do they build their own mansions? drive used volkswagons? eat only Ramen noodles? not hire nannies? landscapers? pool people? movers?.....etc


 Welfare as we know it DIDNT EXIST. food stamps as we know them DIDNT EXIST EXCEPT FOR A TRIAL PERIOD FROM'39-43 AND IN THE EARLY 60S

why wouldnt rich people consume more "Big Macs" if you gave them a tax cut? you offer absolutely nothing to back up that statement. and why would poor people buy more Big Macs then they need to fill their stomachs? hmmmm interesting though? are you sure thats a good thing? 

your posts are self-important garbage that leave out more than they inform


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Demand is NEVER a given. That's why business's often don't start up in economically depressed areas. That's why during recessions many business's shut down and there are not new ones to replace them. Why? Because the demand is no longer there. 

Demand will be filled by someone, regardless of whether an investor is scared about is profit margins and does nothing. Someone else will take the risk and move into the market in order to meet the demand or at least try to. 

As long as there is demand, someone will go into the market to try and meet it, regardless of the economic tax rates. 

From 1940 to 1980, the tax rate for top earners never dropped below 70%. *The economic results of that 40 year period show that this did not hurt the country or the economy. Instead, the country was still able to come out of the recession, win World War II, and create the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world, leading the United States to become a Super Power! 

I'm not saying high tax rates caused that to happen, I'm saying high tax rates on top earners did NOT PREVENT that from happening. *

The engine of the economy is the consumer. As long as there is a consumer to demand product and services, someone will come in to try and meet that demand, regardless of the tax rates on top earners. If that were not the case, all the economic growth and success in the United States from 1940 through 1980 would have been impossible. 

Giving Tax breaks to top earners does not boost the economy. Why, because top earners only consume so much. Its the lower and middle classes that create the majority of the consumption. Consumption drives 80% of the economy, which is why lower taxes on low and middle income people benefit the economy, while lower taxes on the wealthy do little to nothing. 

Give a low income person a tax break, they will purchase more Big Macs throughout the year. Give a top earner a tax break and they will consume the same number of Big Macs they did the year before, but not anymore. The top earner will not consume more from a tax break, and even if he did, the increase relative to the rest of the economy is minute. In contrast, the millions of lower and middle income people will go out and spend that tax break which will lead to an increase in GDP for that quarter or at least make the numbers better than they would be without the tax break.

No doubt, for a Top earner, low taxes are a good thing for many reasons. But on the whole, lower taxes for the rich does not boost the economy because it does not effect their consumption rate to a significant degree. 

This is not about what's good for top earners, or low earners, but what is best for sustained raw GDP growth over time. GDP growth is not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. Instead, it helps to fund the government, which funds the military which is vital to national security and national survival.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Demand is not always present in many situations. During a recession, business's will close down and new ones will not take their place because the demand is not there for them. Recessions decrease demand and this leads to area's of the country where demand for certain products and services is wiped out completely. That's why there are large regions of the country where Hooters no longer exist. Its part of the reason why Quiznos has shrunk. There used to be several Quiznos where I live, but now I'd have to drive 90 minutes to go to one. This is the result of a decline in demand for fast food services as people have less income thanks to the recession to spend on such things. 



> AGAIN; why doesnt; or bettter yet why didnt Democrats propose 80-90% tax rates for the top brackets if they're such a good idea and people of your mindset are so convinced no harm will result?



Because both Democrats and Republicans are dependent on wealthy campaign doners who would oppose such measures. One of the benefits of being wealthy today  is that you have a greater ability to shape the political process towards your personal interests, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the country as a whole or not. 



> what an obtuse argument you make. you leave out so much. businesses nowadays are also straddled with a million regulations that didnt exist in the 1950 or 60s.
> also the idea that the rich dont put money in the economy is patently absurd. do they build their own mansions? drive used volkswagons? eat only Ramen noodles? not hire nannies? landscapers? pool people? movers?.....etc



Sure they do. But their personal consumption of goods and services is typically unaffected by tax rates and only makes up a small fraction of the country's total consumption. The top 1% is a small group, and the mansions they build, nannies they higher, landscapers they higher, form a much smaller percentage of overall consumption compared to the middle and lower classes. 



> why wouldnt rich people consume more "Big Macs" if you gave them a tax cut? you offer absolutely nothing to back up that statement. and why would poor people buy more Big Macs then they need to fill their stomachs? hmmmm interesting though? are you sure thats a good thing?



         The Big Macs are just an example for overall consumption. The less income you have, the more likely you are to spend what income you do have for things. The rich, top 1%, have so much income that their daily spending habbits on food are not influenced by their tax rates. Warren Buffet is not going to eat more Big Macs this year if you give him a tax cut. The family living on 20,000 dollars a year though will be more likely to take the Kids out to McDonalds for a treat when they have more money in their pocket. The lower and middle incomes struggle to pay for their daily needs and wants. The rich do not. 

        Even if Warren Buffet did increase the number of Big Macs he ate because of a tax cut, the increase would be insignificant. But with millions of low income people, you would see a rise in consumption of Big Macs and other things. Because there are millions of low income people, this consumption has the power to positively effect GDP growth. 

*Again, consumers are the engine of the economy, and the overwhelming majority of consumers are in the lower and middle income classes and are more likely than the top 1% to go out and immediately spend EXTRA INCOME!*


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...





Demand is ALWAYS a given. even in deprresed areas demand is always there; especially inelastic demands like food (your Big Mac).  and if demand is always going to be filled by someone as you say; then it IS a given; you're contradicting yourself and talking in circles. One cannot try to meet something you say is "no longer there".
 YAWN.

once more; pathetically; you mention the period from 1940-1980 as if we live in a time warp and things havent changed since then. all of the things that HAVE changed and make things different now have already been pointed out to you by me and others.  YAWN

Sweden, Finland and Norway dont get to offer what they offer by taxing the rich to death; they have VAT TAXES; the most regressive of taxes. you want to mention those Social Democracies but are intellectually dishonest on how they do what they do. YAWN

if giving tax breaks to top consumers doesnt help the economy people such as JFK wouldnt have done just that; and the rich would have no reason to be asking for them.

 the truth is they wont pay much in taxes anyway; the will pass on the tax hikes to you; and of course NOT HIRE as you see is happening now as companies hold off hiring waiting to see what this Progressive President will do next.   YAWN


AND AGAIN; the lower and middle tax brackets already pay little to nothing in income taxes; federal income taxes; also AGAIN you advocating lower tax rates for them contradicts your using Sweden, Finland and Norway as examples. 

also boringly you keep making the same poing about poor people spending all they have on the local economy as if that's a good thing; OR EVEN TRUE. it isnt. first of all we want people to be saving; for houses and big-ticket items; not just blowing all their food stamp money. talk about lowered expectations!!

second; actual REALITY doesnt bear your theory out. we have trillions being pumped into the economy in the form of welfare and food stamps, disability, Section 8, ...etc and the economy is still weak; EXCEPT FOR THE RECORD PROFITS ON WALL STREET.  WAS THAT your desired effect?

what kind of idiot implies; or seems to; that people on government programs spending on the economy are a better thing than people with jobs? you seem to be saying that because that is what we have now.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...





YAWN. more obtuse stupidity.

 ia rich person who puts an extension on his or her large home is more likely to cause more consumption of Big Macs than a reduction in their already low or non-existant tax rates.  it is workers who fix the cars of the rich; clean their pools; build their houses, cut their lawns; cater their parties.. all of that is lessened when you tax them to death. this has been borne out time after time.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

it the top 1% is a small group and keeping their taxes low wont have much of an effect on the economy; then raising them wont have much of an effect either. you cant have it both ways

you're comical


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What about the 1960s and 1970s. Top earners were still taxed at a rate that was over 70%. The United States quickly rebuilt Europe and Japan because their economic strength were a source of support and business opportunities. The United States is strengthened when economic conditions are strong around the world. It is weakened when they are not. Depressed demand overseas for US goods and services has a negative effect on the economy. When large area's of the world are destroyed or in complete ruins, it has a depressing effect on US exports which create jobs at home. It also is a threat to US national security when natural resources from abroad cannot be accessed  at the prices needed to sustain economic growth. 

By the way, Brazil and India were never occupied or bombed by the Axis Powers in World War II and were not sitting in ruins in 1945 either. 

Its interesting to note that now that top tax rates have declined to 35% for income and Capital Gains taxes are a pitiful 15%, the economy over the past 15 years on the average has unfortunately been anemic in terms of growth compared to 1940 to 1980. 

The big lowering of top tax rates has not led to improved GDP growth over the 1940-1980 period. Instead it has helped to balloon the deficit and debt and has made it difficult to pay for Defense and provide entitlements like social security and medicare. 

Lower tax rates and tax credits on lower and middle income people is good for the economy and leads to better GDP growth. Lower tax rates for the rich has no real impact on their consumption and does not improve GDP growth. As for the country as a whole, the impact of tax breaks for the rich is usually negative in that it makes it more difficult for the government to pay for Defense, social security and medicare, and often helps lead to deficits and then increased debt. 
US economic growth rates were great in the 1960s and did just fine in the 1970s. A 70% or more tax rate did not prevent that from happening.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

the rich are telling us what they need; what they would like to see happen; in order for them to create jobs and an environment of SUSTAINALBE JOB CREATION.
 but you Progressives will have none of that

 you appear to know better than not just poor people what is good for them; but rich, private sector entrepreneurs as well

SIGH
 oh well; YOU CAN ALWAYS GO ON PRETENDING RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IS "FORWARD PROGRESS"


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



YAWN;

 once more you ignore what is inconveniant. is this the 70's? the 60's?

lol and pitifully again you make no actual connection between the higher tax rates of yesterday and that period's GDP; or the lowered top tax rates and the GDP figures of today. you seem to think just saying it is some kind of proof of something


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> it the top 1% is a small group and keeping their taxes low wont have much of an effect on the economy; then raising them wont have much of an effect either. you cant have it both ways
> 
> you're comical



The top 1% is a small group, which means their daily consumption levels are low, NOT their money and assets. The top 1% in this country have 33% of the wealth. The problem is that they won't and can't spend that on a daily basis. Take part of that wealth out their hands in put it into the hands of millions of lower income people and they will spend it all immediately and the business they spend it on will be the winners as well the economy, which leads to GDP growth. The rich sit on most of their wealth instead of using it for consumption. The lower and middle income people spend almost everything they have consuming products and services which benefits the economy and GDP growth. 

Because the top 1% are not major consumers relative to the rest of the population, taxing them at a higher rate will not hurt the economy because most of their money is not being used to consume anything on a daily basis. The top 1% have a lot of money that is not being used for consumption at all, and should be used to pay for DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE and other things that are NEEDED by the country as a whole. Because such money was not being used for CONSUMPTION, it will not negatively impact consumption and will not negatively impact the economy, yet it will benefit the country!


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

Brazil and India were not lying in ruins in 1945 true. but they were BOTH  dirt-poor. you make my point for me. Now they are economic powerhouses that compete with us; whereas before they werent even in our league

 wow


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

if their daily consumption levels are low; they are still high in dollar amount; as they have the capacity to afford more things. do people only eat food?

 wow; honestly you're not saying anything; Daily consumption levels? one item a rich person buys might be equal to a year's worth of "daily consumption" for 10 people

 and AGAIN your point is MOOT  anyway because the middle class and poor already pay very little in the way of federal taxes; raising taxes on the rich wont increase what the poor and middle class consume


UNLESS what you're talking about in REDISTRIBUTION

 why dont you move to North Korea?  or how did that work out in the Soviet Union?


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The higher tax rates of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, at least 70% NEVER had a negative impact on GDP. GDP growth on average during this time was better than at any period in United States history. *I'm not saying the high tax rates are responsible for that, I'm saying that had NO EFFECT on great GDP performance. High tax rates on top income earners that is.*

The lower Tax rates TODAY have not caused lower GDP growth rates, but they have not helped them either. Where the lower taxes have had a negative impact is that it has made it more difficult for the government to meet its spending obligations on defense, social security, medicare,  and led to deficits and debt. 

It is precisely because high tax rates on top income earners do not impact the economy significantly, that such rates should remain in place because they do much public good in helping to balance the budget and defend the country and its interest.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> if their daily consumption levels are low; they are still high in dollar amount; as they have the capacity to afford more things. do people only eat food?
> 
> wow; honestly you're not saying anything; Daily consumption levels? one item a rich person buys might be equal to a year's worth of "daily consumption" for 10 people
> 
> ...



*I NEVER SAID RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH WOULD INCREASE WHAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS CONSUME.* I stated that such high tax rates would not negatively impact the economy, because GDP growth was strong on average from 1940 to 1980 when tax rates for the top earners were well above 1%. 

*THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT THE SOVIET UNION OR NORTH KOREA FROM 1940 to 1980 because it taxed its highest earners at a 70% rate or more.*

       The United States from 1940-1980 was a beacon for democracy and free market capitalism. Countries with Free Market Capitalism still have tax rates on everyone and the highest rates are paid by the rich. 

        The Soviet Union and North Korea are communist states where there is no such thing as the market and everything is owned by and run by top government officials. 

         While a rich person may buy something that is worth a years spending by 10 people, that rich person will still buy that something regardless of what their tax rates are. You have that luxury when you are in the top 1%. Your daily consumption needs and wants are so small to your overall wealth that increased tax rates will not impact your consumption rate.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Brazil and India were not lying in ruins in 1945 true. but they were BOTH  dirt-poor. you make my point for me. Now they are economic powerhouses that compete with us; whereas before they werent even in our league
> 
> wow



It goes both ways. The United States has new markets in India and Brazil in which its business can make money which leads to more jobs in the United States and more tax revenue for the US government. 

Lets take a business like U2. Back in the 1980s, U2 did not travel to Brazil to sell concert tickets. In the 2000s they do. There is now a market in Brazil which  U2 can exploit and make millions of dollars from which they didn't have years ago. 

U2 is not the only business to discover this. Thousands of US business's providing various products and services have discovered this as well and have benefited just like U2 have.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

no YOU dont get it.
 i asked you quite simply; how will taxing the richest at higher rates put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class?


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

your point about U2 makes my point more than it makes yours; and has nothing to do with taxing our richest people at high rates


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> the rich are telling us what they need; what they would like to see happen; in order for them to create jobs and an environment of SUSTAINALBE JOB CREATION.
> but you Progressives will have none of that
> 
> you appear to know better than not just poor people what is good for them; but rich, private sector entrepreneurs as well
> ...



I'm not a progressive. I'm a Republican and have never voted for an independent or a member of another party. 

           Consumers are the job creators, not the rich. The rich simply help to fill unmet demand of consumers. Are economy is 80% driven by consumers, and the vast majority of them are in the lower and middle class. They are the engine of the economy and they decided the business winners and losers, not the rich.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> no YOU dont get it.
> i asked you quite simply; how will taxing the richest at higher rates put more money in the hands of the poor and middle class?



I never said that it would or that it was the purpose. I simply said it would NOT have a negative impact on GDP growth and would help pay for vital things such as NATIONAL DEFENSE and help prevent budget deficits.


----------



## bedowin62 (Feb 13, 2014)

you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles

 that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> your point about U2 makes my point more than it makes yours; and has nothing to do with taxing our richest people at high rates



You claimed Brazils economic power and growth was bad for US business and economy. Its not at all. I used U2 as an example to show that, even though U2 is Irish.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles
> 
> that the economy is driven by consumers is a given; it has nothing to do with your suggestion that the rich need to be taxed to death



I didn't say they need to be, I said that they can be and that it would be good for the country as a whole and would not have a negative impact on GDP growth.

Again, US GDP growth from 1940 to 1980 was not negatively impacted by high tax rates on the rich. The average GDP growth in the United States from 1940 through 1980 was the strongest in the history of the United States. That shows that high tax rates on the rich do not negatively impact GDP growth!


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 13, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?



They won't and I never said that they would. US products our more likely to be purchased in Brazil TODAY because the economy in Brazil has developed enough so that people can afford US products.


----------



## Oldstyle (Feb 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



That post, U2...is a perfect example of why Progressives struggle to create jobs.  You honestly don't have a clue about how economics works...nor do you understand what motivates those with capital to risk that capital in investments that create jobs.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 9, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2014 was 6.7%. This is Obama's 62nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.62% in January 2014 at 61 months to the average 8.59% in February 2014 at 62 months.

Here is the new standings for Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.59%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.59%*


----------



## paulitician (Mar 9, 2014)

Good ole Communist 'Hope & Change.' Gotta love it. And their Unemployment numbers are Bullshite anyway. 95 Million Americans are not working. 50 Million are on Food Stamps. I don't believe anything coming from this Administration anymore.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > you dont know what you're talking about and are talking in circles
> ...



It shows no such thing.  Our growth was high only because the rest of the world had been bombed into the stone age.  Furthermore, those high tax rates applied only to incomes over $1 million, which was a huge amount in those days.  Furthermore, they had a lot more deductions.  Few people ever paid the top rate.  You are proposing to impose on a lot more people.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > how will taxing our rich to death make our products more likely to be bought in Brazil?
> ...



How does that justify raising taxes on anyone?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 9, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


High tax rates on high income earners reduce high income earners and bring in less money than projected.  That is always and everywhere the case.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 9, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Brazil?  Oops.
Brazil's Economy Seen in a Major Downturn - WSJ.com


----------



## Sallow (Mar 9, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....



You could say that about Bush.

Because it seems no one holds him responsible for some pretty fucked up shit.

Which Obama had to fix.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 9, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...



Still whining about Bush?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 9, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...



The Democrats held everything that happened under Bush to be his fault. Whether he could change it or not.
Flashback - Pelosi '07: Blames Bush for $3.07 Gas, In '12 Blames 'Speculators' | CNS News


----------



## RKMBrown (Mar 9, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



Guy's still pretending Obama's gonna come through on his promises.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2014 was 6.7%. This is Obama's 63rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.59% in February 2014 at 62 months to the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.56% *

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.56%*


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2014)

Oh, his Unemployment numbers are a sham anyway. There is absolutely no way it's only 6.7%. It's another lie. But what do you expect? It's the Chicago Way.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 4, 2014)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



pumping 7 trillion dollars of BORROWED money into the economy with no plan to pay it back is not fixing a broken economy.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 4, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...


 but hasn't fixed


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 4, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Oh, his Unemployment numbers are a sham anyway. There is absolutely no way it's only 6.7%. It's another lie. But what do you expect? It's the Chicago Way.



With the way we figure unemployment a part time job counts the same as a full time job.  One thing that Barry HAS been great at is turning full time jobs into part time jobs.  Take that into account and his numbers are really abysmal.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 4, 2014)

can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?


----------



## paulitician (Apr 5, 2014)

6.7% is laughable. Obviously it's much much higher. It's all a lie. Period, end of story.


----------



## itfitzme (Apr 9, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?



How many?


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 9, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


And up until President Obama both houses of Congress were willing to work together and compromise to make America a better place. Any republican who even suggests compromise today is immediately given the Kiss of Death, dismissed as a RINO and thrown under the bus.  Look at all the republican congressmen who will be challenged by members of the tea party because they were not far enough right.
The republicans in Congress are determined NOT to pass any legislation that will make Obama look good. To that end every bill the House passes includes a rider designed to defund or repeal ACA. That makes it DOA in the Senate and that is exactly what the House wants. On the other hand, when the Senate passes a bill that will help the American people Boehner merely sits on it and refuses to allow it to come up for a vote. The result is we have the most dysfunctional Congress in history.
What republicans are too stupid to understand is that when you bring down the president you bring down the country with him. republicans are willing to destroy this country to destroy Obama.


----------



## itfitzme (Apr 9, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?



58.2 million people collect Social Security Benefits of some kind.  These include OASDI and disability benefits.  47.2 million people collect OASDI.  These include retirement benefits collected by some 41 million and survivor benefits paid to children and surviving spouse.  The reason they collect them is because they are entitled to.  They paid into the insurance when they were working (or, in the case of survivor benefits, a parent or spouse did.

10.9 million people collect disability benefits.  These include disabled workers, children of disabled workers, and spouses of disabled workers.  The reason they collect them is because the are entitled to. They are entitled to because, when they were working, someone paid into the insurance.

8.3 million people collects Supplemental Security Income.  These include 2.1 million people over the age of 65 and 1.3 under 18.  4.9 million are between 18 and 65.  To be eligible for SSI, a person must be blind, disabled, or over 65.  So, that 4.9 million between 18 and 65 are blind or disabled.

So, there are  66.5 million individuals that are collecting entitlements.

What does that have to do with the state of the economy? Nothing. The two are not related.


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 9, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> can the liberals answer this? if so many people are working and the economy is fixed, whay are so many still on entitlements?


spoonman, let me explain a simple fact to you.  It has probably been explained to you a couple of dozen times but as you are a member of the gop the explanation has probably flown in one ear and out the other.
You like to condemn Social Security as an entitlement.  You like to act like somehow the government is giving all these people free money!  IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!  From the first job I had to the last job each and every paycheck I received had money taken out of it and turned over to the government.  All these years, right up until I retired the government was holding my money and keeping records of it.  When I retired I started to receive the money back in the form of Social Security checks.  THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING ME BACK *MY* MONEY!  You twit, the money given back to me is not government money, it is *MY* money being returned to me.  Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand how Social Security works?  Are you really that stupid?


----------



## Faun (Apr 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



How come no one *ever* averaged out the unemployment rate like that before Obama became president?

Oh, I know, because since the BLS has kept stats, there's only ever been one Republican president who lowered the unemployment rate on their watch and there's never been a Democrat president who increased the unemployment rate on theirs. So how else can the GOP attack Obama?


----------



## Faun (Apr 9, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



He hasn't?

Employment in the private sector has grown for 49 consecutive months now. If that trend keeps up for 3 more months, you will be hearing a lot about this since that will make this period the longest stretch of growth in the private sector in the history of keeping employment stats.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Let me see if I'm following your train of thought here, Faun...

You're not disputing the number of 8.86% for Barack Obama...but you're upset because you don't think anyone EVER averaged out the unemployment rates before Barack Obama became President?

You seriously believe that?  I mean *SERIOUSLY*?  You think they only started keeping track of unemployment rates because it's embarrassing to Obama because his are so bad?  Is that your contention?  *SERIOUSLY?*   Damn, Dude...that is some serious whine you're working there!


----------



## Clementine (Apr 9, 2014)

Presidents don't, and shouldn't, control the economy although the policies they create affect it greatly.   Obamacare killed jobs.   Crony capitalism tilts the playing field.    Those things negatively affect us all.    Best thing that the president and congress can do is follow the constitution and stop meddling where they don't belong.

It's incredibly that we have things like a jobs bill.   Government cannot create jobs.    If they want to see more jobs created, they need to untie the hands of employers and small business creators.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 9, 2014)

Obama's green energy scam and denial of fossil fuel extraction has cost our economy over $1.2 trillion every year since he took office.
That's the kind of spending money that this economy would have used to build upon itself. Instead we stay in the hole because he wants people on the dole.


----------



## Faun (Apr 9, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Actually, the number isn't even 8.86%. But then, righties never can handle math. Still, the actual number is high and higher than the rest. No, my contention is this reflects just how desperate the right is. It's kind of like them talking about the labor force participation rate. No one has ever averaged out the unemployment rate before, yet since the right has this insatiable need to attack Obama over the unemployment rate, even as it improves, they have to keep finding innovative ways to make him look bad.

Averaging out the unemployment rate is an effective way to hide the fact that he was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression though, so I understand why they resort to a metric that has never been used before.

Still, righties can't escape the fact that Reagan remains the only Republican president to lower the unemployment rate by the end of his presidency or the fact that no Democrat president has increased it.

By the way, what do you think averaging out the unemployment rate means in terms of a presidents' handling of the economy?


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 9, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Presidents don't, and shouldn't, control the economy although the policies they create affect it greatly. Obamacare killed jobs. ......


 I stopped reading right there:  Obamacare killed jobs.  I'll ignore the fact that you were to lazy to provide a link if there even is one and point out that in the last month of the bush administration Americans were losing 750,000 jobs a month.  If you have trouble with numbers let me write it out for you:  *Seven hundred and fifty THOUSAND jobs a month*.  Within one year Obama had stopped that job loss and the American workers started gaining those jobs back. 






The red shows bush's job loss during the last several months he was in office.  The blue shows what happened after Obama took office.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/31ef3f9069209f2b69_h81mvyju7.jpg


----------



## bayoubill (Apr 9, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



presidents have a fairly great amount of influence with the direction the economy takes...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The "real" unemployment rate is higher than 8.86.  If you looked at how many full time jobs Barack Obama has turned into part time jobs with the legislation he's pushed the numbers get even worse for him!

So why isn't Barry doing what Reagan did?  At this point in his second term Reagan had the economy growing by leaps and bounds, inflation under control and unemployment was coming down as well.  Barack Obama isn't doing ANY of those things!

Trust me...you don't have to do "creative accounting" to make this President look bad when it comes to the economy.  The people that were getting creative were whoever it was who came up with a new economic statistic..."jobs created or saved"...when the Obama Stimulus failed miserably at creating the jobs that Barry, Harry and Nancy assured us it would!


----------



## Faun (Apr 9, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The "real" unemployment rate was still higher when Bush left office. At any rate, the claim is that the average under Obama is 8.86, and it's not. Demonstrating yet again how bad Conservatives are at math.



Oldstyle said:


> So why isn't Barry doing what Reagan did?  At this point in his second term Reagan had the economy growing by leaps and bounds, inflation under control and unemployment was coming down as well.  Barack Obama isn't doing ANY of those things!


What did Reagan do?



Oldstyle said:


> Trust me...you don't have to do "creative accounting" to make this President look bad when it comes to the economy.  The people that were getting creative were whoever it was who came up with a new economic statistic..."jobs created or saved"...when the Obama Stimulus failed miserably at creating the jobs that Barry, Harry and Nancy assured us it would!


Sure, uh-huh. If you didn't have to resort to "creative accounting," then you wouldn't be averaging out the unemployment rate (something never done before).

And you never did answer the question .... what do you think the average unemployment rate means in terms of a presidents' handling of the economy?


----------



## Politico (Apr 10, 2014)

Glad this got bumped. We are well into double digits now.


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 10, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I stopped reading right here.  Basically all your have provided is more right wing lies and foolishness.  You make a ignorant statement and do not provide a link to prove your statement. I will not waste time on you.


----------



## Politico (Apr 10, 2014)

If you can't figure out the real number I am sorry to say a link won't help.


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 10, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And your proof of this is .............?  And your link is .........?
For the love of God turn off fox and try thinking for yourself.  It will be difficult but at least give it a try and stop parroting the dummies.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 10, 2014)

All US economic hardship is at the foot of the green energy scam.
Period.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 10, 2014)

Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point

Starting with near double digit unemployment does put you at a distinct disadvantage


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

ron4342 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm guessing he's talking about the U6 unemployment rate? That includes people who are working, just not as much as they would like; and discouraged workers.

However, the U6 rate, while still high at 12.7%, is less than the 14.2% that Bush left Obama with. And of course, thanks to Bush's recession, the U6 went as high as 17.1% At 12.7%, that represents a drop in the unemployment rate of 11% from when Obama became president and a decrease of 26% since its post recession high. Compared to George Bush, who nearly doubled it from 7.3% to 14.2%, an increase of a whopping 95%.

So we have a Republican president who increased the unemployment rate and his successor, a Democrat, who's lowered it. How do Conservatives spin that to make the Democrat appear worse than the Republican? They do something never done before and average out the unemployment rate to hide the fact that Obama was handed the highest unemployment rate any president inherited (which essentially blames Obama) with the lone exception of FDR. 

Here's a revealing chart showing how bad Republican presidents have been in terms of unemployment ...

Here's a list of U.S. presidents, along with the diffenrence in the U3 unemployment rate after being in office for 62 months...

*Clinton .............. -2.6
Johnson ............ -2.3
Obama .............. -1.1
Kennedy** ......... -0.9
Reagan .............. -0.3
Carter*** ........... 0.0
Bush ................ +0.5
Nixon ............... +1.7
GHW Bush*** ... +1.9
Ford* ............... +2.0
Eisenhower ...... +3.8*


_* = in office 29 months_

_** = in office 34 months_

_*** = in office 48 months_

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​
You'll notice that Reagan is the only president to lower the unemployment rate by this time in his presidency (and barely); while no Democrat ever increased it.

How does the GOP spin that? Average out the unemployment rate.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point
> 
> Starting win near double digit unemployment does put you at a distinct disadvantage



Which is exactly why Conservatives are doing this. It also hides the fact that Obama has lowered unemployment while Bush nearly doubled it. And it has the added benefit of blaming Obama with the *millions* of job loses which occurred at the beginning of his presidency due to the Great Recession Bush left for him.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So after 5 years of almost total control of the government and trillions in stimulus Obama managed to reduce the real UE by 2 points?  And you wonder why people call him a failure??


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...



His job approval is higher than Bush's at this same point in his presidency. If Obama is a failure, than Bush was an even bigger failure. And Bush, at this point in his presidency, would have been a bigger failure before complete wrecking the economy -- that pretty much renders Bush as possibly the worst president in U.S. history. And despite the way you attempt to minimize Obama's feat of lowering the unemployment rate, the fact remains -- at 62 months in office, he has lowered it more than every single Republican president, including the GOP god, Ronald Reagan.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Obama's approval ratings have been falling like topsy.  But approval ratings do not define success.  Success defines success.  And Obama has had no success.  Not in foreign policy.  Not in domestic policy.  Bush turned around the recession he inherited from Clinton within 18 months.  And he didnt spend a trillion bucks doing it either.  Most of his foreign policy was a success.
That makes obama the most failed president in post WW2.  The least qualified, the least competent, the most over hyped.  Even progressives can't stand the guy.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


WTF are you smoking? His approval rating is around 43% It's been around that for about the last 5 months. And despite going up and down over the years, it was 42% in 2011. That's your idea of "falling??"  



The Rabbi said:


> But approval ratings do not define success.  Success defines success.  And Obama has had no success.  Not in foreign policy.  Not in domestic policy.


And Bush's successes were ... ? Invading a country over WMD that weren't there? Protecting us on 911? Killing bin Laden? Cratering the economy? Being only the second president in history to leave office with fewer jobs in the private sector than when he started? C'mon, help me out here?



The Rabbi said:


> Bush turned around the recession he inherited from Clinton within 18 months.  And he didnt spend a trillion bucks doing it either.  Most of his foreign policy was a success.
> That makes obama the most failed president in post WW2.  The least qualified, the least competent, the most over hyped.  Even progressives can't stand the guy.



There was no recession when Clinton left office, therefore Bush couldn't have inherited one from Clinton. Sad that you have to lie to make your non-point.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 10, 2014)

ron4342 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Do you people really not know that the real unemployment number (U6) is usually substantially larger that the unemployment number that is normally quoted?  You want cites?  Fine...

The Unemployment Rate: Get Real


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bush took office just as the Dot Com Boom fizzled out and was fighting a recession from the start.  It's always amusing how you liberals conveniently overlook how much the Dot Com Boom (along with a Republican led Congress that reined in spending) helped Clinton's numbers look good.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How do you propose to measure the success or failure of a President's economic policies if not with an examination of things like the unemployment numbers or the rate of growth of the overall economy?  You've got your panties in a twist because you think Barack Obama is being "unfairly" scrutinized by his critics, which is laughable.

The bottom line is this...President Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.  That's a fact!  At some point the choices he has made when it comes to economic policy are going to be questioned because to be quite blunt...the results have sucked!!!  If he were a conservative President and his policies gave this kind of result I would fully expect that he would be figuratively "tarred and feathered" by the opposition.  I certainly wouldn't be on here whining about it like you are.

You keep bringing up Reagan in a comparison with Obama, Bluesman and you don't seem to grasp the glaring difference in results between the two Presidents at this point in their second term.  The REASON that Reagan was reelected in a landslide was the country could see that his economic policies were working!  Inflation was under control...unemployment was down...and the economy was growing at an increasing rate.  That simply hasn't happened under Obama.  His policies have led to economic stagnation with long term unemployment at levels we haven't seen SINCE the Great Depression.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Facts just arent your friends here.
Obamacare reaches lowest approval rating ever | The Daily Caller

Bush's success?  Imposing UN mandate on violating country.  Getting rid of state sponsor of terrorism.  Neutering al Qaeda.  War on Terror so successful his successor copied it.  Neutralize Libyan program of WMD.  Increased AIDS resources to Africa.  Humanitarian missions in Haiti and elsewhere.  Second longest string of postiive GDP growth post ww2.  Prescription drug benefit for seniors.  Bipartisan legislation signed. Among the lowest average unemployment of any president. Lowest avareage inflation.
etc etc.
The dot com bust happened as Clinton left office.  Combined with 9/11 it caused the recession.  Bush turned it around in 18 months.  No radical expansion of government needed.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 10, 2014)

Folks, when looking at unemployment, all the months for the time each president is in office, the unemployment rate for all those months, is added up and then divided by the number of months in office. *That is the only fair and accurate way to assess what life was like in the labor force during the entire time the said President was in office.

Over a 96 month period, two full terms, the unemployment rate will rise and fall many times. It is grossly inaccurate to simply compare the first month the President is in office to the last month the President is in office. That's only two months of information. Your missing 94 months of data. Would you like your job performance to be based only on your first month of work and your last month of work. Would you like your grades in school to be based only on your first month of school and your last month of school. Do colleges and Highschools  rate GPA of students by its rise or fall from the first month to the last month? 

NO, they take the average of all data points that go into making up that GPA! Its the same with the unemployment rate. If you don't like the results for your favorite President, too bad. But the results are solid facts from BLS!*


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ron4342 said:
> ...


"... almost total control of the government ...."  In case you are living on some other planet or are delusional have you taken the time to look at the behavior of the republicans in both the House and Senate.  By the use of filibusters they have managed to kill almost every bill that has been proposed.  Meanwhile they have written numerous bills, all with a rider killing ACA, knowing they would be rejected.  They don't want anything to pass and become law.  It is no accident that thanks to the republicans the Congress is making a strong run at being the worst Congress in 238 years.  Give Obama 61 votes in the Senate and then your 2/3 statement would have merit other than that, it is just more mud from the terminally ignorant.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ron, man.  No offense and I love you like a brother.  But you're one stupid motherfucker.  Democrats controlled Congress from 2009 to 2011.  For at least some of that time they had a filibuster proof majority.  For the rest of it, if they could persuade one or two Republicans to their side, they would get their legislation through.  And indeed in the first two years of Obama's term Congress passed plenty of legislation.  SOmetimes they even had GOP votes.
And the results have sucked.  Worst recovery on record.  Highest level of gov't dependence since WW2.  Slowest income growth.  On and on.  By every measure Obama has been a gross failure.


----------



## ron4342 (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


The Daily Caller????  You really like to wallow at the ultra right sewer sites, don't you?  Your posts are not even worth pissing on.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


* Translation: *_ Bush did not inherit a recession since the country was not in a recession in January, 2001. _

Take it up with Rabbi ... he's the one who lied, fallaciously claiming Bush inherited a recession.

As far as your nonsense about Republicans making Clinton's numbers look better -- if Republicans had anything to do with it, and they didn't, they would have been able to keep the numbers looking good. Instead, the numbers fell into the toilet after Clinton left.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 10, 2014)

ron4342 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Democrats have controlled the US Senate for his entire Obama Presidency to this point.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Of course Bush inherited a recession. It was coming.  It was going to come.  It was in the making when he took office.
Gingrich and the House GOP worked with Clinton on his signature issues: Welfare reform, NAFTA, a balanced budget.  Clinton had no interest in those issues prior to the GOP taking the House.


----------



## paulitician (Apr 10, 2014)

How can anyone still believe this Administration on anything? They're lying criminals. There is absolutely no way Unemployment is as low as they're claiming. No way. They lie. Period, end of story.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Don't misrepresent what I say. I never said we shouldn't examine unemployment numbers. I myself presented unemployment numbers. What I did say was that Conservatives are so desperate to make Obama look bad, they're inventing new ways to look at unemployment numbers since the conventional ways of looking at them is improving.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question, what do you think the average unemployment rate indicates in terms of a presidents' handling of the economy?

Speaking of Reagan and unanswered questions, I also asked what Reagan did to turn the economy around?

As far as this being the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, it was also the biggest recession since the Great Depression. The deeper the hole, the harder it is to climb out of.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Translation: I want to find the best metric to make Bush look bad and Obama good.
Reagan worked to get comprehensive tax reform, elimiating loopholes in exchange for lower rates across the board.  What we should be doing.  He slowed down the growth of the bureaurcracy.  He deregulated natural gas prices.  He slashed milk price supports.
The bigger the recession, the stronger the recovery.  That is the rule in every recession post war except this one.  Wonder why?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



With all due respect, Faun...who invented new ways to look at unemployment numbers...those who used the established methods for determining unemployment...or the Obama Administration and progressive Democrats who invented a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how bad things really were?

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Stimulus failed to create the numbers of jobs that liberals promised it would and instead of simply reporting the numbers as they WERE...your side came up with a number that couldn't be verified in a rather laughable attempt to obscure that!

I've already answered question #2.  One of the ways you judge the effectiveness of a President's economic policies is by an examination of unemployment data and economic growth.  You don't like it when that is done to the Obama Administration because they don't look good when their numbers are looked at.

As for what Reagan did to turn the economy around?  Reagan was facing an especially daunting task because Jimmy Carter had left him rampant Stagflation...a combination of high unemployment and high inflation.  Reagan attacked that by supporting Paul Volcker's tightening up the money supply to bring down inflation (something which actually worsened the unemployment situation early on) and then cutting taxes to stimulate the economy.  One of the other things he did that helped to turn around the economy was getting rid of "price controls" that had been imposed by both Nixon and Carter.  Contrast that with what Obama has done since taking office!  He's supported loosening the money supply and raising taxes while at the same time imposing more government regulations on American businesses.

As for your claim about the bigger the hole the harder it is to climb out of?  History doesn't back up that statement.  Economic downturns are historically followed by economic rebounds.  The two glaring exceptions to that rule are the Great Depression (where many economists now believe FDR's policies and meddling with the economy actually PROLONGED the Great Depression)...and the Great Recession that we find ourselves mired in now.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Holy shit!!!  Talk about retarded.

We're talking about JARs, you rightard. You can't spin the fact that Obama has a higher job approval than Bush had at this point in his presidency by pointing out the publics' disapproval of ObamaCare.

As far as your idiotic claim that 911, combined with dot com bust, caused the recession ... 911 had nothing to do with that recession. 911 occurred in September,  * 6 months  after  the recession began* and had absolutely nothing to do with causing it. That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. 

And still, no matter how hard you try, there was no recession when Bush became president. Therefore, it's ridiculous to claim he inherited one. You do not inherit something which does not exist.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Folks, when looking at unemployment, all the months for the time each president is in office, the unemployment rate for all those months, is added up and then divided by the number of months in office. *That is the only fair and accurate way to assess what life was like in the labor force during the entire time the said President was in office.
> 
> Over a 96 month period, two full terms, the unemployment rate will rise and fall many times. It is grossly inaccurate to simply compare the first month the President is in office to the last month the President is in office. That's only two months of information. Your missing 94 months of data. Would you like your job performance to be based only on your first month of work and your last month of work. Would you like your grades in school to be based only on your first month of school and your last month of school. Do colleges and Highschools  rate GPA of students by its rise or fall from the first month to the last month?
> 
> NO, they take the average of all data points that go into making up that GPA! Its the same with the unemployment rate. If you don't like the results for your favorite President, too bad. But the results are solid facts from BLS!*


If that's the only fair way to measure the labor force, then why has no one ever averaged out the unemployment rate before Obama? And since Obama's average is inflated due to the recession he inherited, you think it's fair to attribute job losses from the  recession during the beginning of his term to him? And when looking at their first 62 months in office, Obama at 8.6 is barely behind Reagan at 8.3. Are you saying Obama has done almost as good a job with unemployment as Reagan?


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yet the Republican-led Congress couldn't balance a budget for their life after Clinton left office. Yeah, sure, it was them anyway and not Clinton. By the way, budget deficits fell every year under Clinton, even before the GOP took over in 1995.


----------



## Faun (Apr 10, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You really are too stupid for words. If your claim, _"the bigger the recession, the stronger the recovery"_ is true, then how do you explain why it took longer to recover from Reagan's recession (28 months) than it did to recover from [edit: Carter's] recession (10 months)?

And I, m not looking for a metric to make Bush look bad or Obama look good. That would be you rightards who are inventing new ways to parse the unemployment rate. I'm the one pointing out that spin and saying that Obama's numbers should be looked at the same way every other presidents had been looked at.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 10, 2014)

President Obama also inherited the highest unemployment rate of any of those presidents.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 10, 2014)

And since economic downturns are historically followed by economic upturns, Barack Obama was situated perfectly to look like a CHAMP when the economy rebounded and unemployment numbers turned around.  But through his own inept handling of economic policy and the pursuit of a job killing Affordable Care Act he managed to lead us into the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression!

The "Great Recession" is now taking it's place in our economic history...as years pass Barack Obama's economic policies will come to be seen as the blue print for what NOT to do to get an economy to grow.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 10, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> And since economic downturns are historically followed by economic upturns, Barack Obama was situated perfectly to look like a CHAMP when the economy rebounded and unemployment numbers turned around.  But through his own inept handling of economic policy and the pursuit of a job killing Affordable Care Act he managed to lead us into the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression!
> 
> The "Great Recession" is now taking it's place in our economic history...as years pass Barack Obama's economic policies will come to be seen as the blue print for what NOT to do to get an economy to grow.



bingo, this guy hahs rwmmed through all kinds of govt and all we have is debt


----------



## Politico (Apr 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point
> 
> Starting with near double digit unemployment does put you at a distinct disadvantage



It doesn't matter what the politicians are doing. The people are the ones who will be voting. They vote with their wallets. And all they know is they don't have jobs.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 11, 2014)

Politico said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing "average employment" would make sense if all Presidents started at the same point
> ...



Yet they overwhelmingly voted for an Obama second term


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I dont know when Reagan's recession or Carter's recession were.  Perhaps you can refresh my memory here.
What is undoubted is Obama is a disaster.  Every policy has failed.
Final tally for Cash for Clunkers: 700,000 sales, $2.877B - Autoblog


----------



## Politico (Apr 11, 2014)

Overwhelmingly lol. The way you Leftytoons do math is hilarious.


----------



## U2Edge (May 5, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

* Barrack Obama: 8.52%  *

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.52%   *


----------



## srlip (May 5, 2014)

probably Reagan or Nixon, inherited from the democrat's excesses before them.


----------



## regent (May 5, 2014)

lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate. 
If that is true then we only have to elect the right president and bingo we have full employment.
But I wonder if there is more to America's employment rate, I mean the president can't pass laws so how does his election change the employment rate? 
Is there a book that explains how the election of a president determines the employment rate?
Have economists figured out why employment varies so much?
Does the employment rate change as soon as a president is elected? 
Are there factors that determine the employment rate other than the election of a president? 
How many economic factors determine an employment rate? 
Does each of those multiple employment factors have to be in the same proportion to have a good or bad effect on employment?


----------



## U2Edge (May 5, 2014)

regent said:


> lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate.
> If that is true then we only have to elect the right president and bingo we have full employment.
> But I wonder if there is more to America's employment rate, I mean the president can't pass laws so how does his election change the employment rate?
> Is there a book that explains how the election of a president determines the employment rate?
> ...



There are a wide number of things which effect the economy which impacts the employment rate. One of those things is government policy. Since the President has the most influence on government policy of any individual, the President will typically receive most the praise or blame for economic conditions. The PEOPLE suffer when the economy is bad and the employment rate falters. One action people can take is to elect new government officials. This is why a President's re-election or election is often very dependent on economic conditions.


----------



## 1776 (May 5, 2014)

Obama has no intention of fixing the economy, socialists like him want more people living off welfare so that they support Democraps keeping the system in place.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



How many Presidents were able to drop the unemployment rate 4% during their presidency?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 months.
> ...



FDR did.  And his policies produced the Great Depression.
Wanna try again, Ace?


----------



## tyroneweaver (May 5, 2014)

I find the list a little misleading undr reagan the greatest rise in employment occured


----------



## DigitalDrifter (May 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 64th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.56% in March 2014 at 63 months to the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 months.
> ...



Lol ! Are you sure you wanna go with that ?


----------



## Faun (May 5, 2014)

regent said:


> lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate.
> If that is true then we only have to elect the right president and bingo we have full employment.
> But I wonder if there is more to America's employment rate, I mean the president can't pass laws so how does his election change the employment rate?
> Is there a book that explains how the election of a president determines the employment rate?
> ...



Whatever the factors are, there's no denying that employment does better under Democrat presidents than Republicans...

Here's a list of the presidents, along with the amount of increase/decrease, of the unemployment rate after 64 months in office...

*Clinton   -3.1   -42%  
Johnson   -2.3   -40%  
Obama   -1.5   -19%  
Kennedy**   -0.9   -14%  
Reagan   -0.4   -5%  
Carter***   0.0%  
Bush   +0.5   +12%  
Nixon   +1.7   +50%  
GHW Bush***  +1.9   +35%  
Ford*   +2.0   +36%  
Eisenhower   +4.5   +155%  *

* = in office 29 months

** = in office 34 months

*** = in office 48 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Zander (May 5, 2014)

BOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## U2Edge (May 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > lt sounds like the election of a president is the primary factor that determines the employment rate.
> ...



Simply comparing the first month of administration with its last month is misleading. It misses 99% of the data which tell a different story over the course of the administration. You could have multiple rises and falls which are never seen with such data. *That is why the only accurate way to assess the unemployment rate during this periods of time is to look at the average, which uses all of the DATA. We don't judge students by simply their first month in school and their last month. Students get judged by their GPA which averages all their grades over the course of the year or time in school. For unemployment, its also the only accurate way to judge how good or bad things were during a Presidents entire time in office. *


----------



## Faun (May 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



It's less misleading than averaging out the numbers, which assign blame for the recession numbers to Obama and conceal the fact that unemployment nearly doubled under Bush.

Still Reagan is the only Republican president to lower unemployment at this point (an barely at that); by contrast, there hasn't been a Democrat president who's increased unemployment. Clearly, employment does better when the president is a Democrat.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2014)

Yeah, we're all doing so gosh darned good under Barry!  The "real unemployment" numbers are historically awful and have been for YEARS!  We've spent trillions on stimulus which our kids and grandkids are going to get stuck paying off and the economy is still limping along with growth rates so anemic that this White House throws a party if it gets near 2%.  After six years of Barack Obama, housing prices are still depressed...the cost of gas and groceries continues to rise...and the average American's pay is the same as it was twenty years ago.

The only people who have prospered under these idiots are the very folks that you liberals are always complaining about...the top 5% has made a killing in the stock market with 0 interest money given to them by one round of quantitative easing after another.

That's how incompetent these clowns ARE in this Administration.  They fuck over the people they're trying to help while the people they're trying hurt have Christmas every damn day!  You couldn't make this shit up...I swear!


----------



## bluesman (May 6, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....



So George W Bush is not accountable for the economic crisis that was in place at the end of his term?

Is Obama accountable for the booming stock market?

What about the record year we had in the US automobile industry last year?

If the stock market had crashed or the automobile industry bombed, then right wing idiots would surely hold Obama accountable.  Does it work both ways?


----------



## bluesman (May 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Only a pure ignorant moron would think that a president could come in office and during his first three months have much, if any, impact on unemployment numbers.  If it is going to be simplified down to the right wing ignorant way of thinking, then Obama should be judged based on what was going on when he came in office.  George W Bush will have to be accountable for the economic collapse he presided over.  It can't work both ways.  There is little question that the economy is doing better now than when George W Bush left office.


----------



## bluesman (May 6, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Yeah, we're all doing so gosh darned good under Barry!  The "real unemployment" numbers are historically awful and have been for YEARS!  We've spent trillions on stimulus which our kids and grandkids are going to get stuck paying off and the economy is still limping along with growth rates so anemic that this White House throws a party if it gets near 2%.  After six years of Barack Obama, housing prices are still depressed...the cost of gas and groceries continues to rise...and the average American's pay is the same as it was twenty years ago.
> 
> The only people who have prospered under these idiots are the very folks that you liberals are always complaining about...the top 5% has made a killing in the stock market with 0 interest money given to them by one round of quantitative easing after another.
> 
> That's how incompetent these clowns ARE in this Administration.  They fuck over the people they're trying to help while the people they're trying hurt have Christmas every damn day!  You couldn't make this shit up...I swear!




Right wing extremist continue to root for America to fail.


----------



## elektra (May 6, 2014)

The Economy and Jobs sucks!!!!!

What is growing in the USA, hell, what are the industries? Lets say world wide.

Or what should we be importing, should we be importing garlic from China? Does this cost us jobs, make us stronger or weaker?

What about components for Nuclear Reactors, do we have this manufacturing capability? Do we replace these parts? What would this industry be called? 

Computers? are they made here? should they be? 

What about Levi Jeans? Are they made in Egypt or the USA?

I say quit talking about statistics and numbers that have no basis in reality.

How about Kool Aid, that was made in the USA, is it today? Or what about toothpaste? Where is that made?

Things made in the the USA should be tax exempt, tax the imports.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



We were already in the depth of the Depression when FDR took office

It was Republican policies that drove us into the Depression


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Who wouldn't?

We gage a president on what they were given and what they did once they took office. Dropping unemployment 4% is outstanding


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, it was progressive policies.  Hoover was a progressive.  His policies were continued by FDR on steroids.
Really it's tough to argue with people who know so little they have to be educated in every post.  And they still dont learn.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Wrong again ol' Rabbi

Hoover was only in office ten months when the Market Collapsed. It was years of market deregulation and unchecked speculation that caused the crash. Hoovers greatest fault was listeneng to his conservative advisors and waiting for the market to self correct

"Prosperity is just around the corner"


----------



## bedowin62 (May 6, 2014)

it's hilarious the way the Left celebrates failure and rabidly defends obama's record of failure!

lol


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, we're all doing so gosh darned good under Barry!  The "real unemployment" numbers are historically awful and have been for YEARS!  We've spent trillions on stimulus which our kids and grandkids are going to get stuck paying off and the economy is still limping along with growth rates so anemic that this White House throws a party if it gets near 2%.  After six years of Barack Obama, housing prices are still depressed...the cost of gas and groceries continues to rise...and the average American's pay is the same as it was twenty years ago.
> ...



No...left wing ideologues like you refuse to admit that the guy they elected with zero executive experience doesn't have a clue what to do with the economy and hasn't had a plan to fix it since his first stimulus failed miserably FIVE YEARS AGO!!!  I want America to succeed.  How does pointing out how awful Barack Obama's Administration has been on the economy and job creation "rooting for America to fail"?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Your ignorance is so overwhelming it would take a book to correct it.


----------



## Moonglow (May 6, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> it's hilarious the way the Left celebrates failure and rabidly defends obama's record of failure!
> 
> lol



It could be worse, and it could be better...


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You are STOOPID

Good comeback Rabbi. What I usually anticipate from you when you are getting your ass handed to you

Why don't you cut and paste some rightwing revisionist history for me?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It would be a waste.  Because in addition to having the knowledge base of a gnat you have the intellectual ability of a chocolate bar.  I see this because you post the same crap over and over, long after someone has provided proof it isn't true.


----------



## U2Edge (May 6, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's 100% false, as unemployment did rise under President Carter, but because you only look at the first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office, you have no idea that happened. 

When George Bush came into office, the unemployment rate was on the rise and continued to rise. This rise was stopped and the unemployment rate was lowered and then remained low, at historical lows for years on end. In February of 2008, Bush's last year in office, the unemployment rate was still BELOW 5%. *But you don't get to see these things when you narrowly look at simply the first month and last month of Presidents time in office. 

How would you like your school record or job record to be based only on the first month and last month you were  in those positions? How about your relationships with other people? Perhaps as long as sports team wins their last game they deserve to go to the playoffs instead of a team that won all of its games except for the last one.*

     For nearly all of George W. Bush's term, the unemployment rate was below 6%. *IN FACT, THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINSTRATION THAT LOGGED THE MOST MONTHS OF AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BELOW 6% IN AMERICAN HISTORY WAS THE ADMINISTRATION OF GEORGE W BUSH. That's right, most months of an unemployment rate below 6%, once consider the natural rate of unemployment by economist, during a Presidential administration, belongs to George Bush.*


         You can't look at the last months of the George Bush Administration and decide that those conditions were what conditions were like through all 96 months of the administration. That is grossly inaccurate. The average man on the street could get a job while Bush was in the oval office. He has had a much harder time while Obama has been sittiing, there harder than under any President since World War II. That's a FACT that will not change no matter who you try and pin blame for the unemployment rate on.


----------



## U2Edge (May 6, 2014)

bluesman said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



1 Were not comparing just a few months of one administration to another.

2. This thread uses ALL THE DATA provided by the office of labor Statistics on the monthly unemployment rate. In order to compare each President since World War II's time in office, the monthly rates are added up and divided by the number of months for each President. *Nothing here is slanted in favor of any President or Party. This is RAW data from the labor statistics office. Every month available is used, nothing is left out! *


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Wow....double down on YOU ARE STOOPID!

What usually happens when you have lost an argument. Guess it worked in second grade didn't it?


----------



## U2Edge (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Its easy to drop the unemployment rate when people leave the work force. If the labor Force Participation rate were still as high as was on average under Bush at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10% right now. People who leave the labor force are not counted in the figures and there are millions of them. The labor force Participation rate is now at 62.8%, the lowest its been since 1977, nearly 40 years ago. It also marks the first major sustained drop in the labor force participation rate since numbers started being recorded in 1948.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

Is it better to drop the UE rate from 20 to 16% or from 6 to 4%?  Dont think too hard about it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



Labor Force Participation rate has been dropping for 15 years. It has been expected to drop for the last 50 years.  Stop using it as a crutch


----------



## U2Edge (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*FALSE! The labor force Participation rate had been gradually increasing from 1948 through the year 2000. It only dropped slightly under Bush from the peak levels under Clinton. The average under Bush is equal to that under Cliinton. Obama is the first President to register a significant drop in the labor force Participation rate average!*

Its not crutch, just a basic fact that you ignore. If the labor Force Participation rate were still at 66% when Bush left office, the unemployment right now would be over 10%. The drop in the monthly unemployment rate last month from 6.7% to 6.3% was largely due to people leaving the labor force, not jobs being added.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Labor force participation is on a downward trend for the next 20 years...get used to it

What you are failing to mention is how hard it is to boost employment numbers while you are simultaneously slashing government employment and government spending


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ah...didn't the Obama Stimulus increase government employment and spending only to have unemployment go up substantially?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



See, here you are repeating things that you ought to know aren't true.  The rate was steady under Bush, declined tremendously under Obama.
You lie.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



In reality, unemployment started to drop shortly after the stimulus passed and hasn't looked back since


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Now you are flat out lying aren't you Rabbi?

Bush saw the deepest drop in labor participation rate in 75 years

But of course you already knew that


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You should lie about things that don't take 15 seconds to fact check.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


What a load of Bushshit!!!!

Let's see, 
the 2001 recession, Clinton's fault
9/11, Clinton's fault
no WMD, the CIA's bad intel
the housing bubble burst, Carter's fault
the unemployed doubles from 6 million to 12 million, Congress' fault
the stock market loses half its value, Obama's fault
And saving the best till last,
the banking crash of 2008, the fault of the Dodd/Frank Act that was not proposed or signed until 2010!!!!!!!


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Lying again aren't you Rabbi?

Why does your bogus chart show the Obama administration starting in mid 2008 during the worst of the Bush depression?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Doesnt matter.  Even if you start it 1/09 Obama experienced a far more severe drop off of work force participation then Bush.
Quit lying. Just stop it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Save it you fucking moron

Your propaganda chart can't even get the start of Obamas term correct and you expect us to believe the rest?  Where did you get it?  Glenn Beck?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Translation: WHen the facts don't go my way, invoke Glenn Beck.
Yeah, you're a fucking brain dead tool, Nutsucker.  Everyone here knows it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Bushshit!

The steep drop started in 2008 when the first Boomers became old enough for early retirement at 62 years old. It has been following that same trend line ever since and it will continue on that same line until all the Boomers have retired.

The LPR is a nearly worthless economic indicator because it is mostly effected by demographics, like birth rate, retirees, and immigration, than economic conditions.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Rabbi

As usual, your lies have been picked apart. Isn't it time for one of your tantrums?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, as usual I have proven my point and you have deflected to Glenn Beck.  Quit lying.


----------



## U2Edge (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



FACT: Bush's last full month in office saw a labor force participation rate of 65.8%. April 2014 labor force participation rate was 62.8%! That's a full 3 point drop in just roughly 5 years. It is the largest and fastest labor force participation rate drop EVER!


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well, you better get used to it until the boomers get done retiring. It is going to get worse before it gets better

But Republicans have a plan. They will stymie the economy so Boomers can't afford to retire


----------



## The Rabbi (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Deflecting from the fact you've been caught lying?  How typical.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In what "alternative universe" did that take place in, Winger?  I know it didn't happen in THIS one!  When the Obama Stimulus was approved unemployment stood at 7.8%.  By the end of six months it had shot all the way up to 10%.  It didn't come back to 7.8% until September of 2012 almost three YEARS after the stimulus was passed.  Do you really not know this stuff?  Damn, son...you gotta stop watching MSNBC!!!


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Lets look at the impact that Obamas Stimulus had on employment shall we?

Stimulus passed on Feb 17 2009







Within six weeks of the passing of the Stimulus the number of jobs being lost each month went from losing 800,000 to losing 650,000 to losing 380,000 a month. We finally went to positive employment in March 2010.

Even a casual observation shows how dramatic the change in jobs being lost was.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



LOL...wait a second!  You just claimed that after the Obama Stimulus kicked in that unemployment started going down almost immediately.  I just showed that it DIDN'T!  That in fact after the stimulus unemployment continued to go up until it hit 10% and that it didn't come back down to the rate it was when the Obama Stimulus was passed until YEARS later!

Economies historically rebound from recessions.  We've had dozens of them and they've all rebounded in much the same fashion.  The Obama Stimulus was a nearly trillion dollar liberal "pork fest" that rewarded Democratic supporters and created so few jobs that the Obama Administration had to come up with a new labor statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide just how bad it was.

Perhaps instead of a "casual observation", you might want to take a GOOD LOOK?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



More proof you can't read  a graph.
Try posting something about the Unemployment Rate, moron.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



LoL

Yea...the old Republican standby
The economy would have reversed itself anyway

The biggest failure of Bush was not that we went into recession but that he denied the fact that we were in a recession and stood by doing nothing waiting for his recession to self correct. It took Government action to halt the Bush economic collapse and it was Obama who saved us from a depression


----------



## The Rabbi (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry, what fiction are you basing this on?  When did Bush deny it was a recession?  Do you recall what TARP was?
You have zero credibility, Nutsucker.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Douche Gargler (its fun when we get to call eachother names isn't it?)

Bushs attempt at TARP did not happen until a month before the 2008 election. Kind of late considering the recession had been going on for a year. As can be seen by the employment charts and the continued collapse of the stock market the  Bush TARP was inneffective

Thankfully, President Obama came in and righted the ship


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





righted the shop?

 lmao what an idiot

obama voted FOR Bush's TARP; which was a success. anyway TARP  was WRITTEN BY AND PASSED  throught a Congress that was majority Dem in both chambers. if you want to call it a failure leftard that's on you; lol!

 anyway unemployment skyrocketed to over 10.1% on obama's watch and didnt start falling until Republicans took the House back

true story

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## natstew (May 7, 2014)

The Reagan economy that G.H.W. Bush left for Clinton was in decline a year before G.W. Bush took Office.

You nutsucking Democrats will spin a turd into a gold bar.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Well let us see. The Bush Depression began Dec 2007.

Bush says economy sound; mum on stimulus plan | Reuters
Jan 4, 2008

U.S. President  George W. Bush said on Friday that the U.S. economy was on solid footing  despite a weak employment report, and gave no hint of what his  administration may have in store to bolster growth.
  "This economy of ours is on a  solid foundation, but we can't take economic growth for granted," Bush  told reporters after meeting with his so-called Working Group on  Financial Markets. "If the foundation is strong, yet indicators are  mixed, the worst thing that Congress can do is raise taxes."
His  comments came hours after a government report showed U.S. job growth in  December was the weakest in more than four years, while the  unemployment rate climbed to 5 percent, the highest mark in two years.


snip/


"The big drain on the economy for the past  year and a half has been housing ... eventually that is going to bottom  out and when that bottom outs, even if it doesn't expand, it will remove  that negative drag on the economy," he said.
The  White House noted the employment report showed continued job growth,  and said the unemployment rate was still low by historic standards.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Excuse me....why did you people do hand-springs when it dipped below 8%. 

Obama had everything to do with that. 

He lost the statistics from California and he fudged the numbers to miraculously come up with 800,000 new jobs right in time for the election. Course that would mean that the economy would have had to grow by 4.8% at the same time, and that hasn't happened during Obama's entire time in the White House. We've had a constantly shrinking UE number but job contraction, not job growth. How does that happen?

Easy, they don't count those who haven't found a job in 2 years or more. 

Wow!!! How convenient is that!!!!

You guys spend so much time lying to yourselves you've lost all sense of reality.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Again, you know the economy is improving when the Right tries to take credit for it!!!

True story!


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Liar!


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



" The Bush Depression began Dec 2007."

Yup. The Democrats Controlling Congress made sure of that.

The recession they caused ended early in 2009. Great timing, don't you think?

So we've had nearly 5 years to recover. Problem is, Democrat policies aren't designed to improve the economy. They're designed to cause hardship in the economy, then blame it on Bush or anyone who tries to end the hardship.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



i'm just stating facts idiot.

 but speaking of trying to take credit.  you were the same losers that were just ranting that the "job creators werent creating jobs" and "hiding their money in the cayman islands" and other assorted left-wing rants and talking points



now you want to give obama and dems credit for job creation?

 you're nothing but a hypocritical clown


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The first time Bush admitted we were in a Recession was Dec 2008, a month after Republicans were trounced in the 2008 elections

President Bush Finally Admits We're In A Recession | Crooks and Liars

_ President George W. Bush publicly acknowledged for the first time Friday that the U.S. economy is in a recession and worried aloud that Detroit's Big Three automakers may not all survive their mounting troubles.

Four days after the government made the long-suspected existence of a recession official, Bush used the word himself.

"Our economy is in a recession," Bush said flatly, speaking to reporters on the South Lawn only hours after the release of a government report showing the biggest month of job losses in 34 years. "This is in large part because of severe problems in our housing, credit and financial markets, which have resulted in significant job losses."
_


----------



## The Rabbi (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The recession was not going on for a year.  Remember McCain suspending his campaign to return to DC?  Yeah, that was in the summer of 2008.  So getting  a big package like TARP passed within a coupel of months is a real achievment.  That's what leaders do, work with people who disagree with them.
The economy had stabilized by the time Obozo got into office.  We did not see the large firm failures after that.
Obozo's policies made both recession last longer and the recovery weaker.

Don't even try to attempt to rewrite the history here.  We all know the real story.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

libs said:

 "job creators arent creating jobs"

and 

"corporations are sitting on trillions" and "hiding their money in the Cayman Islands"

and 

"corporations are sending the jobs that are here overseas"

 now all of a sudden under obam real job creation is supposed to be happenging and the credit goes to obama and the dem Party?

 libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves and exptect others to believe the lies


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The Stimulus was a scam. It was designed to establish a spending base. It's called baseline budgeting. 

That's why Obama had a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit his first year. The year before, under Bush, the deficit was $400 billion. The year before that, before the Dems took back Congress it was $159 billion. 

So Obama would have over a trillion dollars in deficit spending because of baseline budgeting, but he gets a gift from Boehner. A $600 tax increase, *which would have put us into a surplus* if we didn't establish this new base. 

As it is, we're still at $600 billion in deficit spending and our taxes are ever higher, and Obama is still looking for more money to steal from us and more ways to spend it. But compared to Obama's first two years of trillion dollar deficits, $600 billion appears like an improvement. So, of course, the liberals crow about it constantly.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Listen Urinal Licker (it is so fun when we start to call eachother names isn't it?)

The economy had stabilized by the time President Obama took office?  By what metric? 

The Stock Market dropping 7000 points?
5 Quarters of negative GDP?
Losing 800,000 jobs a month?
The financial sector and auto companies on the verge of collapse?

That is what Republicans call handing over a "stable" economy?


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



economists; not that Fox News you loses fear; say the recession ended in the summer of obama's first year in office. 

long before even a fraction of his Stimulus money was in effect

you lie to yourself

it's funny


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Bush's last fiscal year had a deficit of 1.47 trillion, the year before that the GOP National Debt increased 1 trillion and the year you say the deficit was 159 billion the GOP National Debt increased by half a trillion.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 7, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It's no wonder leftists fail at everything they try.  They work from incorrect facts.
Nutsucker is totally lacking credibility, much less integrity.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If Congress would stop stealing from the Social Security we wouldn't be close to $18 trillion in debt. Every year they took $500 billion from the intragovernmental fund and added it to the debt. It wasn't part of the official budget. Obama stole $700 bill from Medicare himself. The actual budget deficit in 08' at this time of the year was $284 billion. U.S. National Debt Clock 2008

I think you're confusing Bush's budget with Obama's budget. Course, he didn't have an official budget pass Congress till this year, so nobody can say exactly what it was or where it was spent.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Fine, show me a recession that didn't reverse itself...

What progressives like you will never admit is that we had recessions before Keynesian economic theory existed and we ALWAYS came out of them.  It doesn't take Government action to make that happen.

And it was Bush's TARP program that kept us from a depression...Obama simply continued what Bush started and then wasted nearly a trillion dollars on the liberal pork fest that the Obama Stimulus turned into.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Easy

The Bush Recession. Bush sat for a year waiting for it to "reverse itself"

If the Bush TARP kept us from a depression, why did the number of jobs lost continue to skyrocket?, why did the stock market continue to collapse? Whaty did the banks and auto companies require further bailouts?

Better yet...why did Republicans vote FOR the Bush TARP but against the Obama TARP?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In a Capitalist system all you need to do is set up an economic environment that is conducive to growth and sit back and watch it grow. Obama, on the other hand, stifles growth at every turn, because he despises Capitalism.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Isn't that what led to the Bush Depression?

Let the banks and markets do what they want


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

left-wingnuts are like huge lollipops: all-day suckers for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE


----------



## The Rabbi (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No.  Are you insane?


----------



## U2Edge (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Remember, the economy has to be adding about 200,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth and new people entering the work force. So simply having positive job growth is not enough.


----------



## U2Edge (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obama did not start the stimulus, Bush did. GDP growth became positive again just 6 months after Bush left office.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 7, 2014)

I thought Tea Party nuts didn't believe the unemployment numbers?


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Nuff said


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



good one stupid. so you just admitted the bush Stimulus had a more positive effect on the economy?

thanks genius

 and also you just admitted the reason for the RECORD welfare and food stamps in obama's sixth year has nothing to do with Bush or his policies

thanks again!


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



"GDP growth became positive again just 6 months after Bush left office"

Nuff said


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




exactly!! and you also said Bush did Stimulus before Obama did

thanx!


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Nope. That was yet another media lie perpetrated by the left.

A lot of issues had to do with it. But but if you'll remember, Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd were in charge of oversight during the years when it went to shit. Fwank in the House and Dodd in the Senate. The libs greased the skids for a banking collapse by encouraging people to pull out their savings, get into loans they didn't qualify for before they started yelling that blacks need to be homeowners too. The Dems said that the system was racist and that whites were preventing blacks from being homeowners. Remember all of that talk about those evil lenders tricking the poor into buying their loan packages? Pure Marxist Bull Shit.

Unqualified borrowers started moving into mansions and then not pay a single mortgage payment for months. The banks foreclosed and booted them out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started backing risky non-conforming loans, using only stated income as a qualifier. No down payment, no loan history. I can't remember the name of the guy that somehow got put in charge of Fannie Mae (Frank Raines). Friend of Obama of course. Worked for Clinton. Highly questionable past.

 Bush warned us about this way back in 2003 and the Dems said nothing was up. Barney Frank said the economy was strong. Nothing to see here. Move along. 

Course we've been over this, and over this, again, and again, at nauseaum.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Congress had a Democrat president. Why would they want to fuck him?

All of the shit that was going on came to a screeching halt.

The banking collapse was what led to the takeover of banking by the federal government.

The collapse of health care is what will lead to the takeover of the health care insurance industry by the federal government eventually through single-payer.

The collapse of General Motors and Chrysler led to the takeover of 2/3rds of the American auto industry by the federal government and their union stooges.

The coming energy collapse and the complete takeover by the federal government was blurted out by Maxine Waters during a hearing. That's what is coming next.


----------



## paulitician (May 7, 2014)

Record poverty, record debt., historic first credit downgrades, Obamacare nightmare, skyrocketing food & gas prices, criminal IRS & NSA abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists, his NDAA travesty, and so on and so on...

But hey, there's always Wall Street. It seems to be thriving. But Obama and his Bot-followers can't even boast about that. Them being Communist Anti-Business nutters and all. Wall Street is supposedly their archenemy. They would come off as being pretty dishonest & hypocritical for boasting about increased Wall Street profits. But that probably won't stop him and some of his Bots from trying to take credit for Business success. They're desperate to boast about something...Anything.


----------



## rightwinger (May 7, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You seem to have the myth down....maybe you could explain your theory

Democrats took Congress in Jan 2007. The economy started to collapse in the summer of that year. In those nine months, Democrats passed laws, the laws took effect, people bought houses they were not qualified to buy and defaulted ....all in 9 months


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It doesn't take a law to cause change.

*Change enough regulations and people that used to qualify can't anymore*. People who bought loans 3 years before that were fixed until the 3 years were up discovered their mortgage payment shifted to an adjustable rate. Their payments skyrocketed. Many of them tried to refinance and couldn't because they were never qualified to begin with. So, because of the fact they had this strange tendency not to give a fuck, hundreds of thousands of these borrowers walked, at the encouragement of the Democrats. They didn't care if their credit was messed up. They didn't plan on buying again anyway. The point being, none of them should have been buying in the first place, but Democrats claimed racism if you didn't bend over backwards for them. The housing market tanked, and even more walked out because they felt their property was worth less than they paid for it.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

Some people in California deal with this every 10 years or so. They buy a 2 bedroom townhouse for $200k. To buy a small 3 bedroom house with no AC and a postage stamp size lawn it costs $400k, pay $150k down on it and make payments on the rest. When the collapse comes people that have very little money in the property walk and these properties are available for a fraction of the mortgage balance owed. This is when the rich assholes with money clean up. 

It's happened twice that I know of since I moved to California in 77'. The last collapse was 2006-2007. The time before was the late 80s, early 90s. You could buy 10 homes for the price of one back then.


----------



## paulitician (May 7, 2014)

Ironically, Obama and his loony Bot-followers only have increased Wall Street profits to boast about. And that's pretty funny considering they're all Communist Anti-Business nutters. There are no other Dear Leader 'accomplishments' worth celebrating. At the end of the day he's still left us with record poverty, record debt, Obamacare nightmare, skyrocketing food & gas prices, awful Government domestic spying, the NDAA, numerous IRS abuses, etc etc...

The only thing left for the Obamabots to hang their hats on, are those increased Wall Street profits. That's damn ironic, and a bit humorous.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 7, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Ironically, Obama and his loony Bot-followers only have increased Wall Street profits to boast about. And that's pretty funny considering they're all Communist Anti-Business nutters. There are no other Dear Leader 'accomplishments' worth celebrating. At the end of the day he's still left us with record poverty, record debt, Obamacare nightmare, skyrocketing food & gas prices, awful Government domestic spying, the NDAA, numerous IRS abuses, etc etc...
> 
> The only thing left for the Obamabots to hang their hats on, are those increased Wall Street profits. That's damn ironic, and a bit humorous.



And they got Bin Laden......


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


In 2003, * Republicans * were in control of both the House and the Senate ... so what did the Republican-led Congress do in response to Bush's warning ... ?


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


In the GPO controlled Senate the GOP blocked the reform bill that passed in the House when the GOP Senate Majority leader sent the House bill to committee to die, which it did. And the Right blames the Dems for what the GOP Senate Majority leader did.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 9, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



"There is nothing wrong at FANNIE MAE"

Barney Frank

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Barney Frank was but one member of the minority party. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Mud ...

In 2003, *Republicans* were in control of both the House and the Senate ... so what did the Republican-led Congress do in response to Bush's warning ... ?


----------



## bedowin62 (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Repubs didnt act on what Bush warned of.
 the whole notion of giving people taxpayer-backed loans in the name of "fairness" to people that couldnt afford them is a liberal one; Bush went along with it; because was liberal that way


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Frank was a POWERLESS member of the House minority party and the reform bill passed the House over his objections. It was the GOP Senate majority leader who killed the bill in committee, so the Right, in their utter brilliance, blame Frank.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Frank was not just one member.  Frank became chairman of House Financial Services COmmittee, which helped oversee Fan/Fred.  
In 2003 there wasnt a problem.  The crisis didnt start until 2007 or so.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> *Bush warned us about this way back in 2003* and the Dems said nothing was up. *Barney Frank said the economy was strong. Nothing to see here. Move along.*





The Rabbi said:


> *In 2003 there wasnt a problem.*  The crisis didnt start until 2007 or so.


So you are saying in 2003 Frank was correct and Bush was lying!


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Then * Republicans* are to blame and not Barney Frank. Glad we agree.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Frank wasn't chairman in 2003. And when he became chairman in 2007, he passed oversight of the GSE's in the House. And if there wasn't a problem, then why was Bush warning Congress that oversight was needed? And what oversight did the * Republican*-led Congress pass in response to Bush's warnings?


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > *Bush warned us about this way back in 2003* and the Dems said nothing was up. *Barney Frank said the economy was strong. Nothing to see here. Move along.*
> ...


That's funny. Sounds like he's either saying that or that it's ok that Republicans did nothing for 4 years until it became a huge problem for Democrats to have to deal with.  Either way, that's quite a slap in the face of the GOP by one of the herd.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yawn.  Are you going to beat this dead horse yet again?
The Dems controlled Congress from 2007 on.  They did nothing to prevent the melt down, denying it was happening.  Since then they have enshrined all the problems into law, like too big to fail.  Democrats are in favor of government bail outs of corporations and special breaks to shield them from their own bad decisions.
Obama's economic policies have produced the worst recovery ever.  This is undoubted.  Democrats must never be allowed to have power again.  WE can keep them in minority status forever just to make it easier on newsmen looking for sound bites and late night comedy stars needing material.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


No one is forcing you to beat a dead horse; and if that's a problem for you, I suggest you take the matter up with the individual who raised this issue, which wasn't me.

Now that I've addressed your whining, I will address your lies. It is a lie to claim that Democrats did nothing. In 2007, Frank got a bill passed in the House as did Pelosi. It's also completely moronic to blame Democrats, who passed oversight, while ignoring the failure of Republicans to pass any oversight over the previous 4 years, when it was needed most. But moronic nonsense is all you're armed with, so I expect nothing else from you.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I'm talking about how no Democrat president left office with unemployment in worse condition than they inherited it in. In contrast, except for Regean, no Republican president left office with unemployment in better condition than they inherited it.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm sorry,remind me how the Democrats averted the melt down.  Yeah, they didnt.  And their policies have only made it worse.
Worst economic performance coming out of a recession ever.  It's a fail, s0n.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Holy fuck! Can you stop whacking yourself with the stupid stick long enough to elude the daze you're in to understand what you're saying?? You're actually blaming Democrats who tried to avert disaster while making up excuses for Republican who not only did nothing to prevent it, they drove us at full speed right into it.    I know you're severely mentally handicapped, but Shirley, even you should be able to understand the gaping head wound in your [il]logic.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Remind me what Republicans did to drive us full speed into it.
Yeah, nothing.

Worst economic performance post WW2 ever, s0n.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


It's funny how you answer your own questions ...  *and still get the answers wrong.* 

Republicans gave us the policies which exploded home-ownership, which led to the real estate bubble, which led to the collapse of the economy.

Republicans were driving us towards a cliff with the pedal to the metal for four years. Not once did they hit the breaks (by passing oversight of the GSEs). Democrats take over the wheel as the car is going over the cliff, their feet pressing hard on the breaks (by passing oversight) ... and brain-dead Conservatives blame the Democrats because the car ended up a flaming heap of unrecognizable metal at the bottom of the ravine.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"Let's roll the dice on Fanny and Freddie." Republican Barney Frank.

Quit recycling tired Barack Obama campaign metaphors that make no sense.  Democrats suck.  Their policies are failures.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



As usual, you swing wildly at a nail with your RWN hammer and hit nothing but thumb.

First of all, you didn't even get the quote right. Frank didn't say, _"let's roll the dice on Fanny and Freddie,"_ he said, _"I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."_

Secondly, he was talking about Bush's homeownership plan which, which had just weeks earlier, revamped Fannie Mae's commitment to soften the housing markets even more. You're so unbelievably stupid, that you unwittingly blame Republicans when you think you're really taking a swing at Barney Frank.

Thirdly, Barney Frank said that in 2003 when he was just a member of the minority party, incapable of actually "rolling" any "dice." That means any actual "dice rolling" was done by the majority party Republicans. So again, your swing misses its intended target; only to hit yourself in the head.

Fourthly, according to you, as stupid as it is, there was no problem at the time Frank made that comment.

And lastly, your head is buried so far up your ass, you can see your tonsils.

Any more points you want to make to bolster my argument?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The facts speak for themselves.  Democrats never tried to rein in Fannie/Freddie. ANd since then have enshrined the worst excesses into law.  The result has been the worst economy since WW2.
You lose, game, set, match.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Poor, rightard. When will you learn that lying doesn't win arguments. Democrats passed a bill and tried to reign in the damage, despite your lies to the contrary. It was the Republicans who, though in charge for 4 years, failed to pass oversight.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 9, 2014)

The highest for a year would be RR.

The highest for a month would be RR.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Neither did the GOP, the difference being the GOP talked about it while doing nothing but block any reform.

While the crash happened in 2007, and thus you blame the Dems, the problem didn't happen in just a matter of months, it was years of GOP control in the making, starting with Bush's 2002 plan to get 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade and HIS orders to Fannie and Freddie to make loans to minorities with bad credit for homes they can't afford. It is not Barney Frank on this video!!!!


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. *YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd! *


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. *YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd! *



The problem here comes that people want to find statistics to attack or defend the president. People will use whatever they have, and often will use of statistic to "prove" something. 

Context is extremely important. Obama came into the presidency at a point where anyone who would have won the presidency would have seen major problems. In 2008 people were saying this was going to be the worst recession since the great depression, and it's been bad. It's not Obama's fault, and as president how much could he realistically have done to solve any problems?
Yes, there's stuff he did that may have made it better or worse by a small margin, perhaps had someone else won it might have been better or worse, but we can't really know.


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you are talking about. The first month the President was in office vs the last month they were in office in regards to the Unemployment rate. *YOU CAN'T RATE A PRESIDENT ON ONLY 2 MONTHS IN OFFICE. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT IS OK FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TO RISE TO 10%, 20%, or even 40% while they are in office, just as long as it is down to or below where it was the first month of office by the time of their last month in office. That is beyond Absurd! *
> ...



Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. But since then, its been his responsibility to help guide the US economy. Regardless of whether you think Obama has done a good job or not, it does not change the fact that under Obama, the United States has had the worst average unemployment rate since the end of World War II!


----------



## paulitician (May 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...

That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. But since then, its been his responsibility to help guide the US economy. Regardless of whether you think Obama has done a good job or not, it does not change the fact that under Obama, the United States has had the worst average unemployment rate since the end of World War II!



No, it doesn't change the fact. But facts can say a lot of things. They can even say something that isn't right, if you look at something in isolation. 
Some people clearly use such a fact in such a bad way in order to have another swipe at a guy they don't like because he's on the wrong team. 

Which is what it boils down to. It's so boring seeing hundreds of comments from either side attacking the other side just because they're the other side. 

People need Proportional Representation so they can get away from this.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 10, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...
> 
> That's his legacy. It's definitely not a legacy worth celebrating. It's actually an awful tragedy.



Name one president who has done everything well?

Bush, legacy, Iraq war and the complete mess he left behind him. Afghanistan and the complete mess he left behind him. Katrina, and the complete mess that that was. The economic downturn, the worst since WW2 that led to record debt, credit downgrading, rising prices, massive domestic spying etc etc. 

The point is clearly that presidents are not representing the people, nor are those in Congress. 

What do people do about it? They play the team sport of slag off the other side. Which gets everyone nowhere. Why not actually do something CONSTRUCTIVE and fight for the end to the monopoly of the two political mafias?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Democrats by themselves aren't much of a problem. They can be dismissed like the nut-cases they are if it weren't for their relationship with the media. They've controlled the media for decades, and that gives them advantages over the GOP that cancels out their minority status.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Record poverty, record debt, historic-first credit rating downgrade, rising food & gas prices, Fast & Furious travesty, massive domestic spying, ugly IRS abuses, arresting Filmmakers & Journalists etc etc...
> ...



We invaded Europe and Japan, and we hung around long enough to turn both of them into world economic powers. 

The Middle East is a different story. Those people are really a bunch of opinionated bigots that have little tolerance for other races or other religions. Once you get them out of trouble they turn on you like you're an unwanted orphan dropped on their doorstep. All they want to do is kill you like you invaded their wonderful shithole of a country. 

If it wasn't for oil or their growing nuke capabilities I'd wash my hands of the whole region.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



There are issues every president has to deal with. There is nothing absurd about pointing out whether presidents leave office with a better or worse economy than they were handed. You just don`t like it because not a single Democrat left office with worse unemployment than when they stared, whereas not a single Republican president, except for Reagan, improved unemployment by the time they were done.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


That's pretty rightarded, even for you. It also fails miserably to explain why Republicans didn't pass oversight for the 4 years following Bush's warning. Guess we should never elect Republicans to office again,  huh, since they will let the country go to hell if they're in charge because of the librul media?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2014)

paulitician said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*Obama can't be faulted for what he was presented with on the first day in office. 
*


----------



## mudwhistle (May 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So why did you say not a single Republican president when we all know that isn't true.

When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.

When he left office it was 5.3%

When Eisenhower took office the average was around 5% and he left with it around 5%. 

Jimmy Carter took office when it was over 7% and left with it over 7%.

As a matter of fact that only presidents that saw a massive drop in unemployment was Reagan and Obama, but for different reasons. Under Reagan it was because of the creation of 25 million new jobs. Under Obama it's because  more than half of our people are either retired or not looking for work anymore. Unemployment, or UE3, isn't the indicator of a sound economy like it used to be. A realistic unemployment takes all non-workers into account. If you take away those who have retired our real unemployment rate is closer to 13.2%. When it comes to jobs growth this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Seriously? Is English your second language?? Note the part of my post I highlighted for your attention.



mudwhistle said:


> When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.1%.
> 
> When he left office it was 5.3%
> 
> ...



Who knows where you get your numbers from?? Here are the *actual numbers* from the *BLS*...

Reagan didn't add 25 million jobs, as you falsely claim. The actual number is: *16,753,000*

Jan/1981: 99,955,000
Jan/1989: 116,708,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Your claim that unemployment under Eisenhower started around 5% and ended around 5% is also bullshit. Even averaging out, unemployment started at about 3% and ended close to 6%. Unemployment actually more than doubled under Eisenhower, despite your fallacious claims to the contrary:

Jan/1953: 2.9% (first year average, 3.1%)
Jan/1961: 6.6% (last year average, 5.7%)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Then there's your claim that Reagan and Obama are the only presidents to have a "massive drop" in unemployment ... also bullshit. You claim the unemployment rate under Reagan fell from 7.1% to 5.3%. That's also wrong. Here, on planet Earth, the actual numbers went from 7.5% to 5.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's a drop of 2.1 points, or 28%.

Johnson: 5.7% to 3.4%. A decrease of 2.3 points or 40%.

Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%. A decrease of 3.1 points or 43%.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Both did better than Reagan, yet you ignorantly claim that only Reagan and Obama saw massive drops in unemployment. Meanwhile with the exception of Reagan, unemployment increased under every Republican president.

*Eisenhower ...  +3.7
Bush43 .......... +3.6
Nixon ............. +2.1
Ford .............. +2.0
Bush41 ......... +1.9
Carter ............. 0.0
Kennedy ........ -0.9
Obama .......... -1.5
Reagan .......... -2.1
Johnson ......... -2.3
Clinton ........... -3.1*

Bottom line is ... you have no business even discussing this matter as pretty much your entire post was bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The reason its inaccurate to look at it that way is because it completely dismisses 99% of the time the President was in office. The average man on the street does NOT care about the first month the President was in office and the last month he was in office. The life the average man experiences involves *ALL 96 MONTHS or 48 MONTHS for single term.* How much the average man struggled throughout that time is what he remembers, not the victory goal in the final inning or the opening play touchdown.


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Except in the sense that he was a US Senator for the previous four years and to the degree his actions as a US Senator supported sound policy or not.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Gee, all through the 2008 election the Right were claiming he was too inexperienced because he had only 120 days in the Senate!


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> We invaded Europe and Japan, and we hung around long enough to turn both of them into world economic powers.
> 
> The Middle East is a different story. Those people are really a bunch of opinionated bigots that have little tolerance for other races or other religions. Once you get them out of trouble they turn on you like you're an unwanted orphan dropped on their doorstep. All they want to do is kill you like you invaded their wonderful shithole of a country.
> 
> If it wasn't for oil or their growing nuke capabilities I'd wash my hands of the whole region.



Well....

Actually you have to remember that post WW1, Japan was the biggest economic powerhouse in the Far East, Germany was one of the richest countries in Europe. US aid helped get these countries back to what they knew, which was to make a good economy and make things work. 

Yes, the Middle East is a different story. Why? Because they have a major lack of education, and the west, most notably Britain, have basically gone into many Muslim countries and taken what they could take. 

You have to go in with a realistic view. Bush went into Iraq believing he could carry out some kind of Marshall Plan, he thought he could wipe away the old and suddenly the Iraqis would love him for it. 
Let's turn the tables around. 2003, Iraq invaded the US. It sacked the police force and the military, it imposed an Iraqi way of doing things on the US people, it made sure US resources were being removed from the country, and it claimed it was doing the American people a service and didn't know why they were getting so pissy about it and blowing people up. 
You have to do things the right way, you have to make sure the people of the country are doing things, if things start happening because an "imperial nation" is making them happen, then the people are going to turn against them.

Low education levels lead to people being easily led. And who is going to lead them? Those who say stuff that sounds the best, which is usually the extremists who harp on and on and on about stuff and make simple connections where simple is not going to explain, yet it takes people in, and it gets popular support and messes everything up. 

If you want to sort the Middle East out, you have to be smart in doing it, the US govt simply hasn't been smart, not once in the whole history of US involvement in the Middle East.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2014)

Geez now we're arguing about Eisenhower?  Dems are getting desperate to deflect from the fact that Obama's economic record is the worst of any president post war.  Gerald Ford seems like an economic genius compared to Obama.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're links are the same link. I've clicked on two of them and they show the same graph in both of them. One was the link provided during the Reagan administration and the other supposedly covering Johnson and Clinton administrations. Before you start criticizing someone else for being inaccurate try doing it yourself first.

Also the graph doesn't take into account how many jobs were lost during this period. It only shows the total growth. So Reagan was in office and had a net increase of just under 17 million, yet how many new jobs were created in that time period. That was what I was talking about. The total jobs created, not the net increase.

 Obama constantly talked about the* 6 million jobs* he ether* saved or created* piling both into one figure to inflate it. Fact is, if you look at he net gain like you did Reagan he only oversaw the creation of slightly over* 3 million* yet is still less jobs than we had Jan of 08' by close to a million.* 5 plus years later and we're still not above what Bush had the beginning of his last year in office. * Also, name the jobs program Obama signed into law that created any jobs growth at all. I can point out how many jobs he has destroyed by cutting defense, destroying the coal industry, preventing the pipeline from being built, changing regulations, increasing taxes. The list goes on and on. 

So from Bush 08' to Obama in 2014 we have 1 million fewer jobs. Compare that to Reagan at 16 million in growth, I can't figure what in the hell you're crowing about other than some doctored, misleading UE3 numbers.


----------



## Londoner (May 11, 2014)

It is insane to speak about Reagan's employment numbers without looking at the fact that he tripled the federal workforce and tripled the nation's debt. He was a hoax.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


The links are to the BLS and prove you have no clue to what you're talking about. With the aid of those links, I was able to prove that you made up the numbers you posted. Sorry, rightard, but you don't win arguments by lying.

[Edit] oh, and by the way, we are not down by a million jobs since Bush. We're up by 3.5 million jobs ...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?from_year=2009


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Londoner said:


> It is insane to speak about Reagan's employment numbers without looking at the fact that he tripled the federal workforce and tripled the nation's debt. He was a hoax.



That's a lie.

I was working in the DoD under Carter, and Reagan cleaned house and fired me. This was one of the first things he did was move to end any wasteful spending that was going on. 

The problem that arises when you switch from one party to another is that Democrats are mainly concerned with domestic spending and Republicans are doing what the job entails, assuring the nation is secure. That means rebuilding what Democrats allowed to fall into decay. Turning a hollow military into a force to be reckoned with. That takes money.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.


----------



## paulitician (May 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> That's a lie.
> 
> I was working in the DoD under Carter, and Reagan cleaned house and fired me. This was one of the first things he did was move to end any wasteful spending that was going on.
> 
> The problem that arises when you switch from one party to another is that Democrats are mainly concerned with domestic spending and Republicans are doing what the job entails, assuring the nation is secure. That means rebuilding what Democrats allowed to fall into decay. Turning a hollow military into a force to be reckoned with. That takes money.



Funny thing is, the Reps need problems in order to be able to be tough on them. They want the military to be strong, it allows them to spend loads on the military which means their buddies get a load of money. 

To say they do what the job entails is simply not true. Invading Iraq wasn't part of the job. It caused so many more problems. 
Arming both Iran and Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war wasn't what the job entailed either. 

Look at what Putin's doing, the Republicans must be so annoyed that they didn't manage to increase their popularity by annexing some part of another country. But then they don't have the C-in-C of the armed forces, so they can't.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2014)

paulitician said:


> He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.



How has he left the country in any worse a mess than any other president in his position would have done?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > That's a lie.
> ...



What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him. 

My usual answer for that kind of response is to turn and walk away from the discussion. It's totally asinine.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > He's left future generations with an awful mess. His reign has been nothing to celebrate. Once you get past the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda, you see the grim reality.
> ...



Well, our credit rating is for shit, we can't be trusted by any of our remaining allies, we're $8 trillion more in debt, we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on the debt when we should be paying it down, our taxes are hundreds of billions of dollars higher than when he took over, gas prices have doubled, food prices have sky-rocketed, we can't launch a man into space any more, Muslims are in control of our national security, he's signed over part of our sovereignty to the United Nations, they're about to start hitting us with a global tax that will hit us somewhere in our phone bills or our energy bills. 

We can't talk in private about our feelings of other races, sexes, or religions. The NSA is compiling massive amounts of our secrets waiting to be used in political campaigns. The IRS is targeting private citizens because they dare to give financial support to the opposition. 

This list is endless.


----------



## Chris (May 11, 2014)

1961 to 2012

Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.


----------



## Chris (May 11, 2014)

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it&#8217;s not even close. 

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor&#8217;s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday. 

That&#8217;s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office. 

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2014)

Chris said:


> Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....
> 
> While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, its not even close.
> 
> ...



Ironic that liibs turn around and claim Republicans only represent the rich when their own facts show Democrats are the party of the rich, Republicans are the party of the middle class.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh?  We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: *1,161,682*
California: *619,425*
Florida: *616,871*

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: *-4.4 points*, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: *-3.9 points*, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: *-3.0 points*, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: *-3.0 points*, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: *-1.3 points*, 2.6% - 1.3%, *37,064* jobs added
Wisconsin: *-1.2 points*, 7.1% - 5.9%, *2,999 * jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???     

Now stop posting lies.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....
> ...



Too stupid for words. Now you're confusing party with wealth; with party for the wealthy. Both parties have members who are wealthy but only one party tries to help the poor.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 5.9% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it. 

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

In California for example in 09' the UE3 was 9.7%. What is it today? 8.1% which is terrible. California has a much larger work force yet they created less than half of what Texas created. 

Texas alone created a million new jobs by themselves. Their UE3 is 5.5%

You like to look at the overall picture so it doesn't make Democrats look so bad, but looking at the elections an who's running the states, it's clearer what's going on. You just want to look at net gains or losses without looking at the time frame the trends started reversing. If you can point to single piece of legislation from Obama that made any difference, feel free to do so. From what I see, the economy is recovering on it's own, or where local governments are effecting it, which is the norm. Obama is doing everything in his power to worsen the economy and some people are fighting him, and the statistics show this. 


I don't know why I'm even arguing with an idiot like you.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



What a shame you can't project your constant lying onto me, eh? You were talking about the period from the recession. Your words, _"Other than that we'd still be in a recession."_ But now you try to cherry-pick dates you find more palatable by picking dates which came after the recession ended ... but lying rightard, if I cherry pick those same dates, then the other states I listed also did much better; which still leaves N. Dakota and Wisconsin in the dust.

California: 1,027,182
Texas: 861,986
Florida: 764,861
Wisconsin: 69,417
N. Dakota: 28,906

Hell, Texas and N. Dakota did even worse with the dates you changed to.   

By unemployment rate: 

S. Carolina: -5.1 points, 10.6% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.8 points, 11.3% - 7.5%
Oregon: -3.4 points, 10.3% - 6.9%
Indiana: -3.3 points, 9.2% - 5.9%
Texas: -2.7 points, 8.2% - 5.5%
Wisconsin: -1.9 points, 7.8% - 5.9%
N. Dakota: -1.0 point, 3.6% - 2.6%

You're making shit up. Now cut it out. In no way, shape, or form is the nominal job growth N. Dakota or Wisconsin a reason why we are no longer in a recession.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude, are you serious?

An UE of 5.5% and 2.6% is worse than 8.1% now?


Are you fucking kidding me???

STFU!!!!!!

WTF?? First you said that Texas created almost 2 million jobs. Now it's only 800k give or take??

Texas has had the same governor for awhile, so the last two years haven't been as abrupt a change as Wisconsin.

The problem is you can't read between the lines. Anyone with half a brain knows that economies are local. There are national trends that effect everyone, but local governments and local businesses have more effect on the economy than the feds do. You're well read on social-economics but not on looking at events on the ground. Why is it every state I sited has a low unemployment rate yet you seem to think California is the jobs mecca of the country or something. 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Obama has to do with anything positive in this economy? I noticed you want to ignore that.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes, the GOP.  The Democrats help the rich.  The rich have done better than Obama than they ever did under Bush.  The middle class has stagnated under Obama.  Low wage workers have stagnated if not absolutely lost ground.
This is simply objective fact.  You cannot argue with that.  You can spin it and call names but it is right there in the numbers.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him.
> 
> My usual answer for that kind of response is to turn and walk away from the discussion. It's totally asinine.



But the issue here is that both sides are making mistakes, and when they happen, both sides have a tendency to go full out and defend or attack, depending on which is convenient for them at the time. 

As for the media, what do you want the guy to do? I'll give a British example which would be quite funny if it wasn't so damn serious.

Tony Blair, master of spin. The Tories spent a decade harping on about spin, the newspapers especially and other media sources would go on and on and on about how spin was bad. Then Blair stepped down after winning an election after going in to the very, very unpopular war in Iraq. 
Gordon Brown took over. He wanted to be seen as a good guy, so he said no more spin. The media hated him for it. He lost the election and basically left politics after that. 
Cameron took over and the spin is back, after spending so long complaining about spin, they're using it as much as Blair did. 

Moral of the story is, people like spin.

In the US it doesn't matter how Obama spins it, there are going to be people who hate what he does not matter. Other people will get taken in by it. The next guy will do it, the last guys did it, everyone does it. So don't sound shocked about him spinning the media. It's part of his job and everyone would hate him if he didn't do it. So what do you want?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Chris said:


> 1961 to 2012
> 
> Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.
> 
> Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.



None of it during Obama though.....fact.

Not saying you're not lying either.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him.
> ...



Both sides have made mistakes.......but our side seems to be the only one that learns from past mistakes. 

When it comes to people hating what Obama does, he can only blame himself for that. He has beliefs that are opposed to what most Americans want. Every poll shows this is the case. They may like him personally but they don't like his policies.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Both sides have made mistakes.......but our side seems to be the only one that learns from past mistakes.
> 
> When it comes to people hating what Obama does, he can only blame himself for that. He has beliefs that are opposed to what most Americans want. Every poll shows this is the case. They may like him personally but they don't like his policies.



Yeah, I went to watch a soccer match in Beijing. Every time a Beijing player fell down the fans were calling for a foul. Every time the opposition team fell down and the ref did something about it they screamed blue murder. 
When a Beijing player got annoyed and punched an opposing player in the face, the Beijing fans got really angry AT THE PLAYER PUNCHED IN THE FACE. 

You see what you want to see, just like the Beijing fans shouting "shabi" the whole match to the ref and the player who got punched. 

People hate Obama for different reasons. 
Some because he's black. 
Some because he's Democrat. 
Some because he's not right enough for them. 
Some because they believe the nonsense that goes on. 

You talk about polls. I can talk about polls. 

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama | Gallup Historical Data & Trends

Average approval rating for the 22nd quarter, 48%. Obama's at 44%.

Compare this with Bush W. 32%, or Clinton 64% (yeah, the guy was getting off with young girls, threatened with impeachment and had a MUCH higher approval rating than two guys who didn't go around getting of with young girls, nice huh?)

So there have been 4 US presidents who made it that far with better approval ratings. 2 Reps and 2 Dems. 

Considering the situation he's in, that's not so bad. 

They certainly seem to like his policies a little more than they liked Bush's policies.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Just how deranged are you? You don't get to change what you were talking about because I'm bitch-slapping you with your own statements. Your claim was that Wisconsin and North Dakota are 2 of the three states which kept us out of recession. Even with the cherry picked dates you chose, they added only 98,000 jobs combined in 3½ years. Nationally, during that same period, we added 6.4 million jobs. That means 2 of the states you  idiotically credit with saving this nation from recession account for only 1.5% of the total job gains ... combined. That you believe their combined increase of 1.5% of the total job growth saved us from recession does nothing other than to expose you as the lying imbecile you are.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're a God Damned liar.

We've only added just over 3 million and half of it came from one of the states I mentioned. Texas.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Your insanity is noted, but the BLS calls you the liar, not me ...

Dec/2010: 139,266,000
Apr/2014: 145,669,000

Total = 6,403,000 jobs gained

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Votto (May 11, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



No need to pass Obama's job bills then, eh?


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I missed the highlighted part earlier, but now that I noticed it, allow me to make an even bigger fool out of you ... Of Wisconsin, you said, _*"Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs.*_"

Hmm, show me where Wisconsin added 200,000 jobs ... ???

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Their *biggest* gain over any two year period was from May-2012 thru April-2014; and that was an increase of 48,070 jobs. Nowhere near your imaginary claim of 200,000 jobs.

And in no two year period, did their unemployment rate go from 9% to 5.9%. That did occur over a 4 year period from March-2010 thru April-2014 -- but that was still only a 100,000 job gain. Still half of your hallucination that they created 200,000 jobs. 

Maybe you're not lying -- maybe you're just insane?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Liar.......

Jan 2009 142,152,000
April 2014 145,669,000

*3,517,000 	*

You have to go from the start of his term to the present. You cannot blame Bush for any job losses that happened after he left office because Obama had no Republican Congress fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. Most of the job losses happened after Obama took office. Actually got much worse after he was sworn in. If I remember correctly Bush left office with unemployment much lower than it's peak during Obama's term. It's not like Obama walked off the street. He was in that renegade congress after all. He's partly to blame anyway. 

Obama has to answer for his own presidency. If a Republican wins the election in 2016 I'm sure you'll hammer him the same way.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The one lying is you. I used the dates *YOU* picked ... your words, not mine ...

_"Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin." ~ a brain-dead rightie_​
I like how you keep changing the dates to suit your needs. Nice rightie trick ya got there.

At any rate, you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope. I mentioned Wisconsin because they elected a new Republican governor a couple of years ago. 



> *Scott Kevin Walker* (born November 2, 1967) is an American politician who is the 45th Governor of Wisconsin. A member of the Republican Party, Walker was first elected Governor in 2010 and was sworn in on January 3, 2011. Scott Walker (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You want to apply a totally different standard to your guy and I'm trying to be being consistent. You start at the beginning of his term, not in the middle or where you can remove all of the bad news.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


You made the ludicrous claimed that Wisconsin was one of three states which saved used from recession and you keep changing the dates from when this occurred. I used one of the dates *you picked* and that sent you into a tizzy.

Your tantrums aside ...  you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Seems to me, you're the one acting like a whining bitch. It's not my fault you can't read.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Translation: mud can't actually find a two year period when Wisconsin added 200,000 jobs.

Thanks for proving what I already knew, lying imbecile. You proved it better than I could have.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you're sticking to your lie that only 3000 were created in Wisconsin under Scott Walker?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



That was from the period of January, 2009, till now. You know, the last set of dates you've referenced. 

Jan/2009: 2,896,771
Mar/2014: 2,899,770

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST550000000000003?from_year=2009

You see, unlike you, I can prove what I say. Unlike you, I don't lie.

Despite your rhetoric about how you're the one seeking consistency, you're actually all over the board with dates. So far, you've looked at date ranges starting a year before Obama became president, to the period when he became president, to the period started 1 years after he became president, to the period starting 2 years after he became president. You're all over the board because you can't find numbers that agree with your claims.

And of course, you made a complete fool of yourself, claiming that Wisconsin added 200,000 jobs over a 2 year period when no such period exists.

[edit] I'm editing my post because I see you've changed your post from: 

_"So you're sticking to your lie that only 3000 were created in Wisconsin?"_​
to:  

_"So you're sticking to your lie that only 3000 were created in Wisconsin under Scott Walker?"_​
Which I never said. You're lying again. All of our posts are still on this forum, including the one where I said the net gain of jobs in Wisconsin was 3000 from January, 2009 till now. I never said anything about Scott Walker.​


----------



## MaryL (May 11, 2014)

I lost my job of over twenty years. 401k, bye bye. Health insurance. Adios.Talk about a kick in the karma. But we need to reform immigration laws for what, exactly?  They  need jobs? Like the one I just lost? Oh, And the health care thing. Poor illegals need health care.  Lets' reform that, too.  This is what the plutocrats want us to believe. Obama, god bless him. If  there is one.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I mentioned that Wisconsin saw a gain in jobs starting after 2010. I mentioned that they had an election and a new governor, a Republican, was elected in 2010. Since he took office Wisconsin has created closer to 86,000 jobs. When I was saying 200,000 I was looking at a graph. I see nothing that says Scott Walker only created 3000 jobs. The point was Wisconsin saw a total reversal and a huge swing in unemployment from over 9% to 5.6% today. Texas is 5.5%. North Dakota is within the margin of error almost full employment. Texas alone has been responsible for close to a 3rd of the jobs created in the entire United States. These three states are creating jobs. And not just working at Piggly Wiggly, but good paying jobs. You can't say the same for others because most of the decrease in unemployment numbers isn't because more people are finding jobs, more are leaving the work force. 

The labor participation rate went from almost 66% to 62.8% since Obama took office. People are dropping out of the workforce in droves in some states. There are 93 million people of working age not working. Almost a 3rd of the total population. 47 million are on food stamps because they don't make enough to be able to afford the cost of living and have fallen below the poverty level.

Yup, Obama is doing a great job. Bur mostly in North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. It's not too bad in TN, but we don't see his stank-ass here much anyway. Our taxes are fairly low, no thanks to him.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 11, 2014)

MaryL said:


> I lost my job of over twenty years. 401k, bye bye. Health insurance. Adios.Talk about a kick in the karma. But we need to reform immigration laws for what, exactly?  They  need jobs? Like the one I just lost? Oh, And the health care thing. Poor illegals need health care.  Lets' reform that, too.  This is what the plutocrats want us to believe. Obama, god bless him. If  there is one.



Yup, all they need to do is pay for it. 

He gave everyone the impression it was gonna be free.

Then he gave everyone the impression it was going to be cheap.

Then he gave everyone the impression that his insurance was better and that we could keep our doctor or our health insurance if we didn't like his insurance.

Well, he lied. 

And the only reason he wants illegals here it to turn Red states into Blue states. He could care less you lost your job because of them.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Let me remind you what you actually said, since you seem to have amnesia about what you said just a few hours ago ...

_"Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 6% now. *Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs.* I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it."_​
Here are the *actual* numbers...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... there was no two year period when the unemployment rate in Wisconsin went from 9% to under 6%, as you falsely claimed ... there was no two year period when 200,000 jobs were added in Wisconsin, as you falsely claimed

You can try to project your idiocy that your words mean something other than what they actually say till you're blue in the face ... it remains your failure. 

Now you're claiming that since Scott Walker took over, unemployment went from 9% to under 6%. Not true. The unemployment rate in Wisconsin when Walker was sworn in, as my link shows, was 7.8%. So you're lying about that too.

You're claiming the unemployment rate in Wisconsin is 5.6%. Another lie. It's 5.9%.

You're claiming 86,000 jobs have been added under Walker. Another lie. The number is 69,417

All you do is lie. You're fucking pathological.


----------



## paulitician (May 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



He's only made things much worse. But so many got sold on the corrupt Media Worship-Propaganda. He was the next 'Abraham Lincoln', or some other absurd shite like that. He should be Impeached for his ugly IRS abuses. No one should be celebrating his reign.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 12, 2014)

Faun said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



All you do is play with the numbers and pick and choose which ones matter. 

The biggest number you like to ignore is job growth. Little or none to speak of. You ignore the total working as opposed to total not working. The administration is dishonest about the effect they've had on the job market. The effect they've had on wages. You crow over a few million jobs when Reagan's policies created nearly 17 million of them. And you still can't say what policy Obama is responsible for that created one fucken job. You apply different standards depending on the party they belong to...and don't even get me started on spending motherfucker....

You have some nerve asswad.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> All you do is play with the numbers and pick and choose which ones matter.
> 
> The biggest number you like to ignore is job growth. Little or none to speak of. You ignore the total working as opposed to total not working. The administration is dishonest about the effect they've had on the job market. The effect they've had on wages. You crow over a few million jobs when Reagan's policies created nearly 17 million of them. And you still can't say what policy Obama is responsible for that created one fucken job. You apply different standards depending on the party they belong to...and don't even get me started on spending motherfucker....
> 
> You have some nerve asswad.



How long did it take for Reagan's policies to take effect? Did he get all those jobs within his term? Or did he have an impact later on?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Idiot. I'm using the time frames * YOU picked. * How can you be so stupid not to understand that?

And you're lying again (shocker). I did not ignore job growth as you falsely claim. I posted the number when you lied earlier, claiming there was little to no job growth.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > All you do is play with the numbers and pick and choose which ones matter.
> ...


They were all within his 2 terms, though lying mud earlier claimed the number was 25 million. At any rate, it's apples and oranges, since, unlike Obama, Reagan didn't inherit an economy that was hemorrhaging jobs. In the 8 months leading up to Reagan becoming president, we *gained* about a million jobs. In Reagan's first 8 months, we *gained* another million. Compare that to economy Bush left for Obama. During the 8 months before Obama became president, we *lost* an unprecedented 4 million jobs. Then in the 8 months which followed as the Great Recession waned, we *lost* another 4 million jobs. Had Obama not been handed the worst economy since the Great Depression, we'd likely be up somewhere in the neighborhood of about 9 million jobs.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 12, 2014)

Faun said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


Liar Faun likes a double-standard. 

One standard for his guy, and another standard for everybody else.

It doesn't matter what kind of economy he was handed because he still has to do his job. Carter fed Reagan a mess so those are the breaks bud. Making excuses seems to be the left's thing.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2014)

Faun said:


> They were all within his 2 terms, though lying mud earlier claimed the number was 25 million. At any rate, it's apples and oranges, since, unlike Obama, Reagan didn't inherit an economy that was hemorrhaging jobs. In the 8 months leading up to Reagan becoming president, we *gained* about a million jobs. In Reagan's first 8 months, we *gained* another million. Compare that to economy Bush left for Obama. During the 8 months before Obama became president, we *lost* an unprecedented 4 million jobs. Then in the 8 months which followed as the Great Recession waned, we *lost* another 4 million jobs. Had Obama not been handed the worst economy since the Great Depression, we'd likely be up somewhere in the neighborhood of about 9 million jobs.



I think to look at figures from within their own presidency is not going to get people that far. A president has more of an impact after they have left office than when they are in office. It's hard to tell and no one can really be sure how much of an impact a president has on the economy, how much congress has on the economy etc.

People like to use stats to fight the other side. It gets them no where.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> It doesn't matter what kind of economy he was handed because he still has to do his job. Carter fed Reagan a mess so those are the breaks bud. Makeng excuses seems to be the left's thing.



Which is a ridiculous statement. 

People attack him for things outside of his control. Er..... what about the Chinese banning UK cheese? Gonna blame Obama? 

If you look at statistics without looking at the context, you're an idiot, pure and simple.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what kind of economy he was handed because he still has to do his job. Carter fed Reagan a mess so those are the breaks bud. Makeng excuses seems to be the left's thing.
> ...



I've been trying to tell Faun that all day.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 6, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2014 was 6.3%. This is Obama's 65th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.52% in April 2014 at 64 months to the average 8.49% in May 2014 at 65 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.49% *

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.49%  * 


(551.8)


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2014)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2014 was 6.1%. This is Obama's 66th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office slightly, from the average 8.49% in May 2014 at 65 months to the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.45%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26% 
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.45%*


----------



## Lakhota (Jul 12, 2014)

> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?



Probably Obama, after Bush shit the bed and left town.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2014)

Lakhota said:


> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably Obama, after Bush shit the bed and left town.



Bush has one of the best average unemployment rates since World War II at 5.27%. Something Obama, despite being in office two full terms, will never be able to achieve.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Do you blame the new woman CEO at GM for all the problems she's dealing with?  

And what if all her VP's were fighting her every decision and trying to sabotage her?  She would fire them, right?  Well Obama can't fire Roberts, Alito, Boehner or Mitch McConnell.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



All the other Presidents since World War II worked under the same rules but still were able to produce better unemployment averages than Obama, so that is not an excuse.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 12, 2014)

Obama's presidency is on track to beat Reagan's unemployment rate;

boy oh boy will the RWnut tune change then.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 12, 2014)

This thread still living? We have enough idiot nutters to keep this alive for over 750 posts? 

Damn!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2014)

Like having an unregulated market where only the huge corporations control the whole damn thing is going to create any jobs. This is what the losertrians don't get. Fools.

You think dumping the entire public sector that provides our nation with a safety net, nws, nasa, cdc, fda, and regulations for those banks is going to get jobs either. 

Don't make me laugh!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Obama's presidency is on track to beat Reagan's unemployment rate;
> 
> boy oh boy will the RWnut tune change then.



I'd like to see some real regulations on the huge corporations allowing for more competition. Would help with more full time jobs.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 12, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



From 1940-1970 the income tax on the super rich was over 70%. Inequality was at the lowest levels in the history of this country and the middle class was growing.


----------



## BobPlumb (Jul 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> This thread still living? We have enough idiot nutters to keep this alive for over 750 posts?
> 
> Damn!



Welcome to The Nutters Club.  Thanks for posting and helping to keep this thread alive.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 12, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > This thread still living? We have enough idiot nutters to keep this alive for over 750 posts?
> ...



Isn't that convenient?


----------



## BobPlumb (Jul 12, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



791 and counting!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Obama's presidency is on track to beat Reagan's unemployment rate;
> 
> boy oh boy will the RWnut tune change then.



Hid GDP growth rate sucks ass compared to Reagan's.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Since "inequality," as you term it, was determined solely by your taxable income, what that shows is that high income people did everything possible to reduce their taxable income, thereby sheltering it from the tax man.  altering your financial behaviour to avoid taxation results in capital being diverted to non productive purposes and thereby lowers economic growth.  Also, people don't work as hard as they would otherwise or grow their businesses because they don't get to keep the fruits of their labor.

What happened to inequality at the end of Carter's term?  The same tax rates were in effect.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


The Bush dummy was handed an UE rate of about 4% and passed on a rate of about 8%. Obama is cutting Bush's 8% down to about 6%. Only a complete idiot would argue that a president that increases unemployment by 100% is better than a president that decreases unemployment by 25%.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



If the new woman CEO at GM was still blaming her predecessor almost seven YEARS after taking the position while demonstrating no aptitude for the job?  Yes, not only would I blame her...but almost any board of directors would have FIRED her long before then!

LOL  Terrible analogy, Sealy!  I know it's hard to paint this guy in a good light but that WASN'T the way to go...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



And only a naive idiot would argue that the President who has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...a recovery that has seen food stamp use almost double...disability claims almost double...long term unemployment numbers at record levels...the number of "under employed" people at all time highs...and doesn't HAVE an economic plan to either stimulate the economy or create jobs...is doing a great job!  The truth of the matter is that Barack Obama's policies have NOT lowered the unemployment rate...his policies have for the most part hurt job creation.  The only thing that's been keeping this economy afloat has been nonstop quantitative easing by the Fed.  They're now hinting that they will gradually stop QE by sometime next year.  Get ready for the stock market bubble to burst, Ed!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



This Bush Depression happens to be the worst recession since the Great GOP Depression, even worse than the Great Reagan Recession, so an honest person would expect recovery to be slow even if the GOP were not doing everything in their power to prolong the Great Bush Depression.

But the proof that the economy is recovering is the Right's habitual lying about the numbers. I highlighted your lie about disability "claims" almost doubling. Now that is a very professionally crafted lie because just because Right-wing cheats try to get over on the system and put in a "claim" for disability does not mean the Right-wing cheats were successful in getting an award.

Under the Bush Regime disability AWARDS including dependents skyrocketed from 6,673,362 to 9,273,839, an increase of 2,600,477 with new awards increasing each and every year. Under Obama awards have gone from 9,273,839 to 10,988,269 an increase of only 1,714,430 and with new awards decreasing the last three years. Only to the totally dishonest Right would an increase of 1.7 million be "ALMOST DOUBLE" 9.2 million, or even double Bush's 2.6 million for that matter! 

You will just ignore this so I won't waste my time exposing the rest of your deliberately misleading phony claims.


----------



## jillian (Jul 13, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



because then they can spew stupidity like pretending that this president was responsible for bush's economic crash and the unemployment rate left to this president after that crash.

it works nicely when they have nothing but that type of distortion


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 13, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's presidency is on track to beat Reagan's unemployment rate;
> ...



See what I mean?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 13, 2014)

Interesting..........................the right wing that hates Obama is saying that he's the worst President in history.

Only trouble is, under Obama, the stock market has gone from 7,000 (it's lowest) to over 17,000 (record setting high just a couple of weeks ago).  Not only that, but Boehner said he was concerned about jobs (his party never did anything to help), and wasn't (he was only concerned about making Obama look bad), but under Obama's leadership, this country has seen a job growth for the past 52 months.

Sorry, but Boehner and the GOP haven't done anything to help the job market, as a matter of fact, they've sold out the U.S. job market to the Asians (wanna talk about the TPP?). 

If anyone has been able to help the U.S. keep jobs, it's Obama.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Yeah, but it's all because of Bush policies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Disabled America: 5.4 Million Join Social Security Disability Insurance Rolls Under Obama - Investors.com

When do I EVER ignore you, Ed?  The truth is you won't spend time exposing "the rest" of my claims because they're pretty accurate.

I'm curious, Ed...why WOULD this recession be the worst recovery since the Great Depression?  Could it be because we have a President who hasn't had an economic plan to grow the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left four YEARS ago?  Tell me who Barack Obama's chief economist is right now!  I bet you don't have the faintest idea who they are...do you?  You're going to have to go Google someone who SHOULD be a household name if this Administration really WAS coming up with fixes for the economy!  You don't know who they are...*BECAUSE NOBODY IS DOING DIDDLY ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR JOBS IN THIS WHITE HOUSE!!!*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Invested Bigots Daily has never told the truth in their entire existence, so of course they are your source rather than the actual SSA data they claim as their source. And they know you are too lazy to check their lies and will parrot them without question because this is the lie they knew you wanted to hear and would swallow whole without a second thought.
From your link:

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data,* as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.*

Here are the real numbers, disability awards are the last column.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Parroting propaganda again?

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the Reagan administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



"The growing hostile rhetoric on the right has alarmed some. Bud Meyers, a laid off casino bartender in Las Vegas, happened to catch O'Reilly's rant. He said he thinks there is no way millions people are leaving their jobs to collect disability payments. Meyers spent more than two years unemployed before he tried to get on disability. (Meyers, who uses a pseudonym, spends some of his time blogging.)

"I was laid off in October 2008. My unemployment benefits ran out in June 2010. My savings ran out by January 2011," Meyers, 56, wrote in an email. He said he applied for disability as soon as his savings ran out.

Meyers said his bartending career has left him with arthritis in his neck and back, and that he couldn't possibly stand and work for eight hours straight like he used to. The Social Security Administration, Meyers said, was not convinced he couldn't find something to do. He applied for disability a second time, unsuccessfully.

"I've already received the 'mandatory' two written rejections on my disability claim from the Social Security office and I'm still waiting for a hearing," Meyers wrote. "[More than three million] people left their jobs to take a chance of going on the government dole for half their previous salary with no income in between? I don't think so! Multi-millionaires like Bill O'Reilly have no clue at all."

That's from *your* Huffington Post piece, Bfgrn...it's a snapshot of what's really driving the surge in disability claims under the Obama Administration.  Read between the lines.  Mr. Meyers didn't apply for disability because he suddenly was unable to work...he applied because his unemployment ran out after a year and a half...his savings ran out six months later...and THEN he applied for disability!  Why?  Because he was desperate and STILL couldn't find a job!  Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression and as we speak millions of Americans have been out of work for record lengths of time and are just as desperate as Mr. Meyers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

While Barack heads off to the Vineyard for another couple weeks of playing golf and hanging out with his rich friends just like he did LAST year...millions of Americans just like Mr. Myers will be sitting at home trying to figure out how they're going to pay the electric bill.

The truth is...Barack Obama has been ABYSMAL when it comes to job creation!  He doesn't understand economics and his policies are based more on political ideology than sound economic principles.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 13, 2014)

Matthew said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Well, if that is the secret to a strong economy, then Obama has certainly failed to achieve that.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



SO, let's throw out actual facts and data and we'll go with anecdotal evidence...


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 13, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Only the ignorant would rate a President simply by comparing the first month they were in office with the last month they were in office. There are 94 other months in a two term Presidency. Do you think students should be grades based only on their first day of school and their last? How could that be an accurate measure of anything?


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Its the only firm objective way to compare what life was like for people in the job market while a particular person was sitting in the oval office. Those monthly unemployment rates are facts, and what the people experienced during those months is also fact. You can debate who is to blame, but you cannot debate the fact of what the unemployment rate was when a certain person was sitting in the oval office, and what the average rate was during the entire time they sat in the oval office.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 13, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> While Barack heads off to the Vineyard for another couple weeks of playing golf and hanging out with his rich friends just like he did LAST year...millions of Americans just like Mr. Myers will be sitting at home trying to figure out how they're going to pay the electric bill.
> 
> The truth is...Barack Obama has been ABYSMAL when it comes to job creation!  He doesn't understand economics and his policies are based more on political ideology than sound economic principles.



Better turn off faux news...

Under President Obama, the United States is on pace to have its best job creation year since Bill Clinton was president in 1999.

Check out the job gains by year graph:






Here is a chart with the full numbers via the Calculated Risk Blog:






On the rare occasions that Republicans will talk about jobs, they love to portray the president as a job creation failure. In their next breath, they will explain how prosperity could fall from the heavens onto us all if the president would sign their stack of bills that are a series of permanent tax cuts for the wealthy disguised as job creation legislation.

The data reveals that job creation didnt go into overdrive after George W. Bush massively cut taxes for the wealthy. The previous three years before this year were some of the best job creation years since Clinton was in office. The Republican motto of cut taxes and the jobs will come, has been proven wrong again, and the great right wing myth that President Obama has destroyed the economy is completely divorced from reality.

After enduring the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, no one is going to argue that the economy is booming. Despite the best efforts of Republicans, the economy is starting to pick up some serious steam. The mainstream media doesnt want to talk about the good things that are happening, so Democrats need to speak up, because these number show once again that Democrats create where Republicans break.

Obama Is on Pace For The Best Job Creation Year Since Bill Clinton Was President


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 13, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > While Barack heads off to the Vineyard for another couple weeks of playing golf and hanging out with his rich friends just like he did LAST year...millions of Americans just like Mr. Myers will be sitting at home trying to figure out how they're going to pay the electric bill.
> ...




Remember, the economy must create 200,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. So it is not enough to simply create jobs every month. You have to be creating jobs beyond a certain level to make a dent in the unemployment rate and the long term unemployment rate. 

The labor force Participation rate is currently 62.8%. That is the lowest it has been since 1977! If the labor force Participation rate were still at 66% like under Bush, the unemployment rate would be 10% rather than 6.1%.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jul 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow! That's startling! You really have something there. Keep bringing the brilliance!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That is pure BS! The fact is birth rates are down and Boomers are retiring and leaving the workforce in greater numbers than those entering the labor force. It is estimated that we need only about 50,000 to 80,000 new workers to keep up with population growth, and that is due mainly to immigrants.

And if Bush had kept his LPR at the 67.2% it was when he started instead of the 65.7% it was when he left the UE rate when he left would have been 15% rather then 7.8%.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > While Barack heads off to the Vineyard for another couple weeks of playing golf and hanging out with his rich friends just like he did LAST year...millions of Americans just like Mr. Myers will be sitting at home trying to figure out how they're going to pay the electric bill.
> ...



Dude, did you just tell me to turn off "faux news" and then cite something from Politicus?  Seriously?  Now THAT is some funny shit!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2014)

The mainstream media doesn't want to talk about the good things that are happening?  Really?  Is that the same mainstream media that's been kissing Barry's ass since before he took office?  So what you're telling us is that the same mainstream media that have had a slobbering love affair with Barack Obama have suddenly turned against him and are refusing to let the American people know what a great job he's doing on the economy and job creation?  THAT is what you're selling today?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 14, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



DUDe... Maybe you can find some more anecdotal evidence? The article is from Politicus, the SOURCE of the chart is from The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Morgan Stanley Research.

Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe faux news or any of the right wing sources you parrot propaganda from will EVER say anything complimentary about Obama and/or Democrats?

Will those right wing sources inform you about what Republicans have been doing since Obama was elected by We, the People? Will they inform you that Republicans have been wasting taxpayers money writing 50 bills to destroy the ACA? Bills that have ZERO chance of ever being passed?

Will those right wing sources inform that Republicans have been wasting taxpayers money voting almost 200 bills to destroy the environment??

Will those right wing sources inform you what is in House Republicans rider for the 2012 appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) consisting of items to weaken environmental regulations by cutting funding and rolling back rules?

Since the Senate would have to confirm the changes and President Obama would have to sign the bill, its unlikely that such changes will pass.

The bill also continues to change; nevertheless, the attempt reveals Republican plans to roll back environmental protections agreed upon by both parties over the past 40 years. The GOP promises more jobs and recovery from the current depression as a reward for such actions.

Many of us think that overregulation from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is at the heart of our stalled economy, said Rep. Mike Simpson, R- Idaho.

The bill cuts up to 18 percent of the funding from the Forest Service, the Interior Department and the EPA. It was voted out of committee by House Republicans.

The bill is loaded with a promise to business to end regulation and leaves only the profit motive to determine the use of land, water and wildlife.

By blocking regulations the GOP would allow:

Automobiles to stop increasing gas mileage after 2016, and allow them to spew fine particles that cause cancer into the air.

Pesticide manufacturers to use false and misleading information on their labels, and chemical companies and agriculture to dump pesticides into the waterways.

Uranium mining in the Grand Canyon.

The cement industry to pump cancer-causing dust into the air.

Increased levels of arsenic, formaldehyde and other cancer-causing substances in the air, soil, drinking water, and sediment, as well as allow increased ammonia emissions from power plants.

Oil conglomerates to ignore health-based air quality standards offshore, and make it more expensive for citizens to challenge government actions regulating oil extraction companies.

Increased storm water discharge from commercial and residential construction sites, mountaintop removal water to run off into streams, and prohibit the EPA from forcing Florida to enforce the states Water Quality Standards.

Increased ash from the burning of coal, and methane from manure piles.

Lawsuits over grazing on public lands to proceed more easily, livestock to move freely across government grazing land, and prevent reviews of grazing permits.

Alaskan western red and yellow cedar to be cut and sold for shipment overseas.

Unlisted endangered animals to be hunted and killed, and wolves to be de-listed from protection.

Endangering of bighorn sheep by allowing more livestock to graze in their habitat.

In addition, the GOP would:

Eliminate the regulation of livestock waste runoff or disposal.

Allow greenhouse gas producers, such as coal plants, to continue emitting for one year, and bar lawsuits during this time.

Prohibit funding for listing or protecting any new animal species under the Endangered Species Act.

Block any updates to the Clean Water Act, and prevent regulation of cool water intake facilities.

Limit public appeals of Forest Service timber harvest plans.

Provide financial breaks for mining companies, and prevent any new hard rock mining regulations.

Allow Texas to implement its own cap-and-trade system without Federal input.

Prevent boat inspection safety checks on the Yukon River.

Prevent the EPA from adopting water ballast requirements that stop the intrusion of invasive species into the Great Lakes.

Force the EPA to ignore Clean Air Rules for power plants, and ignore the public health benefits of the Clean Air Act.

Block the designation of Federal land to be set aside as wilderness areas.

Require detailed records to be kept and quarterly reports on any gas or oil permits not allowed.

These efforts make it clear that Republicans ignore the role of deregulation in creating the problems that the nation faces, such as the financial institutions that sank the economy and robbed millions of Americans of their jobs and their savings.

The Republicans hope voters will forget the role of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in this disaster, put the blame for the depressed economy on President Barack Obama, and give them the presidency in 2012.

They destroyed the economy once and they can do it again  this time taking the environment with it.


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to  the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2014)

So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy?  It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source!  Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore!  Don't you just HATE that!


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Its not about birth rates or Boombers, but POPULATION GROWTH overall! The largest number of births in the United States EVER IN HISTORY occurred in 2007. All those kids born in 2007 won't graduate High School until 2025. So the number of new people entering the work force for the first time will continue to increase for the next 10 years, at a minimum, and if the economy eventually does improve, immigration will increase as well. 

         As for Boomers leaving the workforce, many have had to postpone retirement because they have had their savings wiped out. *2011 was the FIRST YEAR, that people born in 1946, the start of the boomer generation, turned 65.* So the vast majority of the decline in the labor force participation rate has been due to the economy and people unable to find work, and not the boomer retirement phase. Boomers were born from 1946 through 1963. The vast majority of boomers have not reached retirement age yet. Most also plan to work beyond the official retirement age as well. 


Also, for most of the Bush administration the labor force participation rate was 66%. Going from 67.2% participation rate and 4.2% unemployment, would not mean a labor force participation rate of 65.8% would really mean 15% unemployment if it had held at 67.2%. Not even close. Again, the worst decline in the labor force Participation rate under any President In history is BARACK OBAMA. A full 3 percentage points. 

        Finally, the fact that the boomer wave of retirement is about to start may mean its good for individual workers entering the labor market for the first time, but for the country as a whole, any decline in the labor force participation, regardless of the reason, is not a good thing and one should be engaged in trying to get policies that will prevent the decline.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 15, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy?  It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source!  Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore!  Don't you just HATE that!



There is a link.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It is pure BS that population growth alone that affects the LPR, it is the ratio of workers leaving the workforce to those entering. And early retirement age starts at 62 years old.


http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art3full.pdf

A number of factors are responsible for the downward 
pressure on participation rates. These factors affect the 
rates in various ways.
Demographic and structural changes. The aging of the U.S 
population is a prime example of a demographic change 
that will affect the labor force participation rate and, 
hence, the labor force itself.* As the baby-boom generation 
has aged and moved from the prime age group, with high 
participation rates, to the older age groups, with significantly lower labor force participation rates, the overall labor force participation rate has declined. This trend is expected to continue and even accelerate in the 20102020 
timeframe.*
The demographic composition of the population directly affects the demographic composition of the labor 
force. In 1990, 11.9 percent of the labor force was 55 years 
and older. (See table 1.) Over the 19902000 timeframe, 
the share of the older labor force increased to 13.1 percent. In 2010, the share increased again, to 19.5 percent. 
BLS projects that the share of the 55-years-and-older labor force will increase to 25.2 percent in 2020. In 2000, 
baby boomers were ages 36 to 54 and all of them were 
in the prime age group of 25 to 54 yearsthe group 
with the highest participation rates. With the passage 
of every year after 2000, a segment of the baby-boom 
population has moved from the prime age group, with 
a high participation rate of 82.2 percent in 2010, to the 
55-years-and-older age category, with a much lower 
participation rate of 40.2 percent in 2010, causing the 
overall participation rate to drop. (see table 3.)* In other 
words, the U.S. labor market is currently experiencing a 
negative demographic effect in which a large segment of 
the population is moving from an age group with higher 
participation rates to an older age group with lower participation rates, resulting in a slowdown in the growth of 
the labor force. In addition, the baby bust is reinforcing 
this slowdown because fewer people are entering the labor force from that age cohort.*
With the aging of the baby-boom generation, the older 
age cohorts are expected to make up a much larger share 
of both the population and the labor force. Because age 
is a major factor in the labor supply, the aging of the U.S. 
population will affect the growth of the labor force by 
lowering labor force participation rates.
*Two long-term labor force projections have been published by BLS since 2000.12 Even before the impact of the 
most recent recession was felt, both of these studies projected slower growth of the labor force participation rate 
and, consequently, the labor force.* The increasing shares 
of workers in the 55-yearsand-older age group is a structural force that will continue over the 20102020 period, 
dramatically lowering both the overall participation rate 
and the growth of the labor force.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So what silly site did you glean all THAT from, little buddy?  It must be a "really good one" since you're not attributing a source!  Doesn't it suck when people point out how biased your sources are so you can't use them anymore!  Don't you just HATE that!
> ...



Where?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 15, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



'is a chart with the full numbers via the Calculated Risk Blog:'


Calculated Risk: Comments on Employment Report

MORE:

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record



*June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Will those right wing sources inform you what is in House Republicans *rider* for the 2012 appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) consisting of items to weaken environmental regulations by cutting funding and rolling back rules?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

Oh, THAT'S your source?  The one that opined this nonsense?

"This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.

But this wasn't a miracle, of course. It happened because of a president who embodies perseverance. It happened because of an administration that did not see fixing the American economy as a political weapon but as a patriotic duty. It happened because in the first days of the Obama administration, a Democratic Congress made the most critical investments in American economy and American healthcare. It happened because of a president willing to pay a high political price for believing in the American middle class."

You guys kill me...I knew it was going to be one of THOSE sites and it was even more laughable than most of the others!

I love this from "The People's View" that describes what they're all about...

"This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis.  This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism."

Well, hey...at least they're honest about being biased.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

So the Obama Administration sees fixing the American economy as it's "patriotic duty"?  Funny how they haven't had an economic plan to fix the economy since Larry Summers left four YEARS ago!  That's some REALLY amusing stuff!


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, THAT'S your source?  The one that opined this nonsense?
> 
> "This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.
> 
> ...



The statistics come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why can't you get past that FACT? Instead you want to use obfuscation.


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



The actual numbers for Bush on the unemployment rate are from 4.2% to 6.1% with the average over 8 years of 5.27%.  So far after Obama has an average of 8.7% during his 5 1/2 years.  The cause of the initial loss of jobs was the housing bubble that went south, and that was a result of government policy started by Clinton and continued by Bush.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The cause of the housing crisis was private lenders outside government lending practices.

Even the Wall Street Journal says:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Try 4.2% to 7.8% and skyrocketing. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate, Obama has brought Bush's 7.8% down to 6.1% and falling. Only the Right considers a president who doubled the UE rate better on the economy than a president who cuts the UE rate!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that *George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon* and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.


Yeah, Bush "warned" there was a problem but blocked any reform. Barney Frank was a powerless minority congressman incapable of blocking anything the GOP controlled House wanted to pass.


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:



> WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that* three out of four* of the nearly 1 million hires this year are* part-time *and many of the jobs are* low-paid*.


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that *George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon* and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.
> ...



The Democrats in the Senate filibustered any change to housing.  You do know what a filibuster is do you not?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Bullshit! You do know what bullshit is do you not?

In order to filibuster a bill the GOP senate leader must bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The one reform bill, HR 1461, that got out of the House over Barney Frank's objections was killed in the GOP senate without a vote to filibuster! The GOP controlled Senate sent it to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to die without a vote.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



You do know that the vast majority of people working part-time ONLY want to work part-time, do you not?


----------



## pinqy (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Speaking of cuckoo, read this, then brag some more:
> 
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that* three out of four* of the nearly 1 million hires this year are* part-time *and many of the jobs are* low-paid*.



Since it's only July, I have no idea which August your quote refers to.  And it's clear off the bat the the author does not know what s/he's talking about.  Even in 2009, there were about 46 million hires in the U.S. (there were 51 million separations for a net loss of jobs in the year).  So I can't trust the analysis of anyone who doesn't know the difference between a hire and a net change in jobs.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, THAT'S your source?  The one that opined this nonsense?
> 
> "This would be an impressive achievement in any month of any year under any president under any conceivable economic circumstances (including the happy 90s). But the fact that this has happened in less than five years from the official end of the worst economic calamity this country has seen since Herbert Hoover is remarkable. And the fact that this has happened as the President has had to swim against a level of obstruction entirely unparalleled in memory by an opposition party looking to harm the economy as a means of hurting the president makes this achievement nearly miraculous.
> 
> ...



So ALL you have is ad homs? NOTHING else?

Are their numbers wrong? Flawed in some way? Inaccurate? PLEASE let me believe you have SOMETHING other than ad homs against WHERE it came from (which is BLS numbers BTW)

10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010. MARCH 2010? HMM ISN'T THAT THE TIME OBAMACARES WAS PASSED?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



GOT A LINK PLEASE?

GOP HAD THE SENATE RIGHT? Please give me the bills that were filibustered

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


Agency&#8217;s &#8217;04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!



The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street




Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded GOP Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again


Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


 And here's what the House Republican Mike Oxley (R), Chairman of the House Financial Services committee said


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says *Mr Oxley (R)* , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.&#8221;

&#8220;What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.&#8221;

*Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well actually it made it out of committee on party line votes, BUT THE GOP SENATE REFUSED TO BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE. He didn't have enough Repugs to get it passed

WHY?

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage giant


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. *The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.*

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News


BUT despite right wing myths, F/F didn't cause Dubya's subprime crisis

*Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown*


Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earthThey were opposite of subprime.


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



YOU LEFT OFF SOMETHING THERE BUBBA

"Aug 21, 2013"


*June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. *The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.



Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM MARCH 2010. 


BUSH LOST 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS (PLUS 4+ MILLION MORE IN 2009)

YOU'D THINK THE GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES WOULD'VE WORKED AFTER 8 YEARS RIGHT?




Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.





 Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

BUSH 'WARNING' ABOUT F/F

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
*Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.*



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004




Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf







Q Why would Bushs regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his Ownership Society programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bushs regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


MUCH MORE ON DUBYA'S SUBPRIME CRISIS HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




CLINTON? LOL


WHY AVERAGE?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

THAT WAS CLINTON?

 FACTS on Dubya's great recession 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373464


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.






Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.









A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.




Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages  the loans at the heart of the global crisis  were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.











Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers  competitors of Fannie and Freddie  grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006







Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act  Source: McClatchy


These firms had business models that could be called Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers. They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages  the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it. 

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I will repeat the stats for the brain dead.

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that* three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.*

Take out the low paying part time jobs and tell me some more Obama propaganda.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





Got it, You''ll go with year old data

*Are most new jobs part-time, as Obama critics say? Probably not*


The establishment survey is viewed as more accurate because what workplaces tell government can be crosschecked against tax and other official records. The same is not true of the more volatile household survey, which relies on the good will and good faith of the individuals questioned.

The establishment survey, however, does not break down the number of jobs created into part- and full-time. Instead it asks companies, government offices and nonprofit organizations how many hours each employee averages each week.

That number tells a very different story and suggests most of the new jobs in 2013 are full-time. The average employee worked 34.4 hours in July, a tick lower than in June but still near a post-recession high.

*The number of hours worked would fall more sharply if the jobs businesses say they are creating were mostly part-time. It shouldnt come as a surprise that it hasnt happened,* however. More than 80% of all jobs in the United States are full-time.


*Some 19.6% of the workforce is part-time, compared with 17% in the year before the last recession began. The number of part-timers rose steadily during the recession and flattened out at just under 20% after the recovery began in mid-2009. Its remained near that level ever since.*



Are most new jobs part-time, as Obama critics say? Probably not - Capitol Report - MarketWatch





*The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time Americain 5 Graphs*

A falsifiable claim, falsified 


The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000.* For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions. *










Okay, but one year is just one year! Let's keep looking.

The second thing we should expect to see from Part-Time America is a growing number of part-time jobs since Obama came into office and started passing laws. *Here's a graph showing the number of people working part-time for economic reasons since March 2010*, the month Obamacare was passed.
The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America?in 5 Graphs - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic








Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like
The president's critics love this talking point. *But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000. *


Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic



lol


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Here is what really happened.



> In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. *This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.*
> 
> On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress.* It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 &#8211; 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture.* Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. *Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.*
> 
> ...



I highlighted the reason these bill didn't get Democrat support in the next to the last paragraph.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Either you are a dishonest or stupid fuck.  First off, think of all the jobs that were fleeing America when Bush left office.  Yes these numbers are still bush's fault.

2ndly.  Remember all the spending cuts the tea baggers insisted on?  Remember the GOP wouldn't let Obama have any stimulus money like we gave Reagan and Bush to help stimulate their economies?  So  you tied his hands and you insisted on spending cuts you knew would cut jobs.  Your corporations have record profits in the bank and they still aren't hiring or giving raises.    

So don't blame Obama.  Blame yourselves.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





*YOU MEAN DUBYA AS REGULATOR OF F/F WASN'T ENOUGH? SERIOUSLY?*


Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing



*In 2003-2004 , Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.*




Testimony from W&#8217;s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS  2004 concerning the 'regulation&#8217; of the GSE&#8217;s

Mr. Frank: ...*Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position.* We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.&#8220;


THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush&#8217;s President&#8217;s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

&#8220;The Presidents Working Group&#8217;s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.&#8221;



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again. 





The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.&#8221;

&#8220;What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.&#8221;


Oxley (R) was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress




STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of *H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
*
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers". 



*June 17, 2004*


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
*Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.*



(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



In April (2004), HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals.

*HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES*


This data covering 1999-2002 shows that combined, the GSEs have lagged behind the primary market in 44 states in their commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES


HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.




Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


*So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush*


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



&#8220;The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,&#8221; said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. &#8220;Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth&#8230;They were opposite of subprime.&#8221;


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast




Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation



*Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.*

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators* pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote*.



Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a* campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states*, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. *The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.*


Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation




 &#8220;We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,&#8221; the President (DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. &#8220;We can change the print, and we've got to.&#8221;


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





"In May 2006, J*ohn McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. *McCain would state, I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended."





*SERIOUSLY? LOL*


 Does McCain's support for that bill amount to fighting to rein in Freddie and Fannie? Sort of. Others had been fighting for Fannie-and-Freddie reform for more than a decade, and McCain signed onto the bill a year-and-a-half after it was introduced. *And he reportedly didn't do too much for the bill beyond co-sponsoring it and issuing a statement. *


*The National Association of Home Builders opposed the bill (SAME GROUP THAT OPPOSED BUSH REQUIRING F/F TO UP THE GSE GOALS IN 2004, LOL) *, as did the National Association of Realtors. Senate Democrats said they supported some form of stricter oversight, but would not support a provision of Hagel's bill that would limit the size of the company's portfolios. Negotiations stalled and the bill never made it to the floor. 



*McCain overstates his role in pushing for Fannie and Freddie reform*


Fannie, Freddie and John, at odds in 2006 | PolitiFact


*THAT WAS 2005, HOUSE REFORM DEMS SUPPORTED THAT PASSED THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE WITH BI PARTISAN SUPPORT*

HR1461

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

*Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".
*


DEMS FAULT, *SHAKING HEAD*


House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



I guess you missed my earlier post due to Dad2three's fire hydrant approach.  But your source doesn't know what he's talking about.  The article is August 2013, and he claimed that so far that year there had been 1 million hires.  In fact there had been 26.7 million non-farm payroll hires by that point (though that data wasn't available yet).  There had been 25.6 million separations, so the NET change was around a million, but there's a difference between hires and net change.

Next, the survey he's citing, the Current Employment Survey, doesn't distinguish between full and part time work, it just looks at average hours.

To get part time and full time numbers, he had to look at the Current Population Survey, which includes a lot of people the CES doesn't and uses different definitions and a different time frame.  You can't directly compare the two.  

As for low paying....average weekly pay and average hourly pay increased from Jan to July 2013.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 16, 2014)

The dupes prefer to go with the out of date, out of context, raw data bs talking points they heard on Faux Noise a thousand times...


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Since when do private lenders work "outside" of government lending practices?  Those lenders were working within government prescribed rules and regulations.  I know that you folks on the Left love to blame businesses and absolve government but the truth is that well meaning but fatally flawed governmental regulations passed long before George W. Bush took office contributed to the real estate bubble that eventually led to a severe recession.  It should also be noted that George W. Bush was one of the few people in Washington who were cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon and that liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh poohed that concern.



Yes, private lenders outside of government lending practices. I guess faux news forgot to tell you who and what caused the financial collapse...

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers  competitors of Fannie and Freddie  grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

These firms had business models that could be called Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers. They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages  the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. *The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush cautioning that there WAS a problem on the horizon? REALLY???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


----------



## TooTall (Jul 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Obama got about $840 billion in stimulus money for non-existant 'shovel ready' jobs and later laughed about it.  Bush gave tax rebates back to taxpayer as his stimulus.  I will take Bush's approach every time.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



I'm sorry but these are the official numbers for each President at this time. The above was a year ago. Obama's figure is now 8.45% with the most recent month included in the figures.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Wow, take off the blinders, Sealy!!!  Bush left office almost six YEARS ago...Obama's current numbers are STILL his fault?  Gee, I wonder when Barry's going to be held responsible for his own economic ineptness!

The GOP didn't let Obama have ANY stimulus money?  First of all, Democrats had control of the House and the Senate.  Secondly, Barack Obama not only got the remaining TARP stimulus to play with but nearly 900 billion in the Obama Stimulus to spend.  He rang up more spending in his first two years than any President in the history of this nation!  How you come to the conclusion that he had his "hands tied" is a mystery to me.

Corporations aren't hiring or investing because this Administration has such confused policies for economic growth, regulations of businesses and taxation that the people running businesses here are AFRAID to commit the capital TO hire.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





TooTall said:


> Here is what really happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting how you answered my post in reply to someone else's post. I guess you didn't want people to see you claimed the Dems filibustered all the bills since not one of the bills you cited was filibustered. In fact not one of them was brought to the floor for a vote to present the opportunity for a filibuster. You claim it is the Dems fault the GOP majority never brought the bills to the floor for a vote, but that is BS. The bills did not have GOP support outside of committee and even Bush didn't support them, which is why they were never brought up for a vote.

For example, the bill S 109 is the Senate version of HR 1461 that I posted. Bush was opposed to the bill and the Conservative AEI called it "A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law." Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the  
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House&#8208;passed Oxley bill in  
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They  
took no action on any bill.

S 1100 was just S 109 reintroduced and it too died in committee. It had nothing to do with the reform legislation, HR 3221, introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 31 July 2007 that the Dem controlled Congress passed and became law July 30, 2008, it is just the Right trying to take credit for what the Dems accomplished. The Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing for 5 years from 2003 until they lost control of Congress in 2007. The Dems had reform passed and signed in about a year and a half after taking over.

Here are quotes from the GOP objecting to the reform bill the Dems passed that you claimed was essentially S 1100 (which was S 109/HR 1461 resubmitted), which you also claim the GOP supported:

We*still*have*to*remember*that*millions*of*people*have*homeownership*opportunities*due*to*a

subprime*market.*I*am*very*leery*of*any*legislation*that*could*undercut*that*market*.*.*.*We*should*also*

take*note*about*what*is*happening*in*the*marketplace*now.*The*market*has*a*wonderful*ability*to*

correct*itself.*

* &#8208;&#8208;Rep.*Jeb*Hensarling*(R&#8208;TX),*October*24,*2007*committee*hearing*


This*increasing*availability*and*affordability*of*subprime*mortgage*credit*is*and*has*been*an*important*

factor*leading*to*the*increase*in*home*ownership*in*recent*years.*This*bill*may*well*limit*now*the*

products*available*to*subprime*borrowers,*particularly*minority*borrowers,*and*will*deprive*many*of*

those*consumers*from*owning*or*maintaining*a*home*.*.*.*What*we*need*to*do*is*ensure*that*it*does*

absolutely*nothing*to*home*ownership,*particularly*among*minority*communities*who*have*benefited*

from*the*innovations*that*have*occurred*in*the*marketplace.*

* &#8208;&#8208;Rep.*Scott*Garrett*(R&#8208;NJ),*November*6,*2007*committee*markup*

House Committee on Financial Services 6


I*believe that the free market does the best job of providing affordable and accessible products. And I do

think*that*includes*mortgages.*Through*legitimate*innovation*in*the*private*mortgage*market,*more*

people*are*able*to*get*mortgages*at*lower*rates*than*ever.*

&#8208;&#8208;Rep.*Gresham*Barrett*(R&#8208;SC),*October*24,*2007*hearing*


Really,*we*have*a*very*efficient*mortgage*system*today.*It*is*the*envy*of*the*world.*It*has*brought*record*

homeownership.*A*lot*of*people*have*benefited*from*our*mortgage*industry*and*the*sophistication*and*

the*creativity*that*has*come*from*it.*

&#8208;&#8208;Rep.*Randy*Neugebauer*(R&#8208;TX),*October*24,*2007*hearing


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

TooTall said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Weird, 40% of Obama stimulus was tax cuts, 20% aid to states and EVERYTHING had to do with Dubya's regulator failure!


CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth

    Under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

    In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, *80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.*

*    "Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. "That," he added, "is a distinct minority."*

CBO Director Demolishes GOP's Stimulus Myth


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 16, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Weird how a ponzi scheme Bush cheer-lead for kept his unemployment rate low, even if he lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years right?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



LOL...the question I have is what idiot *wouldn't* think that unemployment should be lower after the Federal Government spent over a TRILLION dollars in stimulus?  The truth is that the Obama Stimulus was so badly handled that they had to invent a new economic statistic, "jobs created or saved" to hide how few jobs they actually created by spending that incredibly large amount of money!


----------



## birddog (Jul 16, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Plus, if you noticed, the stock market took a big decline in the Fall of 08 when it became obvious to corporate investors that Obama was going to win!  The investors did not invest like they would have if Obama lost.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2014)

My question to the Director of the CBO would have been whether he thought the Obama stimulus was spent in the best way possible to create the most permanent jobs.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2014)

Quite frankly I would have laughed out loud at his statement that spending a trillion dollars created more jobs than not spending a trillion.  He get's paid the big bucks for "pearls of wisdom" like that?  Really?


----------



## AntiParty (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




NAFTA is the real cause here, not a certain president. And all parties liked NAFTA because Corporations control both parties. 

Check out the increase in welfare since NAFTA and see the spike from Clinton to Bush to Obama?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Okay.............you're right....................the stock market took a big decline in the fall of 2008, but that was when Jr. was still president.

Wanna talk about the stock market hitting over 17,000, and the S and P getting ready to go over 2,000?

I think Obama has done a decent job, and besides...............Boehner is calling for jobs (while wasting precious Congress time on stuff like Benghazi, repealing the ACA, and doing anything opposite of what Obama supports, even if they supported it a couple of years ago).

Kick out Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor (wait, he's already gone).

I'd like to see the first two kicked out as well.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The fact remains, for the man on the street, he had an easier time finding a job while Bush was sitting in the White House than when Obama started sitting there.

*George Bush has the 3rd lowest average monthly unemployment rate for a President serving at least two full terms or more in United States History!*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Now that's an interesting take on what's gone on for the past five and a half years, Sailor!  Because Obama has done such a piss poor job of stimulating the economy and creating jobs...the Fed has been doing non-stop quantitative easing to artificially pump up the stock market with essentially interest free money that only the wealthy had the credit to use.  So yes, the stock market is up over 17,000 but the people that has helped are the ones that were already rich.  Then Obama gets up on a soap box to declare that "income inequality" is the biggest problem that we have economically in this country!  Well, no shit, Barry!  A total lack of any economic plan since Larry Summers jumped ship is the real problem and Obama's own ineptness has caused that spike in income equality.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Even the Wall Street Journal says:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record







Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers











 For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2014)

Not only does * George Bush have the 3rd lowest average monthly unemployment rate for a President serving at least two full terms or more in United States History, but he also has the record for the most months of unemployment BELOW 6%. Barack Obama has yet to have even one month below 6%!  *


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Not only does * George Bush have the 3rd lowest average monthly unemployment rate for a President serving at least two full terms or more in United States History, but he also has the record for the most months of unemployment BELOW 6%. Barack Obama has yet to have even one month below 6%!  *



Link up buster...

Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush

Even President Barack Obama acknowledges that the economy is creating jobs too slowly under his stewardship. Yet Obama can now boast that more jobs have been created during his first term than during that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> Plus, if you noticed, the stock market took a big decline* in the Fall of 08* when it became obvious to corporate investors that Obama was going to win!  The investors did not invest like they would have if Obama lost.


Notice how the Right blames Obama for what happened to the economy before he was even elected while McCain was leading in the polls, that's right McCain was leading in the polls until after the crash, but Bush was not responsible for either the Bush Recession of 2001 or the Bush Depression of 2007 that happened after he took office!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Weird, Bush spent trillions on tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars, where were his jobs 'created or saved'? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

birddog said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




GROW A BRAIN BUBBA


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> My question to the Director of the CBO would have been whether he thought the Obama stimulus was spent in the best way possible to create the most permanent jobs.



No, the stimulus was meant to stop US from going into GOP great depression 2.0. 

40% of it was tax cuts to get the votes of a couple of GOPers needed to get a vote in the Senate...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...





NAFTA? Oh right that conservative thing Reagan announced the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and the one (like ALL 'free trade' agreements), 60% of Dems in Congress voted against!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



AVERAGE? He lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, ONLY his ponzi scheme called his 'home ownership society' helped him out, until it popped


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.








DEC 2007

* The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush*

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. *A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.*


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush | Vanity Fair


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 17, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...




Yes, it was. You must be completely retarded. The crash happened in September 2008, under George W. Bush. The first major ripples of it were just being felt as Obama took office.

Nice try, you lose.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 17, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



The start of the recession was December 2007, and it ended in June/July 2009. The split of total job losses was about even.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2014)

OMG, Pinqy...you're questioning the "blame Bush" narrative!!!!  How dare you!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2014)

The fact of the matter is George W. Bush's two terms started with the recession following the end of the Dot Com boom and ended with the financial collapse in 2007.  Throw in 9/11, eight months into his first year in office and W. had a LOT of shit to deal with economically.  At least he HAD a plan to fix things after the Dot Com collapse...after 9/11 and after the financial collapse in 2007.  Barack Obama's problem is that he doesn't have a clue what to do about an economy that's treading water and hasn't had an economic plan to fix economic growth or create jobs FOR YEARS NOW!


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yes average. Its an average that considers all 96 months in office rather than simply comparing a figure from the first and one from the last year. The average is far more representative because it considers all the data from every month the President was in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Not only does * George Bush have the 3rd lowest average monthly unemployment rate for a President serving at least two full terms or more in United States History, but he also has the record for the most months of unemployment BELOW 6%. Barack Obama has yet to have even one month below 6%!  *
> ...



All my data comes from here U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The factual objective data from this site shows that Bush has the record for the most months of unemployment below 6%.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



No it isn't because it does not show the direction the economy took during those 96 months. An economy that starts good and goes bad is a poorly handled economy no matter what the average is. You would want a good economy to get better just as you would want a bad economy to get better, nobody in their right mind would want an economy to get worse no matter what the average.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

pinqy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



WHY were the jobs lost under Obama however? 4+ million in 2009? His policies?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

Oldstyle said:


> The fact of the matter is George W. Bush's two terms started with the recession following the end of the Dot Com boom and ended with the financial collapse in 2007.  Throw in 9/11, eight months into his first year in office and W. had a LOT of shit to deal with economically.  At least he HAD a plan to fix things after the Dot Com collapse...after 9/11 and after the financial collapse in 2007.  Barack Obama's problem is that he doesn't have a clue what to do about an economy that's treading water and hasn't had an economic plan to fix economic growth or create jobs FOR YEARS NOW!



PLEASE tell me this 'plan' Dubya had?

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. *According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.*

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?


Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades*


 "The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

*"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids." *


"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade." 

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Weird, so the home ownership ponzi scheme helped Dubya AND he still lost 673,0000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years? How'd that avg work out?



"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade." 


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


*BUT 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED UNDER OBAMA SINCE HITTING BUSH'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010, IS 'FAILURE' IN RIGHT WING WORLD RIGHT?*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Average huh? What did he inherit and what did he leave his predecessor? 4% v 7%!!!!


----------



## longknife (Jul 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



And, as usual, the numbers are FAKE - made up to try to make Dear Leader look good.

How many Black teenagers are sitting on their front stoops with not a single job in sight?
How many college graduates are NOT working in jobs commensurate with their degrees?
How many working are now Part Time instead of Full?
How many employers are begging for candidates who can read and write above a 3rd grade level?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 17, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....



thats the funniest thing i have ever heard in my life. the president has NEVER been held accountable for his actions.he gets away with crimes everyday we could never get away with. when has a president ever gone to jail? never.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 17, 2014)

longknife said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' poicies the economy should've boomed right?

Wall Street Journal:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## longknife (Jul 17, 2014)

I still don't see an answer to my questions.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 17, 2014)

longknife said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


how, exactly do you think that would work? How could the numbers be faked? And "dear leader?" You clearly don't know any Federal employees.



> How many Black teenagers are sitting on their front stoops with not a single job in sight?


 211,000 unemployed African Americans age 16-19. The number without hope would be a bit fewer.



> How many college graduates are NOT working in jobs commensurate with their degrees?


 Fine Arts majors? Most of them. Philosophy majors. All of them. My point is that we can't measure that in any meaningful way.



> How many working are now Part Time instead of Full?


 7.5 million working part time due to cut hours, slow work, or couldn't find full time job.



> How many employers are begging for candidates who can read and write above a 3rd grade level?


 Two. Disney channel and Nickelodeon are in the market for 9 year olds. Don't know who else.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 18, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Actually, you may wish to check again.

Under Jr. there were lots of jobs lost, but then again it was because those of the right wing told him to sell those jobs out to other nations.

Obama saw what was happening, and decided that we needed the jobs.  Yeah................under Obama we lost some jobs, but that was only because Jr. (aka Shrub) had set us along the path of losing them.

Obama has not only brought jobs back to the U.S.A., but he has also figured out how to bring them back.

I just wish that he could do the same things that he did with other jobs and make it happen with the steel industry.

Do we really need to have sub standard steel (i.e. that which comes from China) which is cheaper, but would fail?

I don't really think that the Golden Gate Bridge or any other that carries a lot of Americans should be built by those who look for the cheapest alternatives.

Real American bridges, and roads should be built by American steel.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 18, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



US steel industry gets a boost with ruling on steel dumping - 


U.S. moves to levy tariffs on steel from South Korea, 8 other nations

The U.S. government moved to impose substantial punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of imported steel products from South Korea and eight other countries, a much-anticipated decision that marks one of the largest anti-dumping cases in recent memory.

Steel imports from the nine countries may be hit with tariffs up to 118%, but the lion's share in this case  from South Korea  was targeted for levies with much smaller duties of 10% to 16%.

In the short term, the tariffs, if finalized, are expected to curb steel imports and lift U.S. prices of certain steel goods, which could be felt by American businesses and consumers.

The tariffs also may help restore several hundred steel factory jobs idled because of pressures from imports and probably will embolden domestic steel makers to file more claims of unfair pricing against foreign shippers.

...But any relief to domestic steel manufacturers will be short-lived, analysts said.

U.S. moves to levy tariffs on steel from South Korea, 8 other nations - LA Times

Conservatives 'free trade' has hosed US


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 20, 2014)

Bullshit......................if the TPP keeps going, we're going to lose a lot of jobs because the Asians in S. Korea and China are willing to work for lower wages.

I mean...................why does Apple and other corporations (which were started here in the U.S.) keep farming their jobs out to other countries?

Do you realize that most of the jobs in the United States that have something to do with tech (like the iPhone, the iPad and other things) are generally conceived here in the U.S., but are actually built in another country?

Oh yeah..................go ahead and Google what the steel industry is doing now.

Wanna have cheap steel that could fail and spew a whole bunch of oil?

Keystone is using the cheapest crap they can buy, and are telling us it's the greatest thing in the world.

Sorry................but if the Keystone pipeline fucks up my drinking water (which they will do if they cross the Ogallala aquifer), I'm gonna want to see the heads of each of their CEO's in a box.

But then again..................maybe I'm over reacting, because on the Blacklist tonight I saw someone who did a horrible wrong have their head in a box.

Hmmm.......................can I call for one?  I've got a couple of good candidates in mind................................


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 20, 2015)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.24%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.24%

593/72 = 8.236111 = 8.24%*


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

Wow! That's some impressive reasoning. Way to go!


----------



## TooTall (Jan 20, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Wow! That's some impressive reasoning. Way to go!



That isn't reasoning, it is math.  You should learn the difference.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! That's some impressive reasoning. Way to go!
> ...



Yeah? Math without reason is meaningless. Think about it.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



He will be lower than Ronnie by the time he completes his 8 years, EVEN AFTER what the GOP dumped in his lap


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! That's some impressive reasoning. Way to go!
> ...



Pretty sure he was being sarcastic? You know since AS Obama came into office he was losing 700,000+ jobs a month? Anyone else that was happening too?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 20, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> ...



Perhaps thanks to the labor force participation rate which is the lowest its been since 1978. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% like it was under Bush, the unemployment rate would be 10% at the moment. Right now the labor force participation rate is 62.7% for the last month reported which is December 2014. That is where the labor force participation rate was in February 1978. For 82 out of 96 of Bush's months in office, the labor force participation rate was ABOVE 66%.

Obama has 24 months left. Its not exactly clear where things will end up. Trends whether up or down don't necessarily continue. Things can change. Even so, 6 months from now, he will still be at the bottom of this list for sure.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



More AWESOME reasoning!  You are so awesome!


----------



## TooTall (Jan 20, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Bullshit......................if the TPP keeps going, we're going to lose a lot of jobs because the Asians in S. Korea and China are willing to work for lower wages.
> 
> I mean...................why does Apple and other corporations (which were started here in the U.S.) keep farming their jobs out to other countries?
> 
> ...



If your water gets fucked up, you can sue Keystone and the seventy-five per cent of the pipe used to build Keystone XL in the U.S. would come from North American mills

Calgary, Alberta –*February 17, 2012*– TransCanada Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TransCanada) confirmed today the vast majority of the pipe for Keystone XL would be manufactured in North America.  In addition, the company intends to purchase approximately 90 per cent of all other goods for the $7.6 billion project from companies on the continent.

“Seventy-five per cent of the pipe used to build Keystone XL in the U.S. would come from North American mills, including half made by U.S. workers in Arkansas,” said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president, Energy and Oil Pipelines.  “In addition, we have already sourced goods for the pipeline valued at approximately $800 million from U.S. manufacturers.”


We estimate 821,000 tons of high strength line pipe will be used on the project in Canada and the U.S.  TransCanada has estimated it will use 660,000 tons of steel for the U.S. portion of the Keystone XL pipeline.  The following are the line pipe mills who are manufacturing the pipe:

·  Welspun - Little Rock, Arkansas,  USA 332,800 tons 50%

·  Evraz – Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada 156,266 tons 24%

·  ILVA – Italy 103,147 tons 16%

·  Welspun - India     69,457 tons 10%

It is important to understand pipeline companies do not purchase raw steel.  Rather, we purchase sophisticated manufactured products such as high strength steel pipe and pumps that are fabricated from steel and other metals.  It is the responsibility of the manufacturers of these products to source the necessary raw materials and to produce a product that meets all relevant regulations, codes and our internal specifications.


Media Advisory - 75 Per Cent of Keystone XL Pipe would be Made in North America


----------



## TooTall (Jan 20, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I get it, it really does't matter what the UE rate is as long as Obama is President.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Is that what you get? Cool. I look at the direction of the rate. It's nosediving. That's the opposite of skyrocketing. I'm sure you will agree that nosediving is much better.

Motherfucking DISINGENUOUS nutters are boring me to death.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 20, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



As long as the Labor Participation Rate continues to go down the UE rate will continue to go down.  Simple math, fool!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



And that means nothing.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 20, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



That is what I said. As long as Obama is President, the UE rate means nothing.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


What that means is that UE benefits have run out for millions. Many of those are on Medicare and food stamps. Those that have found work are working multiple part time jobs.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


'


Not that old meme AGAIN

*Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. *According to _The Washington Post_, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

*Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. *That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But *since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring*. Because of this, the* Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at *Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002*


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

OBAMA 7+ MILLION NET PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 6 YEARS (11+ MILLION  AFTER FEB 2010) AFTER DUBYA LOST 1+ MILLION, LOL


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...




*Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. *According to _The Washington Post_, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


*Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. *Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

*But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring.* Because of this, the *Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

* In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post*


----------



## MaryL (Jan 20, 2015)

Obama is the worst in my lifetime. Going back to  the Eisenhower administration. Obama is proving himself quite the crypto communist. He is obviously out of touch with American culture,  growing up the spawn of a interracial train wreck  and living in Hawaii and  Indonesia attending Muslim schools... Yeah, we can ALL relate to that. Shame on you people for  voting for this man. Shame on YOU.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



*Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like*
The president's critics _love_ this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

*The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs*
The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 20, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Obama is the worst in my lifetime. Going back to  the Eisenhower administration. Obama is proving himself quite the crypto communist. He is obviously out of touch with American culture,  growing up the spawn of a interracial train wreck  and living in Hawaii and  Indonesia attending Muslim schools... Yeah, we can ALL relate to that. Shame on you people for  voting for this man. Shame on YOU.




Yeah because Dubya/GOP worked out so well right? lol


----------



## jasonnfree (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



So now we're averaging the unemployment rate out over a period of years?  Of course the average looks bad since Obama entered office with the worst economy the country had since the great depression.  Can't raise the Titanic that easily you know.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 20, 2015)

Total number of people employed in the United States per year:

2000: 135,215,000
2001: 135,043,000
2002: 136,485,000
2003: 137,739,000
2004: 139,248,000
2005: 141,674,000
2006: 144,427,000
*2007: 146,016,000*
2008: 145,368,000
2009: 139,881,000
2010: 139,069,000
2011: 139,873,000
2012: 142,469,000


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 20, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> ...



YEP, the same way your GPA was calculated in school. Every month of data counts, especially since the economy can make many swings up and down over a 96 month/8 year period. The only accurate way to look at things is to look at all the data and find the average. Simply looking at the first month and last month of a 96 month administration will not tell you very much, just like looking at your first week in College and your last week in College won't tell anyone very much either.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 20, 2015)

If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.


----------



## Lakhota (Jan 20, 2015)

> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*



The president who inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression is?

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing - Forbes


----------



## pinqy (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Total number of people employed in the United States per year:
> 
> 2000: 135,215,000
> 2001: 135,043,000
> ...


2013; 143,929,000
2014: *146,305,000*


----------



## protectionist (Jan 20, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



The average unemployment rate now is far worse than 8.24% ..

Click the link >>   NO Unemployment is NOT DOWN US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2015)

Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.

Go figger


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2015)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> ...


You keep telling yourself that.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
> 
> Go figger


I wouldn't be a "rightie" according to your definitions.  I don't like Reagan.  But as I said in the link of Post # 922, there IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Telling myself WHAT ?


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
> ...


Same stupid in two threads. So what?


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


That unemployment is not down.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I'm not telling myself that. I'm telling YOU that (but you're to brainwashed to listen)


----------



## protectionist (Jan 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not stupid.  Foreigners working here are part of the employment rates of THEIR COUNTRIES, not ours.  If you can't (or won't) see that, that's NOT MY PROBLEM.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


You're an idiot, plain and simple. Foreigners working here are counted by both the census as being part of the population as well as the BLS as being employed. They are working for companies inside the U.S. and should of course be counted. To not count them would be to bury one's head in the sand as though they're not here working. And lastly, they've been here, worked here, and have been counted for many years. Any influence their numbers have on unemployment stats have been present for as long as they've been counted. This is certainly true from before Obama became president; and even with counting them before Obama became president and after, the unemployment rate is lower now than it was then. You remain stuck on stupid.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


But you're not convincing anyone of this idiocy except yourself. Hence.....


----------



## protectionist (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No it's NOT the same as _ "to bury one's head in the sand as though they're not here working" _ It is to recognize that *they are not part of America*, are only here to provide VOTES for Democrats (and help other vested interests) and therefore are not part of the AMERICAN employment picture.  They belong to the employment picture of their countries.  counting them as employment give sthe idea that this is American employment. It's not.  while there invades are occupying American jobs, AMERICANS are sitting unemployed, out of those jobs they should be in.  All this FALSIFIES the unemployment statistics, and you fall for it (or you're part of the lie yourself)
As for Obama, I didn't say that the FALSE unemployment reporting was only specific to him, and no other president before him.  Of course it isn't.  You talk like an idiot.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Two people in this forum seem to be on my side in my OP >_ "NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN",_ and more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums.  So you just made a wrong statement.  Egg on your face.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Imbecile ... they are part of America whether you like it or not. There, I said it.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Imbecile...NO they're not.

Read and LEARN. >>>

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Great. More evidence you're insane. As if any were needed. 

In reality, *nobody * agreed with you ... nobody 'liked' any of your posts ... nobody 'thanked' you for any of your posts ... nobody defended any of your idiocy ...

... yet here you are, deluding yourself into believing that 2 people are "on your side" on the issue; just as you delude yourself into believing that foreigners shouldn't count towards unemployment figures.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits.  Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


There are reliable numbers of about how many people are not in the labor force but want a job. And percentage-wise, that figure isn't much higher than before.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Your lying is obvious.  It's also obvious that you're desperate, by virtue of the fact that you have to resort to foolish deceit.

1.  My OP just began here a few hours ago, so most people don't even know it exists.  so what do you do ?  You pretend I haven't been thanked, HA HA, and try to use that as a basis to say my Op is bad.  Do you realize how absolutely DUMB that is.

2.  Then, you tried to get away with ignoring my statement that_ "more than a dozen are in agreement with it in 2 other forums"  _(and it's new there too)  Well, I could give you the links to those, but should I ?  Hell no.  You're not worth it.  You're too damn STUPID.  And you'll never make it as a liar.  You should have cut & run from this exchange, when you had the chance.  Now you've got that egg all over your Whole body.

3.  Too bad this is a computer forum, or you'd be smacked right in the head, just for your stupidity alone.      Dumbass.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 21, 2015)

As Republicans fumble over unemployment

Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)

and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> There are no reliable statistics on the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receiving unemployment benefits.  Those people are just out there like they don't even exist.


Why does it matter if someone is no longer receiving unemployment benefits or not?  People are classified as unemployed regardless of whether or not they ever received or were eligible for benefits.
The reference week in December for the Current Population Survey (used to calculate unemployment and the unemployment rate) was the week of December 7-13. The total number of Unemployed (not seasonally adjusted) was 8,331,000 Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
For that same week, the total number of people receiving Unemployment insurance benefits was 2,474,688  http://www.oui.doleta.gov/press/2015/010815.pdf

So, since only 30% of those reported as unemployed were receiving benefits, why do you think it matters that there's no specific tracking of those whose benefits expired and why do you think it's like they don't exist?


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.


 You realize that all you're saying is "If more people were unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher." 
But why did you choose 66%? The LFPR started dropping in 2000. The reason it's been dropping is that a larger percent of the population does not want a job.

But here's some fun....If we had the same labor force participation rate as Lyndon Johnson, then the unemployment rate would be negative (I can provide the math if you'd like).  That a negative result is possible shows that the whole methodology is bogus.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.



It seems Bush's average UE rate of 5.7% was quite reasonable for the number of people in the Labor force.  At least you are comparing apples to apples, unlike those that are too partisan to understand simple math.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
> ...



 It is clear to me that the poster chose an LPR of 66% because that was what it was for 82 of the 96 months that Bush was in office.  The question you should have asked is why does a larger percentage of the population not want a job?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 21, 2015)

TooTall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
> ...




Yeah, AMAZING what a false economy built on a Bankster credit bubble can do right? US household debt doubled between 2001-2007 OOPS


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 Let's look:
Arbitrarily choosing December 2006 (a year before the recession, the Population was 230,108,000, and the labor force was 152,571,000 for a rate of 66.3% (all numbers will be not seasonally adjusted). 13.1% of the population was 65 or older and not in the labor force. In December 2014, it was 14.7%  So right there that's 1.6% lower LFPR.
Those not in the labor force and enrolled in school went from 5.2% to 5.8%.
Unfortunately, data on those with disabilities only goes back to 2008, but since that number has clearly been going up since then, that's another push.
And there's no way to measure stay at home parents as timely, but from the 2006 average to the 2012 average the number of one earner families went up.

I'm not sure why you think it matters why people don't want a job, though.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


The one lying was you. YOU said 2 people were on your side when in fact, none were.

Now you make excuses for why you lied as though that means you didn't, such as it was a new thread or that there was another thread where people agreed with you.

You're nuts.


----------



## AceRothstein (Jan 21, 2015)

I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

AceRothstein said:


> I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!


And yet, despite that .... Obama's 8.2% average is barely worse than Reagan's 8.1% was at this same point in his presidency. Only the unemployment rate is a full point lower now than it was then. And Reagan is a god to many on the right.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You should feel free to cite those reliable figures.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



First, I answered your idiotic question why an LPR of 66% was used.  You have given two good reasons for a reduction in the LPR  with the over 65 at 1.6% (although some of those continued working after age 65) and the increase in school enrollment of .6%  That accounts for 2.2% bringing the LPR down to 64.1%.  The number of those filing for and getting disability has skyrocketed and the number of single moms working probably account for the remaining drop of 1.4% that are not looking for work.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 21, 2015)

AceRothstein said:


> I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!



I am shocked that the President in office when the attack on 911 and Hurricane Katrina happened was able to have an average of 5.7% UE FOR 8 years, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of different months)
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now (Not Seasonally Adjusted) (for comparison of same month in different years OR annual average)
Adult Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population.
And, again, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with it. The Current Population Survey doesn't ask any questions about benefits.


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 21, 2015)

Lakhota said:


> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Correct me if I'm wrong........he applied for the job twice, no?  He doesn't get to whine about what he asked for.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Unemployment benefits have everything to do with it, that's the primary source of the unemployed statistics.  How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.   Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps?  Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


No, it's not, and never has been.  Where did you get the idea they were?



> How do you imagine they keep track of people who aren't working and don't collect benefits.


I don't imagine, I know. Every month, the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households asking them about their work activity. The raw data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which processes and publishes.



> Does the government conduct polls at homeless camps?  Do they seek out people sleeping in their cars?


The homeless are excluded because, well, there's no way to sample them. Do you really think the people in homeless camps and sleeping in their cars are all collecting benefits?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm]How the Government Measures Unemployment.[/url]

Or simpler from the Employment Situation Technical Note:


> People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
> they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
> 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 21, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2014 was 5.6%. This is Obama's 72nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.45% in June 2014 at 66 months to the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months.
> ...


Yep


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



In other words:  You rely on notoriously inaccurate figures, there is no accounting for the people who are unemployed and not receiving benefits. There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Yes, there is.  The Current Population Survey.  Margin of error for unemployed is approximately +/- 3% 



> There exists no mechanism or agency of any kind that keeps track of hundreds of thousands of people who simply slip through the cracks in the bureaucracy.


What are you imagining as "cracks in the bureaucracy?"  The homeless are not a big percent of the population.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



You don't get out much do you?  A population survey?  Are you kidding or what? Shows how much you care about people in trouble.  You sound just like an extremely conservative Republican in full denial mode.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 And your method is?????????????


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

TooTall said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!
> ...


Those 2 events, as bad as they were, paled in comparison in terms of the damage done to the economy. The only reason Duhbya averaged 5.7% was a) he started at 4.2%; and b) the housing boom, which pumped up GDP and created millions of jobs.


----------



## Jarhead (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...


So then you agree that the only reason Clinton showed such great success on paper was because of the dot com boom which created millions of jobs and great wealth for many......correct?

Oh...and by the way.......Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment because the dot com bubble did not burst until he took office....

Just saying.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



When did I mention that I had a formula for measuring how many people there are who can't get work or benefits?   I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.   Which part of that is hard to understand?  Don't you think Republicans will be just as happy to exploit inaccurate figures when they are in the White House?


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Ok, so if a scientific sample survey is useless, then you're basically claiming there is no method at all for measuring unemployment.



> I'm saying the statistics the government uses are based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.


Since you only found out this afternoon how the data were collected and who was considered unemployed, it seems a bit odd that you can so quickly say they're based on very little and don't reflect the true state of the economy.  By the way, how can you know they don't reflect the true state of the economy without an altternate measure?



> Which part of that is hard to understand?


 How you can come to such conslusions without knowing anything at all about the methodology.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Uh huh, guess what: when you become homeless and apply for welfare benefits you're no longer unemployed, you're counted in a different statistic now.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Again, not true. If they want to work after their unemployment benefits expire, then they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force but want a job. There is always a small segment of our society who fall into that category. But if they don't want to work or they get themselves on disability instead, then yes, they are reflected among those who are not in the labor force and don't want a job.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

Jarhead said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


The only reason? Of course not; though it certainly did contribute to it.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


ummmmm no.  If someone is looking for work and available for work, then s/he is unemployed regardless of whether they ever collected benefits, or ever held a job.  A 16 year old looking for his first part time job is unemployed as far as the statistics go.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I'm talking about folks whose unemployment benefits have expired. They are no longer in the workforce after that, even though they may still want a job. If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Untrue. Classification as unemployed is based solely on availability and job search. Which statistic are you claiming they're included in, and how on Earth is that data collected?


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The CPS doesn't ask about benefits so they play no role. Whether or not someone's benefits have expired or if they never received benefits is completely irrelevant to their classification.  If someone's benefits expire and they stop looking for work, then they will be Not in the Labor Force. It someone's benefits expire and they're still looking for work, then they'll be Unemployed.  Neither Census nor BLS have any idea whether a respondent has ever received any benefits.


 If they start looking for a job, that is a different matter.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Your disconnect seems to be that you think I said anything about people "looking" for work.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 Well, if they're not looking for work, then they're not unemployed, even if they are receiving benefits (which they shouldn't be, since that's a requirement).


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

In other words:  All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

Isn't it amazing how many categories of people there are who don't work but are not unemployed.  Boggles the mind doesn't it.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> In other words:  All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.


Nope. All the numbers are generated by the same career bureaucrats that collected the  data regardless of which  president they worked under.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > In other words:  All cooked up statistics designed to say whatever the government wants you to hear.
> ...



I guess it's just unfortunate for many people that the government no longer recognizes their existence.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Exactly how do you _think_ the government should recognize people who don't want to work in terms of employment stats?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




Regardless, none of that changes the fact that if labor force participation was as high as it was on average under Bush, the current unemployment rate would 10.33%.

Can the current economy with Obama in the White House for the past six years support a labor force participation rate of 66% or 67% like the Bush and Clinton economies did and the answer to the question is NO! Whether its because someone is retiring for whatever reason or has dropped out of the regular labor market because of an inability to find work, it does not change the basic facts. There are 8 million people in the regular unemployment line at the moment. If another 8 million people showed up, which is what would happen if labor force participation rate went up to 66% were it was for 82 out of 96 months under Bush, few would get jobs and you would have nearly 16 million people in the unemployment line.

         Imagine what the unemployment rate under Bush would have been, if the labor force participation rate was only 62%.  Bush's average of 5.27% per month would probably be less than 3% per month.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
> 
> Go figger



Reagan faced a larger economic hurdle with the twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation. Reagan did very well which is why he was re-elected in a landslide victory in 1984 winning every state in the Union except Minnesota. Obama can't get anywhere near that.

More importantly, there are things like National Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy where Reagan was a lot more successful in than Obama in several ways.


----------



## Staidhup (Jan 21, 2015)

So the liberal drool still talks about Bush, primarily the financial melt down that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for. Come on, get over it, the past seven years has been a joke. Time to look forward and stop living in the revisionist past to deflect from the fact that under the current administration leadership has been focused on class warfare.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> As Republicans fumble over unemployment
> 
> Now it is....But you are not using the U6 number (we never did for anyone else)
> 
> and my favorite.......But, but what about the employment rate (which has been dropping for 15 years because of baby boomers retiring)



The labor force participation rate


pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > If the labor force participation rate was still at 66% or higher as it was for 82 out of 96 months that Bush was President, the unemployment rate for December 2014 would be 10.33% instead of 5.6%. A labor force participation rate of only 62.7% makes a huge difference when compared with 66%. Your talking about roughly 8 to 10 million people.
> ...



       No, what I'm saying is that if more people joined the labor force they would have to be put into the unemployment line, because the current economy is not strong enough to support that many jobs.

The average labor force participation rate under Bush was above 66% for the 96 months he was in office. It was still at or near 66% when he left office. The labor force participation rate was only slightly higher at the end of Clintons term start of Bush's term at 67.3%. The little decline from there to where Bush was in his last year is negligible. Plus the oldest Baby Boomers were not even eligible for retirement until 2008, and that's if they were retiring at 62 which is considered early although you can get benefits if you choose to.

        The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008. Going from 65.8% to 62.7% in just the past 6 years is the LARGEST, FASTEST steepest decline in the labor force participation rate in United States HISTORY!

Finally, these are national figures and even if the national labor force participation rate dropped to 58% tomorrow, you would still have people in the regular unemployment category because what the national figures show is not necessarily what is happening at the state or county level in some areas. A lot of jobs would open up and companies would be looking to other countries for workers to come into the States for jobs that were not being filled.

There are a lot of people that are currently in long term unemployment or past that an no longer receive any benefits. They don't get counted in the labor force participation rate or the unemployment rate. Some have retired but others have not.

This is a measure of what is going on in the economy. An economy that is strong will have a high labor force participation rate and low unemployment. Take April 2000, 3.8% unemployment with a 67.3% labor force participation rate. Despite such a high labor force participation rate in April 2000, the economy was so strong that only 3.8% of those regularly participating in the job market were unemployed. So it is a measure of the health of the economy and its ability to provide jobs and income to those that seek it.

           Typically 5.6% unemployment is great and would be a sign of a strong economy, but that fact is tempered by the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly shrunk and is only at 62.7% currently. If the labor force participation rate had been rising or holding steady from where it was in 2008, then that 5.6% unemployment figure would be cause for a celebration.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Well, its not necessarily that they don't want a job. There are many reasons why the participation rate would never be 100%. Some people are sick, disabled, have gone back to school full time, do volunteer work or house work which is not paid employment but still work, care for sick family or relatives and take care of children, once again not paid employment but certainly an important service that is being provided and finally, ever since the start of the 20th century, then there is this new thing called retirement which never existed before in human history.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

TooTall said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!
> ...



It was *5.27% *


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm.... after 71 months in office, Obama's average unemployment rate is just one tenth of one percent higher than Reagan's was after 71 months in office. 8.2% versus 8.1%. Yet to hear righties tell the story, Obama is one of the worst presidents we've ever had while Reagan was one of the best.
> ...


The economy Reagan took over was nowhere near as bad as the economy Obama inherited. First and foremost, the economy was not even in recession in January, 1981. The unemployment rate was higher when Obama became president and increasing rapidly. Over a million jobs disappeared in one month.

And at this same point in both presidencies ... Obama has averaged 8.2% unemployment, Reagan averaged 8.1%. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6%, under Reagan it was 6.6%. Gallup currently scores Obama's JAR at 46%, Reagan was at 49%.

Regardless how you recall Reagan, they were pretty much evenly ranked at this point.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



Fact remains, while Bush was in office the average unemployment rate was *5.27%* which was great for main street American far better than it has been while Obama has been sitting in the White House. That's a hard *indisputable FACT!  *People can have great reasons and arguments to try and explain those facts, but those are opinions which are debatable.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...


Right ... 1.1 point higher than what he inherited.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Again, the single ending month or beginning month of administration is not what is important. Its the average of what you did over the entire 96 months in office that is important. Crow all you want to about one or two months, most reasonable people would prefer to look at how someone did over 96 months rather than just two.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


And yet. Duhbya will be remembered as the president who nearly doubled unemployment on his watch as well as being only other president along with Herbert Hoover since the Great Depression to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The misery index, combining unemployment and inflation was higher in Reagan's early term than it ever was under Obama. Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits. Obama never had to deal with high inflation. Reagan was forced to deal with BOTH high inflation and high unemployment at the same time.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Really? Then you can show where economists have averaged out the unemployment rate under presidents before Obama became president?

But I understand why it's so important to you since it hides how presidents like Bush drastically increased unemployment.

In the history of the BLS keeping unemployment stats, only ONE Republican left office with a lower unemployment rate; by comparison NO Democrat left office with a higher unemployment rate. Not one. Not even Carter.

So how can the right respond to that abysmal record on employment? Kraft a new measurement they find more palatable.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



For people who only look at the first month and the last month of an administration and absurdly believe they can form a summary of that administration just based on that, that may be true. But for those who really dig into the details and look at all 96 months, they will find Bush was a far better President than his biased liberal critics would like to claim.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 21, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Look, its common sense that we would not base your record in school on the grades from your first month of classes and the last month. GPA takes into consideration all the grades you posted and averages them.

If you are going to accurately assess any President you need to look at each individual month and not just where things happened start in January 2001 and ended in December 2008. January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration. You can't make an assessment of any President simply based on two months out of 96. It does not matter if you are talking about the economy, foreign policy, national security, education etc. In order to look at the entire record, your going to have to look beyond January 2001 and December 2008.

Part of you agrees, even if you won't admit it, since you continue to participate in this thread.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The misery index is not a good indicator of the economy. And unemployment went as high as 10.8% because of policies set forth by Reagan and Volker to fight inflation.

And even then, despite a 10.8% unemployment rate, _only_ 1.2 million jobs were lost from Reagan's recession ... compared to Bush's recession, which lost 8.6 million jobs.

Real GDP during Reagan's recession fell _only_ 1.4% ... compared to Bush's recession when it fell a whopping 4.2%.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No part of me could possibly agree with that since it's nonsense. According to you, Carter (6.5) did a better job than Reagan (7.5) and you seem to think it doesn't matter that Reagan lowered the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.4%.



As far as applying your GPA analogy to Bush, he might have a good GPA (because started with a good GPA) but then he flunked high school and failed to graduate.


----------



## Faun (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > As Republicans fumble over unemployment
> ...


And yet, the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market.

Never was.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 21, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The real crash in the labor force participation rate happens after 2008.


Gee, EXACTLY the same time the first Boomers reached eligibility for SS benefits!!!!!!!!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The numbers don't reveal the depth of the problem.  Our economy has essentially recovered, but it's not the same economy it was before the crash.   Ask anyone currently attending any college or university what they think their chances are of landing a good job when they graduate.   Ask anyone who works at McDonald's  when they think they'll be moving on to a higher paying service or manufacturing job.   Do that and you may get some indication of the actual state of the economy.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I was NOT lying .  There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums.  And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt.  I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)


----------



## pinqy (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Yes, there is: a monthly labor force survey.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Right, and Obama's average UE rate is.........................?


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Of course there is.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So? Let's see you explain how that caused the collapse of the economy......


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Of course it's not the same economy as before the crash. Nor is it expected to be. Before the crash, we were in an artificially inflated economy caused by a real estate bubble. Only a fool thinks we are trying to get back to that.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


0.4 of a point higher.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> There's no way for the government to keep track of people who aren't receiving benefits and aren't working, that's the point.


OK, let's assume that is true. That would make Bush's "real" unemployment much higher!!! Bush and the GOP would not allow extensions  in Unemployment Insurance like the Dems allowed under Obama, so Bush's "real" unemployment rate was 25%. Prove me wrong!

Same with Reagan, his "real" rate was 39%. Prove me wrong.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.


First of all, the Dems did not take over until 2007.
And exactly what legislation did the Dems pass over the GOP filibuster and a Bush veto that suddenly caused a worldwide crash in a matter of months??????
Curious minds are dying to know!!!!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Please feel free to reveal which agency keeps track of those people and how exactly they do that.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.
> ...


don't expect a lucid answer.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm sorry your expectations for the success of American workers is low.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I can only laugh every time you use the word survey.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


The BLS


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


and your expectation is another bubble that leads to another collapse?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And....please go on.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



My expectation is that some people are so motivated by political rhetoric that they can't tolerate any criticism of their ideas.   Your logic and actions are no different than the most extreme right wing ideologues you can find anywhere.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Why? Have you never studied statistics and don't understand the concept. Or do you think it's the same as a random dial opinion poll?
Please, tell us what you find amusing about the CPS.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I don't know why this needs to be explained repeatedly.  Are you ineducable?

If such a person is looking for work, they qualify as being in the labor force and unemployed. If they are not looking for work, then they qualify as not in the labor force, a category which is further broken down between those who want a job and those who don't.

Capiche?


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Your non-sequitur is noted, but back to the discussion. The expectation you exhibited was a return to an economy that was artificially inflated and which caused the economy to collapse because it was unsustainable.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



According to the comprehensive survey of homeless camps.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That was your assumption based on nothing.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I actually know a little bit about statistics, I also have some small experience with government.   Statistical studies can be designed to say whatever you want them to say, that much I know for sure.   What I also know is that the government has absolutely no way of knowing how many people are out of work.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


How do you know that? Because a tiny percent of the population is homeless?


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Is that where you're posting from? Certainly would explain why you're so concerned about such a small segment of the U.S..


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



And how do you know that?  How could the government know that when they don't even know how many people are here or who they might be?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not much of a Democrat are you. Your heartfelt concern for the homeless is nothing short of inspiring.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay. That policy continued under Bush and the bundling of good and bad mortgages by the lending institutions that became worthless when the inflationary housing market price slowed, and people bailed out of their houses, caused the collapse of the economy.  Bush realized the danger, but was unable to persuade the Democrats that controlled the House that the problem had to be resolved by the Congress.

Plenty of blame to go around unless you are a partisan hack.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That means Obama's average UE rate is 5.67%.  Is that your answer?


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was doing just fine until the Democrats took the House in 2006, or did you forget that.
> ...



It has been explained in detail several times.  Curious minds would already know.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



I couldn't dumb it down enough for a curious mind.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Your apathy is misplaced. My concern for them is relieved by policies in place to help them; which of course, has nothing to do with the unemployment rate.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are apparently easily relieved of your responsibility to others.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You're either demented or lying (or both). In reality, when Democrats were in control of the House, they passed 2 bills to address the problem. One was introduced by Barney Frank (H.R.1427 in March, 2007), passed in the House but died in the Senate. The other, after Frank's bill died, was introduced by Nancy Pelosi (H.R.3221 in July, 2007) was ultimately signed by Bush in July, 2008.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They addressed the problem.  Someone should tell the homeless about it, they'd be thrilled to know.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


No, 0.4 of one percent higher than what Obama inherited.

An increase of 1.1 under Bush.

An increase of 0.4 under Obama.

Do you require any more explanation?


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Actually, you can't answer that at all since Democrats didn't pass any legislation in 2007 or 2008 which caused the economy to collapse.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Why? Do you think the homeless are as stupid as TooTall and don't know that the Democrat-led House passed oversight of the GSE's as Bush had asked for *5 years earlier? *


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I think they'd all be happy to hear the good news, however many of them there may be.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




This is rather factual and you may even read it.

"Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn’t because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

Then why_is_Clinton culpable? Because his secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo, current governor of New York and a likely 2016 presidential aspirant, accelerated easy-housing policies and inflated the housing bubble, setting the stage for its collapse.

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we’re still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.

Clinton’s contribution to the crisis lay in his appointment of Cuomo to HUD. Cuomo became HUD secretary in 1997 after becoming assistant secretary in 1993. In a heavily researched2008 articlein the_Village Voice_, Wayne Barrett writes,

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…

Cuomo …_did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it_, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. [Emphasis added.]

Bill Clinton gave Cuomo that power and backed his aggressive policies to the hilt. Bill Clinton, then, shares responsibility for the Great Recession. When will he be held accountable?"


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Seriously, are you drunk?

You were blaming the Democrat-led 110th Congress for the meltdown? WTF does that have to do with Clinton?

Then you posted how the Democrat-led House ignored Bush's attempts to "persuade" them into fixing lending problems. I correct you by showing 2 bills that Democrat-led House passed, one of which made it to Bush's desk -- *and you respond with that long-winded diatribe which has nothing to do with your idiotic inference that the Democrat-led 110th Congress was responsible for the financial meltdown. *


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



*"Unemployment early in Reagan's term reached 10.8%, higher than any month under Obama and inflation was in double digits."*

*01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.*
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% ** Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
*11/1982* - 10.8% * *Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.*
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


*It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.*

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


*AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8 years, lol*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Even the Wall Street Journal says:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ


Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers





Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy workers


----------



## TooTall (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what the laws that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law.  At last, a bill just before I leave office and after the crash.  I am sure Bush was  pleased.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



LIAR


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf








"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*

*A Yes.*




* Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?*

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

*A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
*
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum




*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*


*No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*


When an economy booms or busts, money gets misspent, assets rise in prices, fortunes are made. Out of all that comes a set of easy-to-discern facts.

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

*•The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

*Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.*

*•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



*"The Housing bubble that was started under Clinton when he coerced lending institutions under penalty of law to loan money to those that would be unable to repay."*


Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


*Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.*







*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.* More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. T*he nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

LYING POS


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Don't understand what Frannie/Freddie do huh? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Lowest SUSTAINED tax 'burden' on the 'job creators' since Harding/Coolidge's great depression and the 'free market' isn't creating good paying jobs? WHY THE FUK ARE THEY STILL PAYING LOW TAXES???


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, *which you didn't know about? * 

You're welcome, by the way.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Dec 2007

* The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush*
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




*"January 2001 and December 2008 don't tell you what happened during the Bush administration"*


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They must be celebrating at homeless camps and parked cars right now.   The problem has been solved, their salvation has come because Congress addressed the issue,  homeless folks all across America can go home now.   Genius, why didn't anyone think of it before?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Staidhup said:


> So the liberal drool still talks about Bush, primarily the financial melt down that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for. Come on, get over it, the past seven years has been a joke. Time to look forward and stop living in the revisionist past to deflect from the fact that under the current administration leadership has been focused on class warfare.



*"So the liberal drool still talks about Bush, primarily the financial melt down that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for."*




*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

*A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them*


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I wasn't arguing the causes of the disaster, merely disputing the accuracy of the unemployed numbers.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



False premises, distortions and lies, without them what would right wingers do??? lol

I KNOW ANOTHER TAX CUT WILL HELP THE HOMELESS RIGHT/ Especially one going towards the 'job creators'??? LOL


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




AND I WAS POINTING OUT POLICY (DUBYA/GOP) HAS CONSEQUENCES!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I don't know what right wingers would do.  Why don't you tell me about it.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



And now that you've used all caps I can hear you much better.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


So how did the Democrat-led House cause the crash??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how they did that?

And if I'm the one who's "too fucking stupid," why was I the one who had to educate you about the Democrat-led House passing two bills shortly after taking control, *which you didn't know about? * 

You're welcome, by the eay.


Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I see no evidence they're off by much.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > As Republicans fumble over unemployment
> ...




*Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. *According to _The Washington Post_, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


*Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. *Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

*But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring*. Because of this, the *Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Sorry, libertarians ARE farrrr right wingers Bubba


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, YOU see no evidence.  Well, that's much different.   Issue resolved.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I don't even begin to have a clue what you're going on about.  Are you playing some kind of guessing game or what?  Can I play too?  What are the rules?  I'm not familiar with this game.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...




Yeah, ponzi schemes work like that, UNTIL they pop


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Sure Bubba, sure, lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I see, it must be difficult for you to focus your thoughts with your knees jerking so hard.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Glad we're in agreement then.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Is that all I had to do to satisfy you? If I'd known that I would have done it hours ago.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


No worries, I was satisfied before you griped.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm sure you're very happy satisfying yourself.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




*Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. *According to _The Washington Post_, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


*But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring.* Because of this, the *Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that *demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

TooTall said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > I'm shocked that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since WW2 is the President who took office during the worst economic meltdown since WW2!  ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!
> ...




Weird, you mean ALLOWED 9/11 and ignored Katrina AS he allowed the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US as US household debt doubled between 2001-2007???

lol


Yeah, my Christmas is pretty cheap until the credit cards bills start rolling in too!


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 Look at that -- we're in agreement again.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Reliability of the estimates 

Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both sampling and nonsampling  error. When a sample, rather than the entire population, is
surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability is measured by the standard error of the estimate. 

There is about a 90-percent ch ance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value
because of sampling error.* BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence*



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No doubt the homeless, indigent, migrant populations all across this great nation,  that apparently aren't really there ,  can be even happier about the dividends payed on your stock portfolio this year.   Happy days.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I find it cute how you _think_ the margin of error discounts the unemployment rate.

At any rate, the short comings you mention, if they even exist, have been around since they began tracking unemployment rate, meaning since the BLS has published employment data, every single Republican president except for Reagan has increased the unemployment rate by the time they left office whereas not a single Democrat increased it.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No you really don't understand at all.  I'm saying the basis for their information is obviously incomplete since they have no way of knowing in the first place.  How does anyone know how many people are homeless when they don't even know how many people there are in this country?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

If these people are Democrats it's time I rethink my political orientation.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Don't worry, the 'free markets' will fix it for them


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> If these people are Democrats it's time I rethink my political orientation.



Sure Bubba, I believe you, lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > If these people are Democrats it's time I rethink my political orientation.
> ...



I gotta hand it to you, you are as nasty, superficial, and stupid as the most brain dead right wing red neck anywhere.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


At the risk of repeating myself, any inherent flaws in the census would be present every time they count, so even if they're off by a small degree, it would have a nominal effect on the trends.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You guys are as bad as any right wingers in full denial mode.


----------



## Faun (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


What am I denying?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 22, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yeah Bubba, tell me if i give a damn what a 'moderate' might think, lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Looks like I've just been called the "M" word.   I stand shamed and admonished, I don't know how I'll ever recover.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You and captain dumbshit have fun with your little game.  I don't have any time for people who base their reality on politically motivated rhetorical nonsense.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

And this is what it's come to:  Stupidity and dishonesty from both right and left in equal measure.   This country is fucked.


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Ah, shirley that explains why you're posting here  in this political forum. 

Though I suppose posting your own politally motivated rhetorical nonsense beats answering questions you can't answer.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



\When I mention stupidity I'm thinking of captain dumbshit, when I mention dishonesty I'm thinking more of you.


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I'm hurt ... no, really.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I believe we've already witnessed the limits of your thinking.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



People like that some times make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Democrat.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 23, 2015)

OP-No longer true. AND stupid anyway...


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Oh, no. I can't take any more. Seriously.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> OP-No longer true. AND stupid anyway...



One good thing this thread does ; it provides a clear illustration of why so many voters loathe the Democrats about as much as they despise the Republicans.


----------



## protectionist (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive.  On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I will try and dumb the 'long winded diatribe down a bit for he dumbass partisans.  One bill getting to Bush's desk a couple of months before the end of his term and AFTER the crash in the housing market is a joke.

"T*he meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. *Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies —* along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.*

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made* a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans.* Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

*Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, *each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics.* HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments,* and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…"


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Interesting juxtaposition on this thread, so called liberals trying to minimize the effects of grinding poverty and homelessness.   Not hard to imagine what they'll have to say about that when a Republican is in the White House.   Craven hypocrites.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



You can pretend you are one IF that makes you feel good rightie


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> And this is what it's come to:  Stupidity and dishonesty from both right and left in equal measure.   This country is fucked.




Yeah, 'both' sides are at fault, rightie, lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Blue dog huh


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



That's not for you to decide dummy.  You don't get to tell me what my politics are when you're obviously too stupid to know what you stand for.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



DISHONEST POS


*One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.*



*Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.*





"(In 2000, *CLINTON*) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (*DUBYA*), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

Lots of programs have always been in place to encourage home ownership, etc, but the absolutely insane stuff came when the banks basically gave up on lending standards.


The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. that was the same year bush implemented his toxic housing polcies


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

*“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”*



*No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*

*1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom*:

*2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:*

*3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it*: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.

*4.* *Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash*: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now

MY FAV:


AEI'S (ED PINTO'S COHORT SPREADING THE BIG LIE) Peter Wallison in* 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”*

LOL

CLINTON HUH?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged *that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007*.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis *since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Not only did he take a blind eye but he actively rescinded State laws that would have prohibited the predatory lending by Commercial Banks. Bush was an ENABLER of bad loans in the bubble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021302783.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Says the 'moderate', lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Interesting juxtaposition on this thread, so called liberals trying to minimize the effects of grinding poverty and homelessness.   Not hard to imagine what they'll have to say about that when a Republican is in the White House.   Craven hypocrites.



*"Not hard to imagine what they'll have to say about that when a Republican is in the White House. "*

Oh you mean the guys whose POLICIES create the problems for the bottom 90% of US? LOL


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You're funny. You say that I'm denying _something, _ but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you _think _ I'm denying.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



WHY NOT ATTRIBUTE YOUR QUOTE? LOL

"*Clinton’s Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown*"

OH RIGHT, THE RIGHTS THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED POSIT THAT CLINTON HAD A HAND IN DUBYA'S BUBBLE, LOL






Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets *October 2008*

* The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*







*One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



"T*he meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. "*

WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? LOL

*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

*NOTE I LINK AND SOURCE? LOL*

*

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom:

2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:*

*3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it:*

*4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


5. Expanding the subprime loan category to say GSEs had more exposure makes no sense: Some argue that the GSEs had huge subprime exposure if you create a new category that supposedly represents the risks of subprime more accurately. This new “high-risk” category is associated with a consultant to AEI named Ed Pinto, and his analysis deliberately blurs the wording on “high-risk” and subprime in much of his writings.


6. Even some Republicans don’t agree with this argument*: The three Republicans on the FCIC panel rejected the “blame the GSEs/Congress” approach to explaining the crisis in their minority report. Indeed, they, and most conservatives who know this is a dead end, tend to take a “it’s a whole lot of things, hoocoodanode?” approach.

*Peter Wallison blamed the GSEs when he served as the fourth Republican on the FCIC panel. What did the other three Republicans make of his argument? *Check out these released FCIC emails from the GOP members. They are really fun, because you can see the other Republicans doing damage control and debating whether Wallison and Pinto were on the take for making this argument — because the argument makes no sense when looking at the data.

There are lots of great quotes: “Re: peter, it seems that if you get pinto on your side, peter can’t complain. But is peter thinking idependently [sic] or is he just a parrot for pinto?”, “I can’t tell re: who is the leader and who is the follower,” “Maybe this email is reaching you too late *but I think wmt [William M. Thomas] is going to push to find out if pinto is being paid by anyone.” *And then there’s the infamous event where Wallison emailed his fellow GOP member: *“It’s very important, I think, that what we say in our separate statements not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank.”*

*The GSEs had a serious corruption problem and were flawed in design* — Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy had a good column about the GSEs in the _NYRB_ recently that you should check out about all this — *but they were not the culprits of the bubble.*


*No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty.  Talk about country club liberals.  You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, what would you right wingers have Bubba?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Superficial idiots like yourself need labels like that to categorize people, much like you hear on FOX News every day.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I wonder if you could possibly be more stupid than you are now.  It's difficult to imagine anyone being that dense, but I've been wrong about things like that before.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




And you  righties need to pretend to be moderate to push your false narrative. Surprise


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Oh Bubba, I'm positive you've been wrong, A LOT!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I think I know what's going on here now.  You and the other dummy are actually Tea Party Republicans posing as liberals so you can make Democrats look just as stupid as possible.   Clever subterfuge but it's not working.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Three percent of what?   Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people.  Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1%  In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.



> Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people.  Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.


Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Since you're so mindlessly fixed on political orientation rather than actually addressing issues I'll oblige you by satisfying your child like curiosity.
I am indeed a moderate, radically moderate.   I'll define the radical moderate position for you.

A radical moderate seeks to understand the arguments and issues of the extreme positions, and then has a close look at the middle ground, because that's invariably where the truth always resides; somewhere in between opposing extremes.   A radical moderate will vote for whomever he pleases irrespective of party, and he'll take his own sweet ass time coming to a decision about that too, and go fuck yourself if you don't like it.

That's the radical moderate position in a nutshell.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Meanwhile,  no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Sure, THAT'S you Bubba, lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Since YOU can't prove it either way, I'll go with the known unknown as Rummy said about Dubya's war of choice


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Stop projecting dummy, it makes even the non 'moderate' right wingers look honest in comparison, lol


----------



## pinqy (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 That makes no sense at all.  What do you think margin of error means?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



You and your Tea Party Confederates should stop pretending to be Democrats.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Stop projecting dummy


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)




----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



They have no way of knowing how many people they don't know about.  Which part of that equation do you fail to grasp?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I don't believe you're really a Democrat because you exhibit all the symptoms of severe knee jerk syndrome.   It's a chronic condition that prevents people like you from actually thinking about anything.  Sadly there is no cure, you'll have to live out your empty thoughtless existence, constantly resorting to childish rhetoric to make sense out of your world;  a confused, meaningless life with no purpose.  I feel sorry for you.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 What I'm not grasping is why you're not understanding that there are estimates of the homeless, and the numbers are small enough that including them wouldn't make much if any difference.
I'm also not grasping why you think that 0.2% of the population is so significant that it renders all statistics about the other 99.8% completely inaccurate.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



You still don't get it.  The base figure is inaccurate,  the numbers are based on sampling projection with no mechanism for determining the total population.


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Let's review your inanities, shall we?

First you blame the Democrat-led Congress for doing nothing. Then after I expose that as the bald-face lie it is, you change your position that they waited until the end of Bush's presidency. Yet more idiocy as that Congress was the last one elected while Bush was president.

Oddly enough, you blame the Democrat-led Congress for taking too long to pass oversight of GSE's, even though they didn't take control of the Congress until 2007, yet you didn't blame the Congress during any of these years:

*2006 *

*2005*

*2004 *

*2003 *

*2002 * (the year when Bush first asked Congress for additional GSE oversight)

One can only guess at your partisanship for not blaming the Republican-led Congresses which failed to get a bill to Bush *for 5 years * while it was still possible to prevent the meltdown, but instead blame the Democrat-led Congress which took over after it was too late to thwart the impending collapse.

G'head ... this is where you change your position again and blame Barney Frank, one member of the minority party, for single handedly preventing the Republican majority Congress from passing a bill....

As to your idiocy that the CRA either caused or contributed to the collapse, that nonsense has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly....

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that *most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.* University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that *50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.* As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”​
As to your comment on removing down payment requirements ... that was Bush .. 

 President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003​
But one thing you did get right was how low interest rates contributed to the disaster. That happened 2002 when the federal fund rate dropped to 1.67%. It would drop again to 1% in 2003.

Money Market Interest Rates and Mortgage Rates 1980 ndash 2002

Remind me again what Republicans did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2006 to prevent the meltdown after the Fed dropped the rate on Bush's watch?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster.     I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster.     I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.



I have posted this several times and totally agree with the statement.

*Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, *each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics.* HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments,* and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…"


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster.     I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.
> ...



I agree, the Clinton's have been instrumental in the promotion and implementation of global trade agreements that accelerated the process of globalization, which in turn resulted in millions of US manufacturing jobs going overseas.   Hilary Clinton is the reason I voted for Barrack Obama in the primaries for 2008.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton. Did you miss this?

*"Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, *each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics.* HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments,* and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth.…"

And, the Republican Congress did nothing, however perhaps you can show me where the Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash.  You can do it!


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats can certainly all agree that the policies of the Bush Administration led to the economic disaster.     I don't think there ever was any serious debate about that.
> ...





YET UNDER DUBYA HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED. Weird *How about under Clinton, did he ALLOW AND CHEER FOR A SUBPRIME BUBBLE LIKE DUBYA???*


*Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown*

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. *Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.*


Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast







*BUT I AGREE, DUBYA HOSED THE GSE'S BY LOWERING THEIR STANDARDS, GETTING RID OF CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT RESTRICTED F/F TO BUY SUBPRIME TO MEET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS AND FORCING F/F TO BUY $440 BILLION IN THE SECONDARY MARKETS!*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...







*"I did blame Bush for continuing the policies on housing initiated by Clinton"*


Falsely of course


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged tha*t turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



*One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.*









*"Democrat minority introduced a single bill prior to 2007 in the House or the Senate to correct the impending housing crash"*

*IT WAS A REGULATOR FAILURE BUBBA, NOT GSE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS FAILURE, WHICH BRANCH HAS REGULATOR AGAIN?*


Which branch DID HAVE oversight of GSE's? Which branch DID require F/F top purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet HIS goals? Which branch got rid of rules Clinton put into HUD to stop F/F from getting credit for affordable housing goals that used subprime loans?? lol


BUT THE DEMS SIGNED ONTO *HR1461 IN 2005* THAT DUBYA OPPOSED THAT WOULD'VE STOPPED MUCH OF THE GSE PROBLEM, OF COURSE DUBYA OPPOSED IT, LOL


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what *the laws* that caused the eventual meltdown were and when and why they were signed into law.


You posted no laws, only an opinion piece from a radical Right-wing source so whacked out you were rightly ashamed to link to its source, the FFF.org. There was no law under Clinton "which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories" that was Bush's ADDI. 
The CRA had to do with banks "red lining" certain areas and preventing QUALIFIED minorities from getting mortgages in white neighborhoods. Racists always single out the CRA because to a racist NO minority is ever QUALIFIED to get a mortgage in a white neighborhood. PERIOD! So by definition, to the racist, any law that allows qualified minorities to get a mortgage in a white neighborhood had to have forced banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories. Rationalizations are so simple to the racist!!!


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

:Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You're such a drama queen. 

I told no lie. I asked you what you thought I denied and you wouldn't say; so when I asked again, I wasn't lying when I pointed out how it seemed you couldn't say how.

As far as your claim that I denied the government can't collect accurate data ... what I disputed was your earlier unsupported claim that the government can't produce "reliable" data; or that they have "no way of knowing" how many people are out if work.

Since the government's numbers are based on scientific polling, and scientific polling produces reliable statistics within a reasonable margin of error, especially when sample rates are high and multiple polls are taken with the same questions; you would have to prove such a method is too inaccurate to be reliable. Pointing to a segment of society which represents about two tenths of one percent (0.2%) as evidence fails you as that falls easily within the margin of error, which is 1.67; given the CPS surveys about 60,000 households monthly and the CES surveys about 144,000 businesses/government agencies.


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted.


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


No mechanism for determining the total population?? 

www.census.gov


----------



## Faun (Jan 23, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


The vast majority of toxic loans were to middle and upper income families. You're still failing to show how giving loans to minorities crashed the system.

Time for you to shift your fluid position yet again.

As far as Democrats during the critical years while they were the minority party ... they had the issue completely wrong. But I don't hold them responsible for cratering our economy because they were neither in charge nor did they prevent the majority party from doing what needed to be done.

The party in control of the government is the party which assumes the blame for when shit happens. That said, had Democrats blocked Republicans from passing oversight, then I would have blamed them. Had Democrats been the party in charge when the vast majority of toxic loans were being given out, then I would have blamed them. But that's not how it happened. By 2007, the ship was going down. There was no stopping it. Action had to be taken years earlier.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 23, 2015)

Faun said:


> :Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Back to the same circular logic.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > :Liminal said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting it. You've reached the first step to help. Now try a little more...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 24, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Lots of patience is necessary. The healing is sometimes slow for Rrrrrrraging Rrrrrrrrighties!


----------



## Interpol (Jan 24, 2015)

The numbers don't mean shit until after Obama's stimulus was enacted, which helped stop the 750,000 per month job losses he inherited from Dubya.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 24, 2015)

Interpol said:


> The numbers don't mean shit until after Obama's stimulus was enacted, which helped stop the 750,000 per month job losses he inherited from Dubya.



Hell yes!  It was all of those thousands of shovel ready jobs that did it!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



If this is as smart as you people get this forum is going to get boring real fast.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > The numbers don't mean shit until after Obama's stimulus was enacted, which helped stop the 750,000 per month job losses he inherited from Dubya.
> ...



Interesting to note that since I joined this forum the most reactionary responses all come from people pretending to be liberals.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



OH!  You're speaking of The one who lost the legislature to the Left... and despite his best efforts was unable to get the Left to reign in the abuse of Legislative powers which coerced the Financial Markets to replace sound, actuarial lending principle with a perverted sense of 'Fairness', which inevitably manifest into the catastrophic failure of the Financial Markets?

Good one!


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes I have to admit it now, I don't know why I didn't see it before,  but the eloquence of your argument is so persuasive.


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...


You're nuts if you think the CRA caused the financial meltdown.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

I wonder if all the Tea Party insurgents pretending to be liberals joined the Insane Clown Posse?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...



LOL


*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*

When an economy booms or busts, money gets misspent, assets rise in prices, fortunes are made. Out of all that comes a set of easy-to-discern facts.

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

*•The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

*Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. *

*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.* Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.


Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture


*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it*. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*

*Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes*



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*



*"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."*

* 
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50% OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *

*FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



Says the Klown pretending to be a moderate, lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



At least you've got the right avatar for yourself.  You should talk it over with the other Tea Party loyalists and coordinate your outfits.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



How many people came to this country illegally yesterday?  Do you know?  How well do statistical formulas account for unknown numbers?


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


It's no one else's fault that you don't understand scientific polling.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



About what I expected.


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


That's about all you deserved.


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...



To which "effort" of Pretzeldunce Innocent Bystander are you referring?


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 25, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...




Too facty.......please desist.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 25, 2015)

IcebergSlim said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I'm actually referring to the Legislature... intentionally to deflect from the President who did not do enough to shut the Left down. 

I personally would have preferred for him to have directed his AG to arrest the respective Legislators, Fwank, Conyers, Lee, Waters, etc... tried them on the charges of subversion, etc... and upon conviction by a jury of their peers, executed them by public hanging... but, no one asked me, so... the international financial markets crashed, instead.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




Good lil right wingers, ignore EVERYTHING that destroyed your bullshit premise, lol

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is Page 117 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Rule of thumb: right wingers almost always come out on the wrong side of history.


Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


*Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.*


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Try them for what? Being members of the minority party while the majority party sat on their thumbs and refused to add oversight of the GSE's?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



June 17, 2004


Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

*(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. *
Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004

He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down

lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right in line with what you evidently believe indigent, homeless and migrant people deserve.  You know, all those people who don't exist.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



It takes THIS much work to show us you're 'moderate'??? lol


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm sure you can tell everyone what their politics are because of your amazing facility for dull, superficial characterizations, child like anecdotes, and simple minded rationalizations.  With so little to think about your choices in life should be very easy.   It must be very liberating to have such an uncomplicated view of everything.


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Oh? And what does your imagination tell you I think they deserve?


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




They obviously deserve nothing, because according to statistics they don't even exist.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



There you go, showing how 'moderate' you are, lol
Uncomplicated? Like conservatives have about cutting taxes creates a booming economy?

I know, less Gov't is more freedom right?


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Thanks for showing me your imagination is based on delusions.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



As a Tea Party insurgent you ought to know.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 25, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are very welcome.   Thanks for sacrificing any evidence of humanity or concern for those less fortunate,  in the name of ideology and political narrative.


----------



## Faun (Jan 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Since that occurred nowhere beyond your delusional imagination -- no harm, no foul.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jan 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Sorry, your message is lost on me.


----------



## Seawytch (Jan 26, 2015)

On average, the Titanic had a more successful first trip than Apollo 13.


----------



## Liminal (Jan 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just one among many.


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I can appreciate why you would be so anxious to deflect from the worst POTUS of the modern era.....to that end, you'd clutch at pretty much ANY fairy tale....

Have you ever considered what Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux might have looked like had it NOT enabled the housing scam?

Wonder no more...

_Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy._






_Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term._

The Economic Blue Screen of Death - Thoughts From The Frontline - Investment Strategies Analysis Intelligence for Seasoned Investors.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jan 27, 2015)

IcebergSlim said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > IcebergSlim said:
> ...



Yep....  all sorts of chaos is what should be expected when one allows the Ideological Left to set Government policy. 

And that is never MORE true, than where the Left is tolerated at sufficient levels and for sufficient periods, so as to allow them to coerce the financial markets into setting aside, sound actuarial lending principle and substituting such with the Left's irrational and wholly perverted notions of 'fairness'.

Add to that, their penchant for undermining the labor force with absurd subsidies, crippling initiative and willingness to work, such can and _*will* only_ lead to low production, as your chart illustrates brilliantly. 

It proves in spades that electing _progressives_, without regard to their party affiliation, is a sure fire formula for disaster.

Good stuff... congrats for a fine post.


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



*"so as to allow them to coerce the financial markets into setting aside, sound actuarial lending principle and substituting such with the Left's irrational and wholly perverted notions of 'fairness'."*





MORE RIGHT WING BULLSHIT. Shocking

*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. *More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. *The* *nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



"*I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," *said Allan Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of Business The Guardian



*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*

*The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

*•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. *

*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.*


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. *These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.*

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture



*Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis*


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, *occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.*

* Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.


Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...




*Pretty boilerplate conservative, always blubbering excuses about how conservatives aren't responsible for the complete and utter failure of their policies*


*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks*. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.


The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model.* Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along*. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.

*Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did*; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Lovely Anti-Reality Shield you've got there....






The Federal Government does not establish underwriting standards....


pass it on....


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 27, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > IcebergSlim said:
> ...




Please....you carry on as if facts mattered.....

Most unbecoming......

There's this Narrative, see.........


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 28, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> *Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis*


But that will never stop them from rationalizing that the banks were justified in selling what they knew was worthless crap.

December 07, 2011
RUSH:  But *these financial houses were selling what they knew was worthless because they had been forced to make these loans *by government in the first place, and they were selling worthless paper for high prices


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis*
> ...



If you are taking your cues from a Community College drop out, you KNOW you are in trouble....


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



            It can indeed be an indication of the health of the economy as has been shown above and in the past. That's why its recorded and reported and has been mentioned by most economist along with the monthly unemployment reports for the past several years.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



           The misery index is an excellent indicator of what main street America is experiencing. 10% unemployment is bad, but add in 10% inflation or more and its DOUBLE the horror for main street America. No jobs and rising prices, that's what Americans had to deal with in the late 70s and early 80s. While unemployment has been a problem since 2009, inflation has not been a problem at all. In fact, Inflation is the one economic indicator that Obama does the best in VS past Presidents.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, your continued participation in this thread shows that part of you agrees with the points I have made. For the four years that Carter was President, main street America suffered LESS unemployment on average than they did when Reagan was President. *That is an indisputable FACT! Its also an indisputable Fact that the President with the worst Average Unemployment rate since after World War II continues to be BARACK OBAMA as of January 29, 2015. 

                Oh and if Bush Flunked High School than Obama dropped out of school in the 7th grade. Obama will NEVER come close to matching Bush's average monthly unemployment rate of 5.27% That's an indisputable FACT! The Job market on average was one of the Best in the countries history under Bush. Bush had one of the lowest monthly average unemployment rates of any President in history. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% in United States history is GEORGE BUSH!*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



*Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. *According to _The Washington Post_, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. *Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

*The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post*


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yes, Nixon/Ford wage and price controls hosed US and Carter during the 1970's, along with OPEC. Good thing Ronnie was smart enough to keep Carter's guy Volker on board, right?


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

*Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them. *


*Yep, when you allow an economy to more than double it's debt in 8 years (household debt doubled 2001-2007), it sure looks good, UNTIL it doesn't. All ponzi schemes look like that

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, it's not an indicator of the health of the economy. Case in point ... the economy in the 50's and 60's was better than the economy in the 70's and early 80's. But you wouldn't know that by the labor force participation rate which was considerably lower in the 50's and 60's. The lfpr measures the portion of Americans who are either working or looking for work. It offers no indication of how healthy the economy is, nor is it designed to. For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 29, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



           That does not mean the labor force participation rate is NEVER ever an indication of the health of the economy! It has been shown and cited many times by economist over the past several years to show that people often do not participate in the regular job market because of little or no opportunity at the time.

            Finally, the first of the Baby Boom generation did not turn 65 until 2011. That's right, the Baby Boom starts in 1946 and the first Boomers did not reach retirement age until the year 2011. So any decrease in the participation rate prior to 2011 has little to do with Baby Boomers retiring.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



                 Could the current job market support a labor force participation rate of 66%? Answer: Hell No! You would need to be able to give a sudden additional 8 million people jobs.

               Let me ask you this, would you rather live in the 1950s or the 1980s? The poverty rate in America was far higher in the 1950s than it was in the 1980s. Your average American household in the 1980s could afford two cars rather than just the one they had in the 1950s. Plus the 1980s economy was able to support a much higher labor force participation rate than the one in the 1950s.

             Finally I said that the labor force participation rate CAN be an indicator of the health of the economy. That's very different from your point of view which claims that it is NEVER an indicator of the health of the economy under any circumstances.


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Again, I disagree with you. The misery index is a horrible indicator. In my opinion, it's not an indicator at all as it doesn't indicate the health of the economy. Keep in mind that I'm an Obama supporter and the misery index, at 6.36, is the lowest it's been since the 1990's. I could easily tout it as a plus for Obama but I don't because it's not a good indicator. It more like a broken clock, which is right twice a day. For example, at the height of the Great Recession, when GDP was -8.3 percent and 700,000+ jobs were being lost in a single month, the misery index was just one point higher than it is now.

But here's the best example ... the lowest the misery index has ever been was about 3. Does that indicate a good economy or a bad economy?


----------



## Dad2three (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.*

*The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post*


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It's not an economic indicator, so no, it never indicates the health of the economy. And the only reason anyone has been talking about it over the last few years is because as the economy grows stronger under Obama, rightwingers are finding fewer and fewer things to attack him with. And a dropping lfpr is a falling number, so that's what they cling to. Same thing with averaging out the unemployment rate. Those are two measurements the right never used until now. Hell, the lfpr began dropping while Bush was president ... I don't recall the right ever talking about it.

As far as baby boomers, 62 is the earliest age of retirement. Which is why along with the Great Recession, the lfpr began dropping in 2008.

During the years leading up to 2008, there were an average of about 400,000 retires per year. That figure almost doubled in 2008 and has been about tripled on average since.

Baby boomers are retiring in record numbers...

People are going onto disability in record numbers...

Students are choosing college over working in record numbers...

In all those cases, those reflect people *who don't want to work, * yet their desire to not work drives down the labor force participation rate. Does that indicate the job market is not healthy? Absolutely not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> . For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.



stupid stupid stupid liberal!! U6 unemployment is 11.2%, about 40% higher than before recession, and income is down!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


What George Bush will be remembered for is inheriting the lowest unemployment rate any president inherited since Eisenhower and leaving with the highest unemployment rate since Hoover. What you do by averaging it out, which is by design, is to policies and events which help drive the unemployment rate. For example, pointing out how Obama has the highest average conceals the fact that he inherited the worst economy. Averaging out Bush's conceals the fact that the housing boom of the 2000's lowered Bush's average -- but that led to the worst economy since the Great Depression. Averaging out Carter and Reagan conceals what a crappy job Carter did and conceals what a great job Reagan did.

So if your goal is to conceal facts, then by all means, resort to averaging out a president's UR (something I don't believe was done prior to Obama), but I don't agree with any part of that.


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


By and large, the families with two cars in the 80's were double income families, which were not nearly as common in the 1950's.

And yes, you did say "can," like a broken clock "can" show the right time. That doesn't mean the broken clock is an indicator of the time.


----------



## Faun (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > . For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.
> ...


Is that more or less ignorant than the imbecile who said 11.2 is 40% higher than 8.4; and that people who work, are *unemployed? *


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 29, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Finally, the first of the Baby Boom generation did not turn 65 until 2011. That's right, the Baby Boom starts in 1946 and *the first Boomers did not reach retirement age until the year 2011.* So any decrease in the participation rate prior to 2011 has little to do with Baby Boomers retiring.


Wrong, as usual. Early retirement starts at age 62, which would start in 2008.


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 29, 2015)

Roar Eagle Roar Behind the U.S. Economic Recovery - Bloomberg Business


U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Nonsense.........It has never been labored as it has since the economy, under the Kenyan Usurper, started making progress in taking up the labor market slack which was the Legacy of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux.....


----------



## IcebergSlim (Jan 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > . For example, the current job market is fairly strong -- even though the lfpr continues to drop.
> ...



Real Median Household Income peaked in 1999....


----------



## Faun (Jan 30, 2015)

IcebergSlim said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Ask that conservative to show you the math he employs to determine 11.2 is 40% more than 8.4...


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2015)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.09%*

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.09%

 615.1/76 = 8.093421 = 8.09%
*
There are 20 months left in Obama's Presidency.


----------



## regent (May 8, 2015)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


Maybe we are starting to see how our government works, I mean three branches and so on.


----------



## edthecynic (May 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


WOW! Jimmy Carter has a better average unemployment rate than St Ronnie!!!!
So much for the value of an average UE rate, or Carter was better at employment than Reagan!


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> ...



Reagan struggled with very heavy unemployment in his first term. In fact the highest monthly unemployment rate ever recorded since World War II happened in 1982 while Reagan was in office. 10.8% unemployment in both November and December of 1982. The highest unemployment ever got under Carter was 7.8% in July 1980, only slightly more than the unemployment rate Reagan had in October 1984 of 7.4% just before his landslide re-election.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%.  Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.


----------



## edthecynic (May 8, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%.  *Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.*


There is no such thing as a constant LPR. And most of the people "giving up" looking for work are retirees who no longer need or want to work. as I have said, everyone knows the drop in LPR is due to the demographics of Boomers retiring but that will only be taken into consideration if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and the LPR continues to drop.


----------



## sealybobo (May 9, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


Rick Snyder is running around the country bragging about michigans comeback. The economy is back. If you are unemployed you are a loser. And if you arent making enough dont expect the republicans to give you a raise. You are paid what you are worth.

All of Obamas bad numbers are Bush's fault and sorry if Obama hasn't cleaned up his mess fast enough. Keep in mind you cons didn't even admit we had a problem when bush was still in office. You guys said things were fine when 700,000 jobs a month were fleeing the country. Remember you defended corporations that were leaving because union workers were too expensive. Now you want to cry that wages are down? What an intellectually dishonest fuck. 

How long until hillary and bill are back in the whitehouse?


----------



## JimH52 (May 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%.  *Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.*
> ...



You know that the the rules are not the same for the GOP.  It is amazing that they shout "the sky is falling" now when under W, the sky was really falling.....not a peep...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 9, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> ...


Mrs Bill Clinton would need to be preceded by Reagan policies in order to appear effective as her shameful, impeached husband did. Instead she would have to follow re-Nixon and herself.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 9, 2015)

Seems the repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths. If the president does do something about unemployment with the powers he has, he is meddling in the business world and needs to stay out of it, but now they want to shame him for doing nothing. His proposals were so shot down at every venue by the right wing. They are the job killers. 
The right wing


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 9, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> Seems the repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths. If the president does do something about unemployment with the powers he has, he is meddling in the business world and needs to stay out of it, but now they want to shame him for doing nothing. His proposals were so shot down at every venue by the right wing. They are the job killers.
> The right wing


The only thing hurting this economy -- and that includes unemployment -- is Obama energy policy.


----------



## TooTall (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



06. George W. Bush: 5.27%


----------



## JimH52 (May 9, 2015)

TooTall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Everyone knows W left the economy in free fall....


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 9, 2015)

I think Obama has now passed  Reagan, or is very close to it.

I saw that coming too.  Hilarious.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


People were better off under Bush.  The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago.  And that improvement is solely from people dropping out of the workforce and collecting disability.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Translation: Everyone on the Left believes it.  Therefore it must be true.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> I think Obama has now passed  Reagan, or is very close to it.
> 
> I saw that coming too.  Hilarious.


Passed Reagan as what? Spender?  He did that his first year.


----------



## JimH52 (May 9, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You want to take a poll on USMB and ask how the economy that W left crashing has affecting them?  Many people, including yours truly, are still trying to recover from the mess that W left.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 9, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > I think Obama has now passed  Reagan, or is very close to it.
> ...



As having a better UE rate for his term, which happens to be the subject of the thread.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



You're not being fair.  lol


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Argumentum ad populum fallacy detected.
It doesnt matter what a poll shows.  The facts are as I laid out.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Cherry picking data is your speciality.  Probably because you cannot hold two different thoughts in mind at once.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


True.  His inability to get ahead is his own fault.  If not his fault, certainly Obama's.  It is amazing that after 8 years of control the Democrats still get a pass on their failed policies from some people.


----------



## JimH52 (May 9, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The RW historical revisionist on the board want everyone to think that W left office with everything rosy and the economy humming.  He left the worse economic crisis since the great depression.  Now their cry is, *"LET US TRY THAT AGAIN!"   *


----------



## The Rabbi (May 9, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Ad absurdum fallacy detected.  No one said everything was rosy.  But it got a lot worse under Obama.
You're not doing well here.  If it werent for fallacies you'd have no arguments at all.


----------



## JimH52 (May 9, 2015)

The free fall began under W.  It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around.  Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering.  They are failing.  Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.

Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2015)

TooTall said:


> 06. George W. Bush: 5.27%


A UE rate that started at around a stable 4% and ended around 8% and skyrocketing. No wonder the Right wants to use an average, except when comparing Carter's better average to Reagan's.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago.


And if by 6 months you mean over 2 years you would be correct.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago. *And that improvement is solely from people dropping out of the workforce and collecting disability*.


More lies from a pathological liar! 

As I already showed Obama's UE rate has been below Bush's final skyrocketing rate for more than 2 years, and in fact, during the last 4 years the number of disability awards has been DECREASING.

Disabled-worker statistics


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The free fall began under W.  It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around.  Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering.  They are failing.  Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.
> 
> Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.


LOL! Revisionism much?
Obama took over after the banks had been stabilized.  The UE rate began to climb and continued to do so.  The Democrat clown Congress passed Dodd Frank, ACA and other laws that undermined confidence.  Only when the GOP took the House in 2010 did UE begin to decline.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The free fall began under W.  It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around.  Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering.  They are failing.  Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.
> ...



Monthly job losses peaked in Jan. 2009:


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



*Everything *got worse?

The biggest monthly job loss was Jan. 2009.






The worst quarter for GDP was 4Q 2008:


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Thanks for proving the point.
You're real bad at statistics and logic, arentcha?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Yes Obama inherited a recovery.  And blew it.
WHat happened to UE after he was elected?


----------



## Stephanie (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Not by all the people. just the rabid cult member's  on here. The Majority of the people didn't vote them into Minority in Congress, FOR NO REASON. some just refuses to accept or come to terms with it yet...


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You try that shit every day.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be as sad a figure as you are.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



He inherited the bottom of the recession.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Yes the recession was over.  Until Democrats passed his legislation.
You just arent doing well here, dum-dum.


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Rabbit, you are desperate to rewrite history, aren't you?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



How could the recession be over in a quarter when GDP was -8%.

Once in a while you should admit you were wrong.  It might make you look at least a little bit less the cartoon character.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



He's the worst on this board. 

I guess there's some perverse form of happiness in one having shed all pride and dignity.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Would knowing how much fun we liberals have mauling you change your willingness to be mauled?


----------



## TooTall (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Everyone knows that the housing crash caused the free fall in the economy.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Rabid does, indirectly, when he doesn't reply when his lies are exposed, as below.


edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago.
> ...





edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The UE rate was lower the day Bush left office than at any time under Obama until maybe 6 months ago. *And that improvement is solely from people dropping out of the workforce and collecting disability*.
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


LOL! You've failed at every post you've made here.  You just shwoed that Obama inherited a recession that had bottomed out already and an economy that was on the rise.  He promptly turned that to the slowest growth "recovery" i n history.  Yes, you've shown that.


----------



## asterism (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



So why hasn't median income and median net worth increased then?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

asterism said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Reaganomics!


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Bottomed out losing 700,000 jobs a month

What a great time to assume the presidency


----------



## TooTall (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The UE rate went up to 10% and stayed above 8% until August 2012.  Since the Republicans took control of the Congress the UE rate has gone down to 5.4%.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Employment is a lagging indicator.
What you dont know would fill a universe.


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



History of U.S. Recessions Causes Lengths Stats


*2008-2009 Recession*
TheGreat Recessionwas the worst sincethe 1929 Depression. The economy shrank in five quarters, including four quarters in a row. Two quarters shrank more than 5%, including Q2 2008which fell a whopping 8.9%, more than any other recession since the Great Depression. The recession ended in Q3 2009, when GDP turned positive,thanks to economic stimulus spending. The recession was also the longest since the Depression, lasting 18 months.

*2008*

·  Q1 -2.7% (0.4%)

·  Q2 2.0% (1.5%)

·  Q3 -1.9% (-2.7%)

·  Q4 -8.2% (-5.4%)

*2009*

·  Q1 -5.4% (-6.4%)

·  Q2 -0.5% (-0.7%)

Auto Industry Bailout GM Ford Chrysler 


The federal government took over GM and Chrysler in March 2009. It fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner, and required that Chrysler merge with Italy's Fiat SpA.  It took advantage of the take-over, setting new auto efficiency standard to force the companies to become more competitive against Japanese and German firms.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Another Ribbid lie exposed.  The Auto industry bailout did not occur until March 2009.  W's recession was as deep as any that we have ever seen.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Bush had already bailed out the auto industry, over Congress' objections.  March 2009 was 2 months after Obama assumed office.  Most of the damage had been done.  All he needed to do was nothing.  But of course we cant let a crisis go to waste.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.



Anyone looking for a KICK ASS sig.. to demonstrate that intrinsic to the Intellectually Less Fortunate, has a wonderful opportunity, right here.

I'd do it myself, but I already have about as solid a signature as any human being could reasonably hope for.  But if I didn't... I'd SNATCH THIS ONE UP IN A HEART BEAT!


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Right....*"most of the damage had been done"* is right.  The damage you are speaking of is the George W Bush presidency, right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> History of U.S. Recessions Causes Lengths Stats
> 
> 
> *2008-2009 Recession*
> ...



The US Economy has not entered into a recovery and cannot... due to the 'fiscal policy' of the Ideological Left which is preventing it.

Such is the case today, that any attempt to 'recover' the US Economy would literally cause the planet's economic foundation to collapse, and it would do so almost instantaneously, with hyper-inflation of the US Dollar rendering it something well below ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE... the volume of the linen-paper currency alone, would be sufficient to send most landfills in the United States into overload.

Within the first few days of what is inevitably coming, the price of a loaf of bread will be counted in the MILLIONS.

Now some might say that "The Left has prevented that from happening" and they would be dead wrong.

The Left has quite literally CAUSED it to happen.

All that was necessary for the US Economy to recover, was the easiest thing that could have been done, which was: NOTHING.

Had the Left NOT propped up business that succumbed to the removal of sound principle from the financial/lending markets, and let those companies go bust... within weeks, those assets would have been bought by new entities... who could have purchased them as fire sale prices, and returned those assets back to the markets at very affordable levels, which would have produced the CORRECTION that has yet to take place.

By fabricating TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to prop up those fatally flawed businesses, they have devalued the US Dollar to roughly below worthless... and this without regard to those who simply pretend that such hasn't happened, because the consequences of such, have yet to materialize.

Understand, the Socialist Policy which caused the housing bubble, thus which caused the boom that busted it... was what caused the bust.  That was true in the 1970s when the Left was coercing the lending markets to drop the actuarial lending principles that sustain viability in their industry, it was true in the 80s, when they expanded on policies to encourage such, it was true in the 90s when they doubled down on those policies and it was true in the 2000s when they GUARANTEED AGAINST LOSSES DUE TO THOSE POLICIES and it remained true, right to the bust.

Thus the policy was wrong in the 70s and remained wrong until the INEVITABLE consequences came rockin' in, in 2008.

The same is true for the INEVITABLE, UNSPEAKABLE CRASH which they have stored up... and which has yet to happen, but which MUST HAPPEN.

And... folks, when it does.  We're all fucked.  And they're already preparing for it... and it is going to end life as we know it.  And no one reading this, will be alive, when and more appropriately: *IF* we manage to come out the other side, as a nation, let alone as a free nation built upon the American Principles of Freedom.

The good news, if there is any, is for those of you who have been so eager to build a fence on our borders.  At the collapse, there will be a BEAUTIFUL FENSE BUILT.  But it will not be built to keep Foreign Nationals from getting INTO the US, it will be built by the Left... to keep US Citizens from hauling their ASS to ANYWHERE BUT HERE!


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


How about the stock market that had dropped 6500 points or the five quarters of negative GDP?

How was that lagging?


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ribbid should be a Fiction writer.....he sure can spin a tale!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



HEY LOOK!  It's Alinsky's 12th Rule for the Addledicals.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


No, it was the Democratic Congress.  Things were fine until they got in.
The real disaster has been the Obama presidency. Worst record of growth in post war history!


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



He walked into that one like a cartoon character walking past the edge of a cliff and remaining suspended in mid air, until he realizes what he's done.  lol


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Stock market was going up as Bush left office.  Stock market is a leading indicator.
What you dont know would fill an encyclopedia.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Funny you think in terms of cartoon characters.  Are you 9 years old?


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2015)

TooTall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


700,000 jobs a month were fleeing the country his last year in office.

Things were so bad america elected a black man.

And that man fixed what bush broke. If you're still unemployed its because either you are unemployable or you dont want to work.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I'm not one being a cartoon character.

I'll save your post acknowledging that Bush was fully responsible for the 2007 recession.  You can eat it in the future.


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Gas went down too. Tried to make you forget they fucked us for years with $4 gas.

In fact I know repubs who forget that happened on Bush's watch and played a key role in causing the recession. Many things were going wrong all at once. Almost like it was on purpose. Tarp gas prices jobs going overseas thome values dropped oo many illegals. All in Bush's last year. The great recession. Look it up if you forgot.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


That is wrong.  The job loss was in the last 3 months.
are you saying that people elected Obama because he was black and they were insane? True.
Obama "fixed" the economy like Adolph Hitler "fixed" the Jewish Problem.
Over 1M are unemployed in this country.  Because the economy still sucks.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


How did Obama fix gas prices?  Gas prices rose for much of his presidency.  Was he not responsible for that?


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It was?

Seem to remember it dropping over 7000 points in total....that is going up?


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


The price of Obamagas has dropped almost $2 a gallon


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And to this day the GOP will advocate tax cuts for the wealthy.  W began two wars then gave a tax break for the wealthy.  He should have just taken a drink instead.....


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What you remember is hysterical.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It was Bushgas when the price was going up under Obama.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 10, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Obama skipped all that tax shit and went to direct payments.


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


You still have difficulty with historical records don't you?


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I paid $4.15 for Bushgas

Freak'n bitch


----------



## JimH52 (May 10, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Rabbid should write history books for the state of Texas.  They are into fictional history, I understand.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2015)

TooTall said:


> The UE rate went up to 10% and stayed above 8% until August 2012. Since the Republicans took control of the Congress the UE rate has gone down to 5.4%.


The GOP did that by moving workers to "not in the labor force" as the GOP dropped the LPR to its lowest since the 1970s.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> *Stock market was going up as Bush left office.* Stock market is a leading indicator.
> What you dont know would fill an encyclopedia.


Liar. 







The stock market crashed from an Oct 11,2007 intra-day peak on 14,198.10 to a low of 6,443.27 on March 6, 2009, a 54% loss of value.

Obama called the bottom almost exactly to the day.

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Brown after Meeting The White House

"What you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it,"
- President Obama 
- March 3, 2009.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 11, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



This has got to be one of the most useless statistics I have ever seen.  It does not take into consideration the beginning unemployment rate versus the ending rate.  Even Reagan looks bad based on this.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Your acknowledgement of my superior knowledge is accepted.


----------



## TooTall (May 11, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The attack on 9-11 started one war and the material breach of the cease fire by Iraq started the other one.  Bush had the votes from Congress for both wars.
Bush gave tax cuts to EVERY taxpayer and that included the high income earners.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 11, 2015)

TooTall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yes, Republican tax cuts are the reason 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

The ceasefire violations were never sufficient cause to invade Iraq.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


So you support Republican tax cuts, right?


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


 
Strange that Bush cited violation of the UN resolution as grounds to invade and then ignored the UN when they asked for more time to verify WMD claims


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Not strange at all.  The UN had 18 months to verify claims and Iraq was playing cat and mouse games with them.  There was no indication Iraq would cooperate, rather than just stall for time.
Bush understood that with regard to Iraq.
Obama doesnt understand that with regard to Iran.
WHat you dont know fills the uiniverse, Nutjobber.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 
Hans Blix was right....Bush was wrong about Iraq
Barack Obama was right.......Bush was wrong about Iraq


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


LOL! What you dont know fills a library.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
As Rabbi runs away once again


----------



## Theowl32 (May 11, 2015)

Wow, not only do liberals still believe in man made global warming, they still think Booooosh was solely responsible for the crash of 2008 even though the democrats took over the congress (House and Senate in 2007) and controlled the purse strings.

Where, they deliberately ignored ALL of the Bush's 17 warnings about the housing bubble. Where, the democrats used the economic crash to win the election in that important election year.

Anyone thinking the capitalist hating democrats would not sabotage the country in order to gain power and push their socialist agenda are awfully naive. In other words, anyone that does not believe that, are true left wing tool bags. Nothing more.

Look at how they divide races, classes, and genders (along with whatever else they can) in order to gain voters. Destroy our laws by ignoring them and deliberately violating them. Diminish our allies and enhance our enemies. Open door policy all under the guise that they actually care about the poor illegals, when in actuality they just want their votes.

Say, did Holder or any other piece of shit ever hand over what the congress was asking for in regards to fast and furious? No? Thought not. 


Fucking liberals..


----------



## regent (May 11, 2015)

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures  the administration started with and where the figures are today.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

regent said:


> Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures  the administration started with and where the figures are today.


 
Obama has dropped unemployment by 4.8 % and averages almost a million jobs a month more than he started out with


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

regent said:


> Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures  the administration started with and where the figures are today.


And under Obama  barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.


----------



## TooTall (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Why hasn't Obama raised the federal income tax on the lower and middle class tax payers if the tax cut was such a bad thing?

The leading Democrats in the Senate apparently disagreed with your opinion on invading Iraq since they voted for it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

TooTall said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


 
How did Democrats in the House vote?

You keep avoiding that more Democrats voted against the war than for it and that only seven Republicans had the balls to oppose the invasion


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Enough Democrats voted for it, including Hillary Clinton, to enable the war.  What about that is mysterious to you?  Dems were for the war before they were against it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


 
Enough?

As in we lied to enough Democrats to get them to believe us?

Obama did not believe you


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

If you make that claim, tell us how it does affect our economic policy. The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
Is, or is not, the stock market reaching record highs?
So who is controlling the economy?




RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the repubs talk out of both sides of their mouths. If the president does do something about unemployment with the powers he has, he is meddling in the business world and needs to stay out of it, but now they want to shame him for doing nothing. His proposals were so shot down at every venue by the right wing. They are the job killers.
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


There were no lies. Democrats had access to the same intelligence Bush did.  Facts just are not your friends, Nutjobber.  Must be why you live in Fantasyland.


----------



## Theowl32 (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Do not address the piece of shit. He just brought up the fucking war again. He then claims all of the democrats voted against it. He of course ignored the Iraq Liberation Act for wmds signed by Bill.

They are fucking sheep. You would have better luck trying to communicate with a worm.

They are all double talking hypocritical losers. No exceptions. They deserve zero respect.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> If you make that claim, tell us how it does affect our economic policy. The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
> Is, or is not, the stock market reaching record highs?
> So who is controlling the economy?
> 
> ...


You need to put down the Kool aid.
People have less and things cost more all because energy prices are higher than necessary thanks to obama energy policy. That is a recipe for contracted economy. Very simple and obvious.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

Don't try to insult me with your brand of bill o'reilly statements.
Disprove my statements rather than give billie boy statements.

The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
Is, or is not, the stock market reaching record highs?
So who is controlling the economy?



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > If you make that claim, tell us how it does affect our economic policy. The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
> ...


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Do you know how long into W's Presidency 9/11 happened?


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



So you're pointing out that Obama's even worse than W?  Interesting strategy for a leftist Democrat.  Where are you headed with this?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> Don't try to insult me with your brand of bill o'reilly statements.
> Disprove my statements rather than give billie boy statements.
> 
> The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
> ...


Why the O'Reilly bit?
I just explained reality and you keep harping on the irrelevant. US expansion in energy production_* in spite of obama squeeze-down on energy production*_ is not a cure if the demand still outpaces the production.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
Bush and Cheney got the Iraq intelligence they demanded 
They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

_There was no such “intelligence failure”. On the contrary, there was an extremely successful disinformation campaign coordinated by the CIA in furtherance of the government’s policy of seeking regime change in Iraq. The language of the document itself reveals a persistent dishonesty. It speaks of “deepened suspicions” that Iraq “had ongoing WMD programs” and “suspicions that Iraq continued to hide WMD.” Needless to say, however,* the Iraq war was not sold to the public on the grounds that government officials and intelligence agencies had “suspicions” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was sold to the public with declarations that it was a known fact that Iraq had ongoing programs and stockpiles of WMD.* The tacit acknowledgment that the actual evidence only supported “suspicions” that this was so by itself is proof of that the narrative of an “intelligence failure” is a fiction._

_Hussein Kamal actually told U.N. inspectors when he defected in 1995. The newly released document in fact points out, “*He said that Saddam destroyed all WMD in secret” in 1991*. Yet apart from that single buried admission, *the document is full of statements implying that weapons programs continued.*_


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

USA is one of the largest oil producing  countries in the world.
And you make the "opinion" statement " you made and then you try to say I am irrelevant.
Nice try.
You agree it is producing more oil than ever, and you say what you say about controlling the economy.




RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't try to insult me with your brand of bill o'reilly statements.
> ...


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There were no lies. Democrats had access to the same intelligence Bush did.  Facts just are not your friends, Nutjobber.  Must be why you live in Fantasyland.
> ...



Who said Iraq was a threat

- The UN
- The French
- The Russians
- The Germans
- The Democrats

Who said Iraq was not a threat

- ...

Crickets.  

See big guy, this is what happens when you rewrite history.  Invading Iraq was a bad idea.  Stockpiles of WMDs were irrelevant.  He repeatedly used them, so he had the capability to make them.  You don't need stockpiles.  If that was why you supported it at the time, then you should still support it.

I'm tired of taking the hit for everyone.  Look what happened when the US didn't attack ISIS.  The Jordanians and Egyptians did.  We need to stop carrying everyone's water for them while they undercut us and stab us in the back.

but you have zero integrity.  Your view shifts constantly based on the party in power and who it helps and harms.  When you grow a pair, get back to me.  In the meantime, you can just keep wearing a dress for the Democrats and bending over whenever they ask


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> USA is one of the largest oil producing  countries in the world.
> And you make the "opinion" statement " you made and then you try to say I am irrelevant.
> Nice try.
> You agree it is producing more oil than ever, and you say what you say about controlling the economy.
> ...


My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing _the most_ and _not enough_ are two completely separate things.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

Show the facts! Oil - production - Country Comparison
*Rank* *Country* *Oil - production (bbl/day)*
1 Saudi Arabia 10,520,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




2 Russia 10,270,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



3 United States 9,688,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



4 Iran 4,252,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



5 China 4,073,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



6 Canada 3,483,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



7 Mexico 2,983,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



8 United Arab Emirates 2,813,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



9 Iraq 2,642,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



10 Nigeria 2,458,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



15 Countries With The Biggest Oil Reserves - Business Insider





RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > USA is one of the largest oil producing  countries in the world.
> ...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> Show the facts!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

You prove it, not me.
Here is my proof! 15 Countries With The Biggest Oil Reserves - Business Insider
*Rank* *Country* *Oil - production (bbl/day)*
1 Saudi Arabia 10,520,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



2 Russia 10,270,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



3 United States 9,688,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



4 Iran 4,252,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



5 China 4,073,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



6 Canada 3,483,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



7 Mexico 2,983,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



8 United Arab Emirates 2,813,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



9 Iraq 2,642,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



10 Nigeria 2,458,000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Oil - production - Country Comparison




RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > Show the facts!
> ...


----------



## regent (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines."  The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was  hot to trot.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Did the UN say Bush should invade?
> Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?
> 
> No
> ...



You're moving the goal posts big guy.  This is the point I refuted:



rightwinger said:


> They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > Show the facts!
> ...



Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Did the UN say Bush should invade?
> ...


 
I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

regent said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Thats a fail.  Everyone knew they were voting for war.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Aleady a failed point  Bush had waited over 18 months during which time Saddam had expelled the inspectors at least once.  Saddam continued to cover up, delay, and lie.
Compare that to Ghaddafi's handing over his nuclear arsenal and you see what full and fair accounting looks like  Too bad Obozo bumbled Libya as well and got our ambassador killed.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Not responsive.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > boilermaker55 said:
> ...


Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

You still haven't disputed the facts posted.




RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Did you sleep through the recession?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> You still haven't disputed the facts posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've refuted them.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


 
Blix was there
UN inspectors were doing their job and asked for more time

Bush ordered them out of the country so he could invade


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months.  Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq.  Everyone knew it would likely be used.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They were in the country when Saddam allowed them, although he barred them from many sites.  He also could not account for stockpiles listed after the Gulf War and was not cooperative.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
Bush panicked once Blix told him he did not think there were WMDs

Bush pulled the trigger before he lost his reason for invasion


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Because Bush knew waging war would make him really popular, right?
What you dont know would fill the internet, Nutjobber.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, *Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of **weapons of mass destruction in Iraq**, in order to strengthen the case for the **2003 war* against the government of Saddam Hussein. *Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found*._


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 Thats about right

From the day Bush took office, he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. Once 9-11 happened, Bush looked for any piece of evidence that Iraq was involved

Bush thought that Iraq would be his legacy....turned out it was


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, *Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of **weapons of mass destruction in Iraq**, in order to strengthen the case for the **2003 war* against the government of Saddam Hussein. *Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found*._


Frm your link:
Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."[5]


----------



## Londoner (May 11, 2015)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....



Silly rabbit, you know presidents are not accountable for anything.

The greatest housing meltdown in history happened under Bush, but it was the Democrats' fault.

The greatest financial crash since the Great Depression happened under Bush, but it was the Democrats' fault.

The largest attack on U.S. soil happened under Bush (who failed to protect the eastern seaboard despite the August 2011 memo),  but it was Clinton's fault.

The greatest job growth in a quarter century happened under Clinton, but it was because of Newt.

We get it,  the president is responsible for nothing.

(Help. This guy votes)


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> ...


 
Blix was talking about actions in 1991

In 2003, Blix let it be known there was little evidence of WMDs


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot.  Did you read any of the articles?  They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards:  "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics.  It's about national security.  We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available.  We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today.  He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more.  Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark:  "He does have weapons of mass destruction.  ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in Iraq do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton:  "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore:  "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.  We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry:  "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat.  Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations.  The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama:  "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He's a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You said W ignored people who said Saddam was not a threat.  Blix did not say that, so you still have not supported your point


----------



## kaz (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That isn't what he said.  He said he thought he could find them with more time.  He did not say what you just made up


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures  the administration started with and where the figures are today.
> ...


Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Your point?



> The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.



Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


The point is that Bush was thinking about invading Iraq before he was even elected. As another poster so eloquently pointed out, Bush leapt at the opportunity to do so following 9.11.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So he was echoing Clinton, et al.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Someone asked for a link to show Bush was thinking invading Iraq from "day one" and I posted one. Too bad if you gave a problem with that.


----------



## ninja007 (May 11, 2015)

slowest "recovery" in history even after multiple "stimulus packages'"


----------



## regent (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


If everyone knew they were voting for war why didn't they just declare war? Why did they write a resolution with such words as the "president determines"? Why did Bush allow the Congress to dump the decision into his lap.  If Bush didn't know how to ask for a declaration of war he could have watched how FDR did it after Pearl Harbor. 
The Republicans got caught with their drawers down, and they did it to themselves.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


There was plent of evidence and Blix wasnt allowed to see much of the suspected sites. Thus in no position to


ninja007 said:


> slowest "recovery" in history even after multiple "stimulus packages'"


Probably "because of multiple packages."


----------



## The Rabbi (May 11, 2015)

regent said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


They did.  You have an issue?  Take up with Pelosi.


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

Hardly, but nice try again!



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't disputed the facts posted.
> ...


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 11, 2015)

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## regent (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 I don't think Pelosi is a poster on these boards.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Poor, demented,  forum jester  ...

_"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites."

~ Hans Blix_​


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


But why did you single out Bush when it was such a bipartisan popular idea?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
> You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.
> 
> 
> ...


Another left wing troll.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You'll have to ask the poster who asked for a link to Bush. Again, too bad if you have a problem with that.


----------



## francoHFW (May 11, 2015)

Drilling restrictions my ass- hear about the Gulf Oil spill, dingbat?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


If you were honest you would have pointed out why it would be moot.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I couldn't have been more honest. Someone asked for a link to Bush talking about an excuse to invade Iraq and I produced one. Anything you seek beyond that stems from your own frustration that I delivered.


----------



## francoHFW (May 11, 2015)

OP- Totally dishonest bs, for hater dupes only...How 'bout the president presented with the worst economy ever, and who has the longest period of growth ever, despite total, mindless Pub obstruction...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So you admit it's an attempt to by you to blame Bush for something most others including Clinton favored. Hypocrisy.


----------



## asterism (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Fair point.  So if employment is a lagging indicator that means the by your own measure economic conditions had already bottomed out before Obama took the reins correct?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I admit posting a link to Bush after someone asked for a link to Bush. Nothing hypocritical about that at all except in the mind of demented rightwing nuts.


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


 
What Obama actually said

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length,


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

asterism said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yup.
When Obozo proposed the stimulus we were told if we enacted it UE would not go above 8%.  We enacted it and it went above 10%.
That is a total failure of policy.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So you're saying Obama voted "Present" on the war. Got it.


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



OK, big guy, I know the kool-aid gives you a big buzz, but try to follow the discussion.  I know you have no long term memory, can't follow the flow of a discussion and believe you can freely move the goal posts, but this isn't relevant to the discussion.

You said W ignored the people who said Hussein wasn't a threat.

I said there were none.

You are responding with Democrats who voted against the war and Obama who said we should not invade.  That doesn't address the point because Obama said Hussein was a threat, the point being discussed, and the Democrats who voted against invading said he was a threat.

You are the slow kid who likes to keep running in front of the pack and try to keep us behind you


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No one said Hussein wasn't a threat?? Put the crack pipe down...


_"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice_


_"We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell_


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq.  Which is what the discussion is about.  That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Youre'wasting your breath here.  Nitwitter's idea of reality is whatever he thinks it is.  If he thinks Bush was duped into lying about the war so Cheney could make millions on no bid contracts with Halliiburton, then that's reality for him.  If he thinks Bush lied to everyone in the universe because he wanted war to avenge Saddam's plot against GHW Bush then that's reality for him.  If he think neo-cons plotted to dupe Bush and Cheney into lying about intelligence to go to war so they could prove their manliness then that's reality to him.
The scary part is that he believes all three of those things at the same time.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I agree, but there are other people reading it


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it.  Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.


----------



## edthecynic (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Bush was not president in 2000.

Employed
137,778,000 Jan 2001
142,152,000 Jan 2009
Increase 4,374,000

Unemployed
6,023,000 Jan 2001
12,058,000 Jan 2009
Increase 6,035,000

Net job loss 1,661,000


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


 
Sounds like he is asking Bush...Are you fucking crazy?

Helped get Obama elected President. When it came to Iraq, it seems Obama was once again the only adult in the room


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You realize all you just said was you are an unquestioning sycophant, no?


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
Actually, that study was released six months ahead of the actual stimulus. By the time stimulus passed unemployment was already above 8%


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.


----------



## kaz (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat.  You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning?  Or does the nurse need to help you?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.


----------



## Agit8r (May 12, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Still has a year and 8 months to catch Reagan


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)




----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now  5.4%

Advantage Obama


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


Will Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent PolitiFact
The administration either lied about their program or they were grossly incompetent.  That seems to be the main question about Obama and the Democrats in virtually every policy, program and position: Did they lie or are they grossly incompetent?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Reagan:
> 
> Start: 7.6%
> High: 10.8%
> ...


You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument.  I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan:
> ...


 
Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 12, 2015)

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up  your statement.
ad hominem



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh.  The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office.  Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce.  Except this time.  Because there are no jobs.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2015)

*  7-Year High  *
*  Record Revenue Boosts U.S. April Budget Surplus  *


----------



## rightwinger (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


 
As expected

Nobody but conservatives butthurt over Obamas dropping unemployment numbers considers workforce participation to be anything other than an indicator of our changing demographics


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You area defeated troll. No more discussion for you.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 12, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up  your statement.
> ad hominem
> 
> 
> ...


I already presented the facts. You choose to deny out of a rigidly close-minded, conservative left wing ideology. Your problem.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 12, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Oops. that's a lie.
Reasons To Still Worry About Labor Force Participation - Forbes


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 12, 2015)

No facts! Only opinion.
Jump into the clown car!




RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up  your statement.
> ...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 12, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> No facts! Only opinion.
> Jump into the clown car!
> 
> 
> ...


The facts were even listed in your previous post. You are a defeated troll. No more discussion for you.


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



My mistake.  Bush was elected in Nov 2000 and took office in Jan 2001.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 12, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...


a pygmy shrew has a great attention span.....for a shrew....


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 12, 2015)

You say that every time you cannot prove facts wrong.
Loser!



RoshawnMarkwees said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> > No facts! Only opinion.
> ...


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


*
"Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president?" *
*
I erred in starting Bush's Adminstration by using Jan, 2000 instead of 2001.  I missed it by 1 year and you missed it by 7 years.*


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
*  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | **Source*

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
*  - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | **Source*

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
*  - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | **Source*


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


No jobs? We're within the range of full employment. Exactly how fucked in the head are you?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


I did not miss anything, you moron. I counted all 8 years of Bush's presidency. Not only are you not bright enough to notice that, but you thought my figures were wrong because you attributed 9 years of employment growth to Bush when he was president for only 8 years. Unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


As if you were ever part of it to begin with.  Again, your frustration over me being able to provide the link another poster asked for has been noted. That will never change no matter how much you bitch & moan.


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I posted:

36,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008

That sure looks like 8 years to me.


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



 The intel in 2002 and 2003 was what they and Bush was what they based their statements on.  Do you even know what year we invaded Iraq?


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.


----------



## TooTall (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.


Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No wonder Bush didn't create very many jobs.  He averaged 5.7% UE for 8 years.  That was within the range of full employment according to you.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


That looks like 8 years to you because you're a fucking retard. 

Jan/2000 through Dec/2008 is 107 months. 107 months is 1 month shy of 9 years.

Why are rightards so inept when it comes to numbers??


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You mean the same intel that was determined to be almost completely flawed? That intel? Well fortunately, when Powell and Rice declared Iraq was not a threat, it wasn't with that flawed intel.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Really? Hillary said, _"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."_

Show where Hussein worked to rebuild his WMD during those 4 years.......


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


WTF is wrong with you? I never said 5.7% was within range of full employment. Why would I? It's not. And the reason employment averaged 5.7% during his presidency was because he inherited a low rate of 4.2% and the job market benefitted from the real estate bubble.

There is no president in BLS stats with a worse record in terms of job growth than Duhbya. The closest second is the other Bush.


----------



## edthecynic (May 12, 2015)

TooTall said:


> I posted:
> 
> 36,559,000 Jan 2000
> 143,369,000 Dec 2008
> ...


It looks like 8 years 11 months to anyone who can tell time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > The intel in 2002 and 2003 was what they and Bush was what they based their statements on.  Do you even know what year we invaded Iraq?
> ...


Prior to 9/11 and Cheney's fabrications, the intel was completely different.

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > I posted:
> ...


He gets the dates wrong ... he gets the president wrong ... he thinks 107 months is 8 years ... he thinks I didn't post all of Bush's 8 years ....

... but he thinks he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## francoHFW (May 13, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...
> ...


 





its heat beats 3600/minute. I don't think so....


----------



## AntiParty (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


----------



## AntiParty (May 13, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



Don't take my word for it.


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


>


 
Based on these data points and a current unemployment rate of 5.4%, Obama currently has an average rate of 7.25% which is better than Reagans 7.54%


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Increasing the number employed from 143 million in December 2008 to 148 million in April 2015, is a small increase, not on track with population growth or historical trends.


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And if the labor force participation rate was the same today as when Obama took office the actual UE rate would be over 10%.  *Most of the reduction was people giving up looking for work.*
> ...



It does not matter why the labor force participation rate has dropped, because the fact remains that the current economy is not strong enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or higher as it did for most of Bush's time in office and have unemployment rates below 6% at the same time.


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> I think Obama has now passed  Reagan, or is very close to it.
> 
> I saw that coming too.  Hilarious.



Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.09%
*
Obama is still in last past and although it appears he will past Ford unless the unemployment rate goes up, its far from certain that he will pass Reagan and he will NEVER be able to beat BUSH!


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



The live in the economy managed by Obama not Bush. Its 2015, not 2008!


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Yes it does matter

Baby Boomers are retiring at a rate of 4 million a year and that will force Labor Participation downward regardless of other economic gains


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> The free fall began under W.  It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around.  Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering.  They are failing.  Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.
> 
> Or we can elect someone from the clown car and welcome back big deficits with military spending through the roof, as we invade the wrong country again.



Unless your are a SADDAM LOVER OR TALIBAN LOVER, the United States invaded the right countries and removed the right regimes under Bush. The United States had essentially been at war with Iraq since 1991 and had been bombing Saddam's Iraq EVER YEAR from 1991 through 2003. The ground invasion in early 2003 was simply a further extension and resolution of the hostilities taking place since 1991.


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > The free fall began under W.  It took years for the Obama administration to finally turn things around.  Even with the GOP congress fighting ever step of the way, the economy is making a recovery. The GOP has done everything it could to keep the economy from recovering.  They are failing.  Maybe President Hillary Clinton will complete the process.
> ...


 
The biggest foreign policy blunder in 50 years.

Abandoning the war on terror to pursue a personal vendetta in Iraq was idiocy. Iraq was no threat outside its borders, had been contained for ten years and the US had higher priorities at the time


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That's right, but if economic growth were strong enough, you could have a labor force participation rate of 66% with below 6% unemployment. The economy under Obama is not strong enough to produce such figures. IF there was not a babyboom retirement and the labor force participation rate was still at 66% rather than 62%, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10%. Being saved by retires does not prove your economic performance is steller for the workforce. People have opportunity to find work because so many are retiring, not because Obama's economy has created super strong demand for more labor.


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > I think Obama has now passed  Reagan, or is very close to it.
> ...


 
Obama is already at 7.25% and still has another 18 months to drop it lower

Considering where he started, it is miraculous


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 
The numbers are not there

4 million baby boomers retiring each year equates to 330,000 a month. Even if the Obama economy can average 300,000 jobs a month, which is very good, the labor participation rate will continue to drop

As it has been for the last 17 years


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



The United States was already fighting Iraq at the time. US warplanes were dropping bombs on Iraq every year, and the United States had already broken off Kurdistan from Iraq and was trying to protect. The Sanctions and Weapons embargo put in place on Saddam were falling apart. Syria, Turkey, Russia, France, China, and Jordan were all violating sanctions. Saddam was selling several billion dollars of oil every year on the black market. It was only a matter of time before Saddam would rearm his conventional forces and rebuild his WMD capabilities. The time to remove SADDAM was then when he was weak. It was already the set policy of the United States to officially seek regime change. The ground invasion by Bush just speeded things up and was done at the right time before Saddam could rearm. Persian Gulf Energy supply and its security, protecting it, is the lifeblood of the global economy and the grand strategy of things, more vital to US Security than fighting Al Quada. Both are important and one does not have the luxury of fighting one at a time.

Its like saying we should have finished off Japan before we took on Germany. Its absurd!


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Wrong! His average for the first 76 months in office is 8.09%. Even by the end of this year and current rates, he will still be behind Gerald Ford!


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I know that, what I am saying is that hypothetically, if that were not the case, the current Obama economy would still be unable to support a labor force participation rate of 66% with unemployment at below 6%. Understand?


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 
lets see your link


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You could be right, the Democrats probably just lied about that


----------



## TooTall (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why don't you ask Hillary Clinton since she is the one who made the statement?  That is why her statement is in quotation marks.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



7.25% after almost 6 1/2 years is "miraculous?"  Your incredible standards for Republicans just disappear with Democrats...


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

AntiParty said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...



Where did he say anything relevant to that in the video?   He was talking in general about dealing with economic crises, he didn't say that about his particular administration


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

S


U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So? He also inherited the highest unemployment rate of any president along with an economy in recession. And as has been pointed out, averaging out the unemployment rate is quite useless.


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its 8.09% at 6.5 years NOT 7.25%. You have to add up all 76 months of unemployment figures and divide by 76 and that gives you the average of 8.09%.


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> S
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> ...



Its the only accurate way to asses how things went of the course of 96 months. Your GPA is an average because its the most accurate way to assess how you did as far as your grades in school. Understand?


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Go to the Bureau of labor Statistics. Look up the monthly unemployment rate. Add up all of Obama's monthly unemployment rates, 76 at the current time, and you divide by 76 to get the average.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> People have opportunity to find work because so many are retiring, not because Obama's economy has created super strong demand for more labor.


So most of the jobs vacated by the retirees have been filled plus another 6+ million new jobs over and above the vacated Boomer jobs since Obama took office in Jan 2009, and you say that is a bad thing because the worthless LPR is lower. Without Boomers retiring Bush lost over a million more jobs than he gained, and you say that was good because the worthless LPR was higher!!!!


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So? At this point, Reagan was at 8.03%, just 7/100ths better than Obama. Only Reagan started with a rate 3/10ths lower than Obama and no recession. And Reagan is a god to righties.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> S
> 
> 
> U2Edge said:
> ...



Actually, Sparky, Reagan and W inhereted economies going into recession and W got one that was just coming out of one.  Any excuse for the messiah, ay?


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



You think Reagan started with a good economy?


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Why would I ask her? You're here and she's not. You're the one who said she was correct. So either you can prove it or you are full of shit.  So far, you're running away from proving it as fast as your walker will allow.


----------



## The Rabbi (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


That doesnt consider Reagan's inflation problem he was handed, the legacy of failed Dem policies.  But libs think in one dimension only.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, and that one dimension constantly shifts to whatever is most expedient for them


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > S
> ...



Reagan's economy went into recession in July of 1981.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Its the only accurate way to asses how things went of the course of 96 months. Your GPA is an average because its the most accurate way to assess how you did as far as your grades in school. Understand?


Actually, colleges and graduate schools value where you started and where you ended over the average, putting finishing with a higher GPA on top and finishing with a lower GPA at the bottom. Bush started at around 4% UE and nearly doubled it. Obama started at nearly 8% UE and may well halve it by the time he leavers.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Bullshit. You're factoring in the negative  impact from a massive recession and then concluding that over the last 6.5 years, the increase doesn't keep up with historical trends. The reality is over the last 5 years, it has. Once we got past the recession plus the lag time which follows, employment growth has been back on track. In fact, we're currently into the 62 consecutive month of the longest streak of job growth in the private sector recorded in U.S. history.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Reagan is responsible for a recession that started 5 months into his Presidency, Obama isn't responsible for the economy six and a half years into his Presidency.  Your usual brain dead perspective.

Here's a chance to redeem yourself.  So what was Reagan's policy that caused the economy to stop as soon as he entered office?


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Its the only accurate way to asses how things went of the course of 96 months. Your GPA is an average because its the most accurate way to assess how you did as far as your grades in school. Understand?
> ...



Obama started in a recession and unemployment went down over 6 1/2 years. oooooohhhhhhhhhh impressive.  Not


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



And yet that long streak has created way fewer actual jobs than previous recoveries because the recovery has been so endlessly soft.  If you think our economy is as good now as before the recession then you are at most 14 years old


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > S
> ...


And if you flunk your senior year, you don't graduate. Yet other students with lower GPA's do. One look no further than Bush and Carter having lower UE averages than Reagan to know how stupid it is to average them. Averaging them hides the fact that Reagan lowered the UE rate on his watch while Bush nearly doubled it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



This economy has been out of recession for almost 6 years.  If you want to blame Obama for that, I see no reason to stand in your way.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


What a great example of just how brain-dead you are. I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t) -- and your deformed brain translated that into it meaning the economy was good.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



And where is Obama magically supposed to find jobs?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are lower than they were under Reagan.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Barely out.  Obama like W has pursued endless tax and spend and regulate strategies that continue to weigh down growth.

Now what about answering the question?  Since you blame Reagan for a recession that started 5 months into his Presidency "So what was Reagan's policy that caused the economy to stop as soon as he entered office?"


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are only counting income taxes, taxes are choking businesses across the board.  And job killing regulations even moreso


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Why would anyone compare the economy now with an economy artificially inflated by the real estate bubble??


----------



## The Rabbi (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


And yet almost every measure of wealth and income is about what it was 6 years ago.  Except amogn the high income earners.  How do you explain this?


----------



## The Rabbi (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Taxes are higher than under Reagan. Can you not look at two numbers and figure out which is more, dum-dum?


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


It was Fed policy of keeping interest rates excessively high to combat inflation.


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right 20% interest rates and inflation and we went into a recession 5 months into it.  As you keep arguing with Obama, the President doesn't even do the first year budget.  How exactly did Reagan accomplish that.

This is why I criticism leftists more than Republicans, your hypocrisies are just to ridiculously hysterical


----------



## kaz (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And that made it "Reagan's economy?"  It was under Carter's budget, the Fed kept rates high, but Reagan owned it?

Tell me again how Obama had no control over the economy the first year, it was W's budget.

What a lying douche sack of shit you are


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Funny how rightwingers thought it was a miracle when Reagan did that. Only to Obama's credit, he started with a higher UE rate than Reagan, in a recession, and still has the UE rate about a full point lower than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You're fucking insane. I said nothing hypocritical.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Reagan's economy went into recession in July of 1981.


Right after his tax cuts started! And The Reagan Recession ended Dec 1982, right after St Ronnie started raising taxes.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You're becoming too fucking unhinged to converse with. I said none of that about Reagan other than the Fed kept interest rates excessively high. The rest stems from your demented imagination.


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No President since FDR has been given a gloomier employment figure
Obama has it down to 5.3%

What made it miraculous was Obama did it with Republicans insisting on austerity and reducing government employment at all levels


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


That's right, Big Government Reagan brought UE down by growing the government while preaching smaller government.
Go figure!


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The "Reagan miracle" was a result of massively increased defense spending and borrowing


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Sheesh .. on one hand Democrats blame Bush exclusively for the economic downturn


NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Why do Democrats like to forget that the economic downturn started right after Pelosi and Reid took over Congress the last 2 years of Bush's Presidency?


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Sheesh .. on one hand Democrats blame Bush exclusively for the economic downturn
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Because anyone with a functioning brain knows that the 110th Congress did not cause the economic collapse. How could they have? It was caused by toxic loans written years earlier.


----------



## francoHFW (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Sheesh .. on one hand Democrats blame Bush exclusively for the economic downturn
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 And were blocked from doing ANYTHING by GOP filibusters and vetoes duh...


----------



## The Rabbi (May 13, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Obama borrowed about 10 times as much and has about 1/10th to show for it.
You're wrong, as usual.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh .. on one hand Democrats blame Bush exclusively for the economic downturn
> ...


Pelosi and Reid refused to legislate a solution to the impeding disaster, in fact, they felt their was no impending disaster. Wake up Dummy..


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh .. on one hand Democrats blame Bush exclusively for the economic downturn
> ...


Great excuse but not based on reality as usual...


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


The damage was already done. There were already trillions of dollars in toxic loans given out. By 2007, foreclosures were already rising at alarming rates. And Pelosi passed a bill in the House in 2007, so why do you lie saying she did nothing?


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You don't know what nominal figures mean, do ya?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Okay, they did something that failed miserably, happy now?


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


It's not that it failed, it's that it came after the damage was done. That legislation needed to be passed years earlier.

Dodge a bullet and you survive. Get fatally shot and a bandaid is not going to save your life.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It started in the Clinton years no doubt when legislation was passed that promoted home ownership by people that couldn't afford it. The inevitable was set in those years.


----------



## rightwinger (May 13, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



He did?

Borrowed for what?  Which Obama program?


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It started in the Clinton years no doubt when *legislation was passed that promoted home ownership by people that couldn't afford it. *The inevitable was set in those years.


Sorry, but that was Bush! Under Clinton buyers had to be qualified for the loan with good credit. It was Bush who started making no down payment loans to buyers with bad credit.


----------



## francoHFW (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


 Great planet you're on, hater dupe. Idiot.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


God loves even You...frankee


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It started in the Clinton years no doubt when *legislation was passed that promoted home ownership by people that couldn't afford it. *The inevitable was set in those years.
> ...





edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It started in the Clinton years no doubt when *legislation was passed that promoted home ownership by people that couldn't afford it. *The inevitable was set in those years.
> ...


You might start here..but, I doubt you will.

Clinton s Legacy The Financial and Housing Meltdown - Reason.com


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It started in the Clinton years no doubt when *legislation was passed that promoted home ownership by people that couldn't afford it. *The inevitable was set in those years.
> ...


You might start here..but, I doubt you will.

Clinton s Legacy The Financial and Housing Meltdown - Reason.com[/QUOTE]
That is hardly a credible source.
Try again.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


You keep changing your story. Obviously you have to keep tailoring it as the pure idiocy of keeps getting exposed. The problem started while Bush was president when subprime loans exploded...


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


 Wait, what?? You said it was the fault of Pelosi and Reid in 2007. Now you're saying it was the fault of Clinton from 1997?

Whassamatter, rightie? Having trouble finding a Democrat to pin it on?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


That is hardly a credible source.
Try again.[/QUOTE]
..and just waste my time, I don't think so...


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You related that the problem started earlier, I was just helping you out .. sheesh.

btw. quit picking your warts and relax, it's beyond our control..

If it was up to me government would be out of the loan business in the first place. We could just blame the Party that put government into the loan business and leave it at that.


----------



## Faun (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


So you think it's my fault you can't keep your story straight? Maybe you should learn to tell the truth. Then you won't have to keep shifting like you are.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not at all, you seem more concerned with winning than conversation.

I'm bored by the way. Can you try to say something interesting?


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Maybe in high school but not in college. In college all that matters is that you have a high enough GPA with enough credits. Again, averages take in all the data and give a true overall grade of ones performance. The average man on the street had an easier time finding employment while Carter sat in the oval office than he did while Reagan was there.

Again, you can't take the last few months of an administration and use that in place of the previous 90 months of data. That 90 months counts and will only get reflected and properly credited when you average the data. Part of you agrees with this otherwise you would have stop participating in this thread long ago.


----------



## U2Edge (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Its the only accurate way to asses how things went of the course of 96 months. Your GPA is an average because its the most accurate way to assess how you did as far as your grades in school. Understand?
> ...



The only reason Obama might half it is because the babyboom generation is leaving the workforce. The economy is not performing well enough to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at below 6% unemployment. Finally, GPA is still calculated by averaging ones grades because its the only way to take a look at everything. Having one steller semester or one last poor semester is not going to radically change the result of the prior 7 or so semesters in school. Employers primarily look at the GPA, not individual grades and in what semester you got those grades.

So the average for the Presidents is important and reported here. Its a fact, and obviously many in politics don't like facts that make the people they support look weak relative to others. But these are simply the facts.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

Lumpy 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


..and just waste my time, I don't think so...

[/QUOTE]
You wasted your time on that worthless source, why is your time now so suddenly valuable?

The fact remains that Bush and the GOP lowered the standards to try to steal minority voters away from the Dems in the upcoming 2004 election because they had convinced themselves all you have to do to get minority votes is give them free stuff, and what could be better than a house with no money down that you can't afford.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

*In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.*

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

*Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market*, but, in general, *they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.*


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You wasted your time on that worthless source, why is your time now so suddenly valuable?

The fact remains that Bush and the GOP lowered the standards to try to steal minority voters away from the Dems in the upcoming 2004 election because they had convinced themselves all you have to do to get minority votes is give them free stuff, and what could be better than a house with no money down that you can't afford.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

*In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.*

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

*Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market*, but, in general, *they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.*[/QUOTE]
Dinner is on the plate and this subject leads to nowhere land.

There's plenty of blame to go around, it's not exclusive to Bush and when the dust settles the government doesn't belong in the loan business. The government is far to easily corrupted.


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you can make an argument to "compare the economy now with an economy artificially inflated by the real estate bubble" and if I respond to it you ask me why I would "the economy now with an economy artificially inflated by the real estate bubble."  

Yeah.

BTW, the 90s was the Internet and productivity boom, the 60s was the Vietnam war economy, the 70s was the oil bubble. There are always factors in comparisons.  Doesn't stop you though, does it?  Well, unless you want it to...


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're fucking insane. I said nothing hypocritical.



Obama is not responsible for the first year of his Presidency, W's budget

Reagan is responsible for a recession that started 5 months into his Presidency

You are a flaming hypocrite, own it.


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Sorry, all I heard was gurgling kool-aid, can you say that again?


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Right, when Tip promised $3 tax cuts for every $1 in tax increases and reneged, that was Reagan spending money.

Up is down, night is day, you're a cynic.  Actually you're a lemur


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Did you know that tax revenues doubled from the start of Reagan's presidency to the end?  Facts are not a leftist's friend, are they, big guy?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > That's right, Big Government Reagan brought UE down by growing the government while preaching smaller government.
> ...


Exactly, it was St Ronnie the big spender who rejected the deal you mention because the bipartisan spending cuts agreed to in Congress were from Reagan's Star Wars pork barrel boondoggle!


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Did you know that is a Limbaugh lie!. Tax revenues DROPPED the first 2 years of Reagan's tax cuts and only went up after Reagan's largest peacetime tax increase in history.
Facts do not exist in the Right's fantasyland.


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You made that up, and you're wrong.   The deal was for domestic spending cuts.


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hey bitch.  I'm a libertarian, if what you want it to argue with Republicans, they are all over the board  I'm not interested in arguing for them.  If you do want to debate a libertarian I'm here though.  Since all you have are memorized Democratic talking points, that probably isn't going to work though, is it?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


History News Network Rosy Scenarios and Red Realities Ronald Reagan George W. Bush and the Deficit

Reagan continued to rail against deficits while doing everything he could to protect his tax and defense programs that were their primary cause. *In 1985 he adroitly outmaneuvered GOP Senate leader Bob Dole’s efforts to cut a deficit-reduction deal with House Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill that included tax increases and defense cuts in return for entitlement economies.*

Reconcilable Differences d0e4234 

*Dole accused Reagan of "surrendering to the deficit."* "If the President can't support us, he ought to keep his mouth shut,"


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Tax cuts reduce deficits, particularly as a percent of GDP.

His defense spending blew the tires off the Soviet economy.  

All that while, Tip was tipping the scales on domestic spending.

The deficit was far more Tip than Reagan


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Tax cuts reduce revenue which increases deficits.

St Ronnie's defense pork spending turned this country from a creditor nation to a debtor nation that we have not recovered from to this day.

Domestic spending did not even keep up with inflation.

Reagan owns the GOP national debt and the interest on the debt.


----------



## kaz (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Tax cuts reduce revenue which increases deficits



1) Tax cuts reduce the drain on the economy and stimulate growth which increases taxes
2) That growth reduces the debt in the most important aspect, as a percent of GDP

When you can explain how you know more than the field of economics, get back to me



edthecynic said:


> St Ronnie's defense pork spending turned this country from a creditor nation to a debtor nation that we have not recovered from to this day.



You are an idiot.  When you want to deal with reality, get back to me



edthecynic said:


> Domestic spending did not even keep up with inflation.



You're delusional



edthecynic said:


> Reagan owns the GOP national debt and the interest on the debt.



But Obama doesn't, does he liar?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Tax cuts reduce revenue which increases deficits
> ...


When you can explain why revenue went down for the first 2 years after Reagan's massive tax cuts and revenue went up after Reagan's massive tax increase you can speak for the "field of economics."


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 14, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



And that's even with cooking the books....

I heard Obama was doing an interview with an economics magazine in which he bragged how the economy was better by nearly every metric. Pretty sure the journalist didn't call him out. Everyone knows that Obama couldn't begin to explain economics.....


----------



## XploreR (May 15, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


What you're forgetting or selectively ignoring is the fact that during the last year of GW Bush's administration, the economic bubble burst and the country entered the worst recession since the Great Depression. GW Bush escaped the worst of it since he was on his way out of the White House just as it really began to have an impact. Obama, who had nothing to do with its cause, inherited it full blast upon his inauguration, and has been forced to spend most of his energy through much of his time in office trying to deal with that disaster while a totally non-cooperative, dis-functional and rabidly hostile Congress fought him at every turn. Considering the environment he had to contend with, Obama has achieved remarkable results, and deserves credit. Last figures I saw reported in the media, unemployment was down to the lowest levels it's been for many years, and Obama's policies and efforts are greatly responsible for that.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Complete nonsense. It's nonsense that to say overall GPA keeps you in college even with failing grades towards the end. It's nonsense to suggest I agree with any part of your nonsense. And it's nonsense to think I would have stopped participating in this discussion if I disagree with you.

Again, your logic makes Carter look better than Reagan. Your logic makes Bush look better than Reagan. That makes sense to you? Your logic hides the fact that Bush has the worst employment growth record  in the history of BLS statistics. Your logic hides the fact that he's the only president in BLS stats dating back to the 1930's to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started. Your logic hides the fact that Reagan created jobs and lowered the unemployment rate while Bush created almost no jobs and nearly doubled the unemployment rate. That makes sense to you?


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucking insane. I said nothing hypocritical.
> ...


You remain a liar and a moron ... I didn't say that about Reagan.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Flunk your final semester and you won't graduate.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Not by fiscal budgets in real revenue, he didn't. In fact, even Obama is doing better in that department than Reagan...

Clinton ..... 49%
Obama ..... 33%
Reagan .... 25%
Carter ....... 22%
Bush41 ....... 4%
Bush43 .... -12%

Notice how the Bush's almost always bring up the rear on the economy? And the idiot right is running a third Bush now.  Such fuckin' idiots.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Who cares what party you belong to? You're still a brain-dead rightie who couldn't tell the truth even when it slaps you in the face.


----------



## kaz (May 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You are doing two things wrong:

1) You are looking at too short a time period

2)  You are assuming only one thing is happening in the economy at one time

Tax cuts do in the first year reduce tax receipts, but every year the economic growth stimulating the economy has a bigger and bigger effect.

Would you rather I give you:  $1,000

or

1 penny, then double the amount every day for a 30 day month?

Tax cuts work like the penny.  They compound year after year.  Which BTW you would have if you took the penny deal, you would have $5.4 million


----------



## kaz (May 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You realize this site has a search function, no?



Faun said:


> What a great example of just how brain-dead you are. I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t) -- and your deformed brain translated that into it meaning the economy was good.



Sucks to be you, once again the liar reveals himself.  Hello, liar


----------



## kaz (May 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Since you didn't source your data, I'll have to ask you.  How are you converting nominal dollars into "real" dollars?


----------



## kaz (May 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Who cares what party you belong to? You're still a brain-dead rightie who couldn't tell the truth even when it slaps you in the face.



Maybe you can do what your friends can't.  Give me some examples of positions I have which are "right" and are not "libertarian."  So far I've gotten background music to that


----------



## The Rabbi (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I have people like that on Ignore for a reason.


----------



## TooTall (May 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Since the Democrats controlled the House from 1933 until 1997 for all but 4 years and from 1957 until 1997 for 40 straight years and also controlled the Senate for 57 of the same 67 years it is no wonder Reagan didn't get a lot done for the economy.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


How can you be so fucking retarded? Nowhere in that post did I blame Reagan for the recession. What I did do was to point out that, unlike Obama, Reagan did not inherit one. Which is fact. Even worse for your delusions, in another post, I even blamed the Fed, not Reagan, for the recession.

You remain ridiculously insane.


----------



## Faun (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Moron... my post contained a link to my source. You really are a fucking retard.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So according to you, the President is not responsible for the economy until the second year of their Presidency, but they are "handed" the economy the day they enter office.  And you call me "fucking retarded."  LOL.  You may want to invest in a mirror. Small expenditure, great insight into yourself...

Here are the quotes, Scooter.  You may then proceed to not grasp them again:



			
				Faun said:
			
		

> Nowhere in that post did I blame Reagan for the recession





			
				Faun said:
			
		

> Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You're a complete whack job. You really are. Was the economy in recession when Reagan took over? No, of course not. So me pointing that out is being factually accurate. I understand that to a pathological liar like you, truth and facts are unrecognizable. Still, pointing out there was no recession when Reagan became president does not translate into me blaming Reagan for the Recession.

And here's where you demonstrate abject insanity ... *I told you who I blamed for the recession and why, and it was Paul Volker, not Ronald Reagan. * 

_"It was Fed policy of keeping interest rates excessively high to combat inflation." - Faun, #1487 _​
My favorite thing about you is how you never tire of being owned.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You couldn't own a puppy.

You're the liar, Sparky.  When Presidents own the economy according to you changes by a year depending on expediency.  Reagan owned the economy day one, it went into recession five months after he took office.  W owned the economy day one, it went into recession two months after he took office.  Obama didn't own the economy at all for a year.  Six and a half years later he still only partially owns it, he gets credit for anything good.  Anything bad still belongs to W.

And you spike the ball and claim that as a rhetorical victory and declare you own me?  You're just showing your ignorance, stupidity and inability to discern truth from Democrat propaganda


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


This is yet more evidence of just how fucked in the head you are. You actually think you're capable of switching the argument after making complete ass of yourself.  

Let me remind of the idiocy you spouted ... *after* I said *I blamed the Fed for the recession* by keeping interest rates excessively high to combat excessively high inflation, *you moronically thought I blamed Reagan for the recession. *

After getting caught exhibiting such abject idiocy, you _think _ you can switch it from falsely ascribing to me, blame upon Reagan for the recession -- to owning the economy from day one. You don't get to make that switch. You fucked up when you accused me of blaming Reagan for the recession when in fact, I never did. You own that nonsense. Man up and own it or I'll keep rubbing your face in it.

And yes, I own you repeatedly in debate. The record is here. Doesn't matter that you're dumb enough to think your recognition is required.


----------



## kaz (May 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Let me remind of the idiocy you spouted ... *after* I said *I blamed the Fed for the recession* by keeping interest rates excessively high to combat excessively high inflation, *you moronically thought I blamed Reagan for the recession*



This is how mind numbingly stupid you are.  You aren't even arguing the right point.  You said Reagan didn't inherit a recession, then emphasized it with "he just didn't."  When I pointed out the double standard you say Obama's not responsible for the first year economy, W's budget, you keep arguing who is responsible for the Reagan inherited, which you said he didn't inherit, but it was Volker not the Democrat Carter.  Your fixation with arguing that it wasn't the Democrats blinds you to what the point even question even is.

You're an idiot who knows noting about Federal budgets or the economy, but I wasn't even nailing for that.  I was pointing out you can't even keep your own story straight, and you keep proving me right.

So who's responsible for the recession handed Reagan that Reagan didn't get again?



You're always good for a laugh ... laugh at


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Let me remind of the idiocy you spouted ... *after* I said *I blamed the Fed for the recession* by keeping interest rates excessively high to combat excessively high inflation, *you moronically thought I blamed Reagan for the recession*
> ...


I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't. You moronically thought that meant I said he inherited a good economy.

I said Volker's policies caused the recession. You moronically that I meant Reagan caused the recession.

You moronically thought that because you are a moron. There truly is no other explanation.

[edit] btw, I find it quite amusing when the imbecile who posted *nominal figures* when discussing revenue under Reagan projects that it's me who's the economic illiterate.


----------



## kaz (May 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't. You moronically thought that meant I said he inherited a good economy.
> 
> I said Volker's policies caused the recession. You moronically that I meant Reagan caused the recession.
> 
> You moronically thought that because you are a moron. There truly is no other explanation.



Volker caused the recession that Reagan got that he didn't get.  Thanks for clarifying, I understand now...


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't. You moronically thought that meant I said he inherited a good economy.
> ...


My posts have been nothing but clear all along. If you struggle to keep up with them, that's due to your own G-d given limitations.


----------



## kaz (May 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Clear threads addressing the wrong issue.  Your point has been to deflect from the Democrat.  So you blame Volker and Reagan simultaneously hoping enough sticks to get Carter off the hook


----------



## The Rabbi (May 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So you are agreeing that reagan's handling of the economy makes Obama's handling of the economy look like rape?


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Your dementia worsens. 

When are you gonna own up to your bullshit and admit you were just wrong when you idiotically claimed I blamed Reagan for the recession after I blamed Volker?


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2015)

Hey, folks ... wanna see something funny?

Here is the  forum jester  reading my posts ...



The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



... after the  forum jester  said he has me on ignore ...



The Rabbi said:


> I have people like that on Ignore for a reason.



... he's too stupid to know that it's obvious he's lying when he posts to people he claims to have on ignore; and even dumber to think anyone is fooled when he pretends to have taken posters off of ignore to read their posts.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 16, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



The monthly unemployment rate for June 2014 was 5.3%. This is Obama's 78th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.09% in April 2014 at 76 months to the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 8.02%
*
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 8.02%

625.9/78 = 8.0243 = 8.02%
*
There are 18 months left in Obama's Presidency.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> ...



The question you might want to ask yourself is how bad would Barack Obama's unemployment numbers be if it weren't for all those jobs created in the fossil fuels industry with fracking?  That part of the boost to the economy came DESPITE a White House that was openly hostile to fossil fuels.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


they were,oh really? is that why they have got away  for  crimes for decades now that we go to jail for,thats sure being held accountable.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 16, 2015)

5.3 % and dropping

Isn't this the point conservatives start whining about U6 and labor participation rate ?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> 5.3 % and dropping
> 
> Isn't this the point conservatives start whining about U6 and labor


I don't see how that number is possible with a contracted economy. Unless you don't factor in the substantial number left out of the work force.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 16, 2015)

Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point 

Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> ...



Actual unemployment is now a well sustained +40%


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...



*ROFLMNAO*!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


40%. ?

Don't you mean 90%. ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> 5.3 % and dropping
> 
> Isn't this the point conservatives start whining about U6 and labor participation rate ?


ROFLMNAO!!!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 5.3 % and dropping
> ...


5.3% and dropping

Unemployment rate has dropped 5% under Obama.


----------



## Clementine (Jul 16, 2015)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Yet, they praise Obama if one person finds a job.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 16, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2014 was 5.4%. This is Obama's 76th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.24% in December 2014 at 72 months to the average 8.09% in April 2015 at 76 months.
> ...



And consider this:
NOT ONE major event like the following that occurred during George W Bush and Bush still had the 6th lowest had occurred in the above list.
How about these events...was there ANY AFFECT on the economy?
Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!

Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses? 
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!  $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100  JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???  
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!  
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product  in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was    $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office  in  2008 GDP was    $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION. 
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001  132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008  138,056,000 people working..

IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected.  GDP grew!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



"Actual unemployment"  That's the number RWnuts use until a Republican is elected president.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 16, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I don't anyone who wants to return to 2008, do you?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Actual unemployment was 45% when he took office.


----------



## regent (Jul 16, 2015)

Should  presidents be given the power, in fact, to direct America's economy,  if so, then we could hold presidents responsible realistically for our economic well-being?


----------



## asaratis (Jul 16, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Rubbish!  


However, many of us have come to expect that from you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...



The only "crime" they have committed is producing and consuming fossil fuels.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

regent said:


> Should  presidents be given the power, in fact, to direct America's economy,  if so, then we could hold presidents responsible realistically for our economic well-being?



Obama apparently has the power to shut down over 200 coal fired power plants.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> 
> Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?



Reagan's GDP growth numbers were in the stratosphere compared to Obama's


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 16, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



And yet when he left office things had just gone really, REALLY bad. The 2nd worst recession in US history. Unemployment, and major problems. But hey, Bush wasn't president on the 31st January 2009 so it's all Obama's fault that the recession was in place on that day, right?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It was the second worse only because Obama and the Dims made it the second worse.  Hoover and FDR turned the panic of 1929 into the worst depression.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2015)

Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!

Government is needed!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> ...




Obama's stock market numbers are higher  The rich didn't invest shit in our country and use slave labor in china. Our problem is the rich don't give a damn about this country...Yet, you small government assholes want to give more of our economy to them.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Should  presidents be given the power, in fact, to direct America's economy,  if so, then we could hold presidents responsible realistically for our economic well-being?
> ...



Coal causes disease, cancer and it cost too much.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> It was the second worse only because Obama and the Dims made it the second worse.  Hoover and FDR turned the panic of 1929 into the worst depression.



You could have written something good, instead you went for total garbage. But hey, you got through a whole post without swearing. Insulting you couldn't not do, but you didn't swear. One Brownie point for you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Wrong on all three claims.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > It was the second worse only because Obama and the Dims made it the second worse.  Hoover and FDR turned the panic of 1929 into the worst depression.
> ...



Liberals are immune to facts and logic, so ridiculing them is the only alternative.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




I've read peer reviewed papers on the illness caused by coal. Why do you believe I am wrong?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




I think a unregulated economy is EXTREMELY dangerous to human freedom. It defeats logic down to its very core.


----------



## Faun (Jul 16, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Oh nooooo's ..... after 77 months in office .......

Ronald Wilson Reagan: 8.0%
Barack Hussein Obama: 8.0%


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Papers bought and paid for by the EPA.  

Can you name one person who has become ill as a result of living near a coal fired power plant?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 16, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You couldn't identify logic if  you tripped over it.  How is government control compatible with freedom?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What facts and logic do you think you are using, exactly?


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> 
> Are conservatives ready to declare Obama their messiah ?



Well at this point, the labor force participation rate was 65.5% with Reagan. With Obama the labor force Participation rate is 62.6%.  If Obama's labor force participation rate was 65.5%, his unemployment rate would be over 9%. So economically speaking, the economy was providing for more jobs for the population as a whole in the summer of 1987 under Reagan than it is under Obama in 2015.

The current labor force participation rate has not been this low since October 1977!


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 17, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!
> 
> Government is needed!



You can do that easily when the labor force participation rate drops so dramatically. It was about 66% when he started and it is now down to 62.6%. If the labor force participation rate was still at 66%, the unemployment rate would be over 10%.

Obama is the only President since World War II where the labor force participation rate has dropped so steeply and heavily over a 6.5 year period. By the time Obama leaves office, the labor force Participation rate will probably be at 62%, a 4% nose dive during one administration. A first in history.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 17, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!
> ...


And if you used the labor force participation rate from December 1954, the UE rate now would be -2.1%.  Yes, that's a negative sign.  Does your operation really make sense if it allows a negative UE rate?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!
> 
> Government is needed!


Actually, U6 is 10.5% which is horrible. U3 looks good at 5.3% because Barry found Americans so many  jobs at Walmart and flipping burgers!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> ...


The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.

Now you know.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Obama took u.from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!
> ...


He's also the president during the period where baby boomers are hitting retirement age at about 10,000 per  day -- every day.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.
> 
> Now you know.



of course it is you idiot!! Yellen just mentioned it as a huge concern in Fed policy. U6 and LFPR both reflect high unemployment


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The labor force participation rate is not a factor in the unemployment rate.
> ...


You're too demented for words, Crazy Eddie.The labor forcec participation rate does not measure unemployment. So it's not capable of measuring "high unemployment." For example, unemployment was lower throughout most of the 1950's yet the labor force participation rate was lower then than it is now. 

You're fucking crazy.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Oh no......Reagan is TOAST

Time for Republicans to change their meme

But....but......what about labor participation rate?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Obama is a loser


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> But....but......what about labor participation rate?



yes what about it?? Why are Fed economists so concerned that working age population is not working? Perhaps because the Fed's mandate is to  reduce unemployment?
Isn't thinking fun??


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 22, 2015)

pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



There is always a natural rate of unemployment which will prevent the number from dropping too low. Technically you could have zero unemployment  but you would never have a negative percentage. If the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.6% to 58.1% next month, the unemployment rate would drop to near zero, but it would NOT be a negative number. But if the labor force participation rate sky rocketed to 70%, you would have dramatic rise in unemployment as the number of potential employees would vastly exceed the number of jobs available. Technically, if the labor force shrinks enough while the demand for employees does not change, everyone participating in the labor force gets a job meaning there is no unemployment. Participating employees who can't find jobs raises the unemployment level. But if the number of participating employees drops enough relative to the number of job openings, you could have a situation where the unemployment rate is near zero. It will never actually be zero because there are always people who are between jobs.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wrong, it is always a factor and is sited by economist every month.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Exactly! The retirement of the babyboomers is helping Obama when it comes to the unemployment rate. It helps him hide the relative weakness of the current economy. Older workers retiring means more job openings for those still in the labor force or just entering it for the first time.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



A lower labor force participation rate helps to drop unemployment. Its with a higher labor force participation rate where you get higher levels of unemployment which is why only a STRONG economy can support a high labor force participation rate.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It is not. Only rightwingers even look at that number and even then, that's only since Obama's been president. You claim "econmists" cite it every month ... show several months where that occurred while Bush was president.......


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The number of older folks retiring exceeds the number of younger folks entering the workforce. Yet another reason for the declining labor force participation rate; which would have fallen regardless who was president.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


The labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the strength of the economy. Case in point, the 1950's had a strong economy and yet had a lower labor force participation rate than we have today. All that measures is how much of the population is either working or looking for work.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> The number of older folks retiring exceeds the number of younger folks entering the workforce. Yet another reason for the declining labor force participation rate; which would have fallen regardless who was president.



When people aren't interested in the truth, but use facts for their own silly fighting games, it's best to let them just get on with it. Anyone who thinks that Bush's wars didn't have a massive impact on where the economy was going is a fool. Anyone who looks at recession data since, well, forever, will see that when recessions this big hit, they take a long time to recover. The estimates for this recession in 2008 were anywhere between 7-8 years and 10-12 years before they got back to pre-recession levels.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

Back to the thread topic ... worst unemployment average .... after 77 months in office ....

Reagan .... 8.0
Obama ..... 8.0


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.


I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs  think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan.  labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.
> 
> 
> I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs  think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan.  labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.



Are you trying to say that a president's policies don't have an impact AFTER they leave office?

Seriously, is this economics for idiots or what?


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.
> ...


 

YAWN; great nutjob; remember you words if a Republican president is elected ok?


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.
> ...


 

the only idiot i see is you; but if you are talking about the "Bush" recesssion that ended in the summer of obama's first year; long before even a tiny fraction of the obama "Stimulus"  was spent, That's not a "Faux News" talking point; it's a fact as how recessions and recoveries are measured by economists, by consecutive quarters of GDP increase or decrease. put that in your pipe and smoke it


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



I will. Do you think I'm one of these posters who is just partisan and will say anything to win?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Right....

Obama was president from 2009 onwards.

It s official U.S. in a recession since December 2007 - Dec. 1 2008

CNN reported on December First:

"
*It's official: Recession since Dec. '07"
*
*"Some suggested that the best case scenario for the economy is that it would reach bottom in the second quarter of 2009. And even if that happens, that would still make this recession the longest since the Great Depression."

So, before Obama had taken office CNN and others were predicting that the recession would be the worst recession since the Great Depression and the second worst recession in US history. *

*




*

*BBC NEWS Business Deeper recession ahead says IMF*

*"
'Deeper' recession ahead says IMF"

This from April 2009. Just after Obama had taken over from Bush.*

*Seeing how in the recession in the 1980s when Reagan was president and unemployment rates hit their highest post WW2 rate, it took eight years for unemployment to get down to 6% where they had started off, if this recession was already being predicted as the 2nd worst ever, worse than the one in the 1980s, then you could well assume that it would be eight years from the late 2007/early 2008 period before unemployment rates would be back to what they were before, if not even longer. That period would have taken us into 2016.*

*Current stats have the US unemployment rate at 5.3%.*
*United States Unemployment Rate 1948-2015 Data Chart Calendar*
*



*

*So, where you get the idea that the recession of Bush's suddenly came to an end a few months after he left office I don't know.*

*Perhaps the same place you got the idea he was a Muslim, born in Kenya, a Jew, a Communist and all that other stuff you lot seem to make up over time. *


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Exactly my point. If a methodology of calculating an alternate unemployment can result in a negative number, then there's something wrong with the methodology.




> If the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.6% to 58.1% next month, the unemployment rate would drop to near zero, but it would NOT be a negative number. But if the labor force participation rate sky rocketed to 70%, you would have dramatic rise in unemployment as the number of potential employees would vastly exceed the number of jobs available.


Please show your math.  I'm curious what calculations you're doing.  By my math...the population has been increasing at a rate of around .09%  So assume a population of 250,885,000...if the Labor Force is 58.1%, what's the Unemployment rate?

The UE rate could go up or down or stay the same under your scenario depending on how you define the decline.




> Technically, if the labor force shrinks enough while the demand for employees does not change, everyone participating in the labor force gets a job meaning there is no unemployment. Participating employees who can't find jobs raises the unemployment level. But if the number of participating employees drops enough relative to the number of job openings, you could have a situation where the unemployment rate is near zero. It will never actually be zero because there are always people who are between jobs.


Yes, that's Econ 101.  My point is that taking the LFPR and saying what the UE rate would be is a bullshit operation that requires unwarranted assumptions.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> A lower labor force participation rate helps to drop unemployment. Its with a higher labor force participation rate where you get higher levels of unemployment which is why only a STRONG economy can support a high labor force participation rate.



Please show your math that suports this.  Remember that the Labor Force participation rate is L/P and the Unemployment rate is U/L 
L= U+E
L= labor force
P = Population
E = employed
U = unemployed.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

poor idiot; you're using a prediction that the recession would be severe as proof it didnt end in the summer of obama's first year? i should take you seriously why?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 22, 2015)

Obama's UE rates are on track to better Reagan's eventually.

That is when this thread will lose its charm for the RWnuts.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.
> 
> 
> I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs  think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan.  labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.


It wasn't looked at under Bush, even though it began noticibly dropping while he was president, because it's not an indicator of the health of the job market.

And the hell it's not dropping due to retiring baby boomers. There are several reasons but they are a major factor in the drop...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/ar...orce-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.pdf


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


At least we agree you're definitely smoking _something _...

_ The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales._

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 

YAWN; like i said; the recession ended in the summer of obama's first term. if you are saying that isnt so post something instead of this tripe that proves it


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 

UM; awkward; but please take note of YOUR OWN SOURCE; particularly the part that says "TURNING POINT" ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.

 what date does it say?


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 22, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



Not even a little bit.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit!  Is English your first language?

I gave a link showing the recession ended in June, 2009. So why on Earth do you think I suggested otherwise? And I can't imagine how you are unable to see how I refuted your description of a recession?


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit!  Seriously, WTF is wrong with you??

When did I ever say the recession didn't end in June, 2009?? You are most definitely smoking something.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

wow; a tad angry left-wingnut?

must be tough watchin it all fall apart


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

if you werent at a minimum trying to imply it didnt end in 2009 there would have been no reason to post that link

you're funny. just man up and admit what you were doing


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


 
Very true

8 million jobs have been added since that time and the unemployment rate has dropped 5%


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 

yes loon; the fact there are 13 MILLION MORE ON FOOD STAMPS IN OBAMA'S SEVENTH YEAR; testify to the strength of his economic prowess


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> wow; a tad angry left-wingnut?
> 
> must be tough watchin it all fall apart


Yeah, real tough ...  ... back on topic .... worst average unemployment rates after 77 months in office....

Reagan ... 8.0%
Obama .... 8.0%

... real tough.

And I'm not angry; I'm shocked that anyone's brain can be so deformed, it translates my words into your conclusions.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

...and because LWNJs are so predictable; you are/were about to remind me you can work and still get food stamps?

but it's not like you were going to admit the jobs "created" under obama were minimum wage; isnt that the reason you want to raise it artifically?

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > wow; a tad angry left-wingnut?
> ...


 

YAWN; isnt it you losers always crying about what obama "inherited"?

what did reagan inherit from Carter?

oh and what was Reagan's unemployment at THIS period in his second term?

waiting.............


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

.....and about that growth in GDP.............

LOL


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> if you werent at a minimum trying to imply it didnt end in 2009 there would have been no reason to post that link
> 
> you're funny. just man up and admit what you were doing


Of course there was a reason. Just how retarded are you?? The reason was to correct your claim of a recession being denoted by 2 consecutive negative quarters, which is not how the NBER tracks recessions.

I even copied & pasted that section in my post.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


What Reagan didn't inherit from Reagan was a recession.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

...AND THEN there is the fact that you have apparently made the bar the watermark of the guy you blame for 30 years or so of "trickle-down"????


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


That is the end result of thirty years of supply side economics. Cut taxes on the rich and watch those wages and benefits trickle down to the workers

So you support raising the minumum wage?
Let the employers pay to feed their employees...not the taxpayer


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > if you werent at a minimum trying to imply it didnt end in 2009 there would have been no reason to post that link
> ...


 

nothing corrected anything nutjob; since my premise was still correct

try again


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Reagan ... 6.2%
Obama .... 5.3%


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
yes loon; like i said you have lowered your own bar to the point of callling obama a success by the fact that his is on the same level as somebody you idiots consider the economic devil himself

what an idiot you are


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 

except that obama's is phony

try again


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> ...AND THEN there is the fact that you have apparently made the bar the watermark of the guy you blame for 30 years or so of "trickle-down"????
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites


You sure do seem to be having a hard time staying on topic. Why is that?

Worst average unemployment rates after 77 months...

Reagan ... 8.0%
Obama .... 8.0%


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


 
No question Reagan was a success while he was President. But we have seen the long term economic impacts of his short term gains


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Apparently, you can't understand English. You said a recession is 2 consecutive negative quarters... the NBER says that's not how they determine recessions. What part of that can I help you with?

_ The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales._

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html​


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


I would be very interested to see your evidence for that.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Nope, it's real. The unemployment rate is calculated the exact same way it's been calculated since 1994.


----------



## Faun (Jul 22, 2015)

pinqy said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Don't expect a lucid answer to that.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The changes in 1994 were to collection and processing.  Not to the basics of the calculation.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 22, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Which is why BEFORE Obama took office people were talking about this being the worst recession since the great depression, and were talking about this taking years to get better.

But suddenly you've decided, with no knowledge, no evidence, no proof, that it ended when it's convenient for you. Hmmm....


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The labor force participation rate was above 66% most of the time Bush was in office and unemployment rate averaged 5.2% for that time period. High labor force participation and low unemployment. The impact of the labor force participation rate was not noticeably felt until after Obama entered office. That's when you start to see large numbers of people leave the labor force for good because of the poor job market.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Same point I made. The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years. The economy under Obama is weaker. It takes a stronger economy to support a higher labor force participation rate while maintaining a low unemployment rate.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The labor force participation rate PLUS the unemployment rate IS an indicator of the strength of the economy. It takes a stronger economy to support a larger labor force at a lower unemployment rate.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 26, 2015)

pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



The unemployment rate is a fraction of those participating in the labor force. When the labor force expands, but economic conditions remain the same, unemployment rises. When the labor force participation rate drops but the economic conditions remain the same, unemployment falls. Unemployment can fall to zero if the labor force participation rate drops enough. So start with these figures:

Potential labor force: 250,000,000

Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)

Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
Participation rate: 80% (200,000,000)  142,500,000 jobs.
Unemployment rate: 28.75% (57,500,000 unemployed)  (142,500,000 with jobs)

OR

Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 26, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.


Bush was handed a 67.2% LPR and a steady 4.2% U-3 rate and in 8 years turned it into a 65.7% LPR and a 7.8% U-3 rate and skyrocketing. If you want to call that a strong economy you are nuts!


----------



## pinqy (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I find it odd that you seem to be talking like changes in employment or unemployment are an effect of a changing participation rate.  It's not that "the labor force drops and unemploymnt falls" but what really happens is that unemployment falls and if that results in an overall drop in the labor force, then the participation rate will go down.  The labor force is just employed plus unemployed.




> Potential labor force: 250,000,000


 What the rest of us call the adult civilian non-institutional population, or just "the population."



> Participation rate: 60% (150,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
> Unemployment rate: 5% (7,500,000 unemployed) (142,500,000 with jobs)
> 
> Labor Force Participation rate goes up to 80% without change in jobs available
> ...


"Jobs available?" what does that mean? 
So in this scenario...the population stays static, the number of people employed stays static, and 50 million people, who had not been trying to work and most of whom had said they didn't want a job suddenly start looking for work and no one gets a job.   That's a little odd. 

And I'm not sure of the point.   The labor force participation rate goes up is the percent change in the labor force goes up by more than that of the population. It doesn't matter if employment goes up or down or unemployment goes up or down.  They can both go up.  They can't both go down unless the population drops.



> Labor Force Participation rate declines to 40% without change in jobs available
> Participation rate 40% (100,000,000) 142,500,000 jobs
> Unemployment rate: 0 (zero workers unemployed) 100,000,000 with jobs, 42,500,000 jobs unfilled.


ummm if employed = 100,000 and unemployed = 0, then the Labor force = 100,000 because it's defined as employed plus unemployed. I have no idea what you think "jobs unfilled" means or how it could be part of the labor force.  There's just no such thing as "jobs unfilled"  The closest to that would be "jobs openings" and those are not used in any employment or unemployment statistics.

For the drop in LFPR...that occurs when the percent change in the labor force does not go up by as much as the population.  employed can go up or down and unemployed can go up or down, or they could both go down or both go up as long as the population goes up by more.

So we CANNOT in any way tell by looking at the participation rate if the unemployment rate has gone up or down.[/quote]


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains though that the economy is not strong enough right now to support a labor force participation rate of 66% at 5% unemployment like it was while Bush was President for 8 years.
> ...



You are only looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month presidency. Two months does not tell you what it was like for the 96 months the President was in office. You need to know the AVERAGE of those 96 months to get the feel of what it was really like. Bush's average was about 66% participation with around 5% unemployment for those 96 months. The only President in history that has done better when considering the average of those two variables is Bill Clinton.


----------



## evince (Jul 27, 2015)

until the whole thing came apart under bush


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 27, 2015)

pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

What I expressed is very simple and explains why economist often note that the drop in unemployment was do more to people simply leaving the workforce than economic strength. Obama's unemployment levels have improved thanks in large part to a decline in the labor force participation rate. If Obama currently had a labor force participation rate of 66% with the current number of jobs, the unemployment level would be over 10%.

At any given time there are a finite number of jobs available, whether they are filled or unfilled. There is a finite number of people that are filling or could fill those jobs.

Yes, in the 2nd part, the labor force is 100,000,000. Never said anything to the contrary. If 42.5 million people suddenly left their jobs regardless of reason, you would have only 100 million employees and 142.5 million jobs. In that scenario the labor force becomes 100 million and there are jobs for all of them. Employers are missing 42.5 million employees.

Take a room of 100 people, 10 of whom are unemployed. There are 90 people working 90 jobs and 10 that are not. If 50 employed people get up and leave the room and those jobs, there will be 50 people in the room and all of them will have jobs, but there will be 40 jobs available with no one to work them. The labor force has shrunk in half which easily allows everyone in the labor force to have a job. Unemployment has shrunk to ZERO in the room because the size of the labor force declined relative to the number of jobs.

These are general simplified examples which show how sudden changes in the labor force participation rate can impact the unemployment level.

What has happened with Obama, is that the decline in the labor force participation rate, the largest sustained decline in recorded history, has been beneficial to those that remain in the labor force. When the labor force shrinks relative to the number of jobs there are, naturally unemployment among that labor force will decline whether its a labor force that shrinks from 100 million to 80 million, or a room where the labor force in that room declines from 100 to 80.

The labor force participation rate drop while Obama has been President has obviously not been so dramatic as the examples above, but it is in line with those examples. Whether its people retiring or leaving for other reasons, the remaining employees in the labor force benefit. This is the benefit of having a smaller number of employees competing for the same number of jobs rather than a significant increase in jobs relative to the number of employees.

While Clinton was President, the Job market expanded at a much faster rate than the increasing labor force participation rate could keep up with. There were severe job shortages in several sectors of the economy in the Spring and Summer of 2000 despite record levels of labor force participation rate. Many employers offered special employment opportunities to Europeans to fill seasonal summer labor requirements that would otherwise not be met during the summer of 2000.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


An AVERAGE hides the DIRECTION the economy went over that period. Bush took a great economy and destroyed it. The fact that the Clinton economy was so strong that it took Bush 8 years to destroy it does not mean that Bush had a good economic policy.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Over a 96 month period, economies don't go one direction or the other. There is constant change on an annual basis. Unemployment going down, then up, then down again. Unemployment went up slightly in Bush's first term to 6.3%, but then was brought down to 4.4% in the second year of the second term. In February of 2008, with less than a year to go in office, the unemployment rate was 4.8%. The unemployment rate during this time, first 7 years averaged 5% with a high of 6.3% at one point and a low of 4.4%. That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!

Remember, Bush was re-elected President by the American people in 2004 partly because the economy while he was in office his first term generally remained very good! If you are going to accurately assess a Presidency you must look at everything the President succeeded at or failed at every month while they were in office. Looking at just the first month and the last month of a Presidency that is 96 months long tells you VERY LITTLE!


----------



## pinqy (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 Again, you have still not shown a connection. You're picking one partcular way the LFPR could go up (if unemployment goes up) and one particular way the LFPR could go down (if Unemployment goes down)  But there are so many other possibilities.

If the LFPR goes from 65% to 60%, has the UE rate gone up or down?  There's no way to know from just that.



> If Obama currently had a labor force participation rate of 66% with the current number of jobs, the unemployment level would be over 10%.


 All you're saying is that if there were more unemployed, but no more employed, then the uneployment rate would be higher.  That's not really an insight.



> Take a room of 100 people, 10 of whom are unemployed. There are 90 people working 90 jobs and 10 that are not. If 50 employed people get up and leave the room and those jobs, there will be 50 people in the room and all of them will have jobs, but there will be 40 jobs available with no one to work them.


 Real life doesn't work that way.   There is no such thing as "unfilled jobs."


----------



## rdean (Jul 27, 2015)

Which president was given the worst mess?

Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?

Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

rdean said:


> Which president was given the worst mess?
> 
> Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?
> 
> Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.


 

which president has legions of left-wing losers making idiotic excuses for him?

hint: the same one still blaming bush more than halfway through his 7th year


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

rdean said:


> Which president was given the worst mess?
> 
> Which president had an entire political party try to bring him down even before he was sworn in?
> 
> Hint, it was the same one that gave him the worst mess.


 

which president has legions of left-wing losers making idiotic excuses for him?

hint: the same one still blaming bush more than halfway through his 7th year


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


What?? The labor force participation rate began dropping at a faster pace when Obama became president? No way! What happened in 2008-2009 besides Obama becoming president that affects the labor force participation rate...? Oh... that's right.... a massive recession and baby boomers started hitting the retirement age of 62. 

Oh... and the labor force participation rate  *still* does not indicate the health of the job market.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, it's not. The unemployment rate alone measures the health of the job market. There are other indicators which do as well, such as new unemployment benefit filers; but the labor force participation rate does not. The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population *wants * to work.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population *wants * to work.



most importantly it measures how much of the working age population drops out of the workforce because of stupid libsocialist policies that make finding work very difficult.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> What happened in 2008-2009 besides Obama becoming president that affects the labor force participation rate...? Oh... that's right.... a massive recession and baby boomers started hitting the retirement age of 62.



dear, LFPR and U6 are still sky high after 7 years of FDR/Obama. What a surprise!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



If you average it out over the first 77 months, which is how long Obama's been president, you get...

Reagan: 8.0%
Obama: 8.0%



Now what??? You need more qualifiers!!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population *wants * to work.
> ...


It does not, ya moron. When it went up in the 70's, was that from conservative policies?


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What happened in 2008-2009 besides Obama becoming president that affects the labor force participation rate...? Oh... that's right.... a massive recession and baby boomers started hitting the retirement age of 62.
> ...


Like anyone cares what the retard who said it hasn't been higher in 20 years, thinks.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

liberals are complete idiots

older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



stupid subject since we have a Constitutional democracy, not a monarchy.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Which is exactly why the cultists average it out.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



dear, LFPR and U6 are still sky high after 7 years of FDR/Obama. What a surprise!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> liberals are complete idiots
> 
> older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers


not to mention that LFPR is sky high among working age population!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So it's our form of government which has led to both Barack Obama AND Ronald Reagan to have an average of 8% unemployment over the course of their first 77 months in office??


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> liberals are complete idiots
> 
> older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers


You're fucking retarded. Baby boomers are indeed retiring in record numbers.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

Does anybody know when obamas' watch actually starts?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Like anyone cares what the retard who said it hasn't been higher in 20 years, thinks.



U6 has not been higher in 20 years than now thanks to Barry's socialist policies, except of course at the bottom his never ending "stimulus" "cash for clunkers recession."


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > liberals are complete idiots
> ...




no they aren't leftard

the number is steady; has been years


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

*5 Reasons Older Workers are Delaying Retirement - US News*
*money.usnews.com*/.../5-reasons-*older-workers*-are-delaying-*retirement*
Jan 28, 2011 · 5 Reasons *Older Workers* are Delaying *Retirement* Employees age 60 and over say they are *not* ready *to retire*.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > liberals are complete idiots
> ...



most importantly Labor force participation is way down among working aged population while unemployment is way up at 10.3% (u6). Worst recovery since Great Depression?


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

*Older workers delay retirement by necessity and choice ...*
*money.cnn.com*/.../*retirement*/*older_workers*_delay_*retirement*/index.htm
Sep 28, 2010 · Many *older workers* are *working* well ... The number of *workers* 65+ who are *choosing* to keep *working* ... Even the wealthy are reluctant *to retire* from ...


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The unemployment rate came down in the middle of Bush's presidency because of the housing boom. I thought you rightards credited Barney Frank for that? You saying Barney Frank gets the credit for low unemployment figures back then?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Does anybody know when obamas' watch actually starts?



hey, just like they declared the Great Depression a great success they will declare Barry's 2% GDP and 10.3% unemployment  a great success!!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!


The 7 year stretch was only because of a bubble created by Bush, which he burst his last year.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Older workers delay retirement by necessity and choice ...*
> *money.cnn.com*/.../*retirement*/*older_workers*_delay_*retirement*/index.htm
> Sep 28, 2010 · Many *older workers* are *working* well ... The number of *workers* 65+ who are *choosing* to keep *working* ... Even the wealthy are reluctant *to retire* from ...


Imbecile (and that's being polite) .... I didn't deny many baby boomers aren't putting off their retirement .... I said you are fucking retarded for denying that baby boomers aren't retiring in record numbers.

Holyfuckingshit! 

Do ya need to jump start your brain?


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 27, 2015)




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > That is one of the BEST 7 year stretches for the U.S. job market in history! It is only the last 6 months of the Bush Presidency where things nose dived. But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!
> ...



Bush's bubble was a liberal bubble brought on by liberal housing policies that featured 132 liberal programs to get people into houses that the free market said they could  not afford. When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages.

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The labor force participation rate measures how much of the population *wants * to work.
> ...


Like being able to retire in your old age, as opposed to CON$ervoFascist policies that require you to work until you drop dead on the job to keep the LPR high.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Ummm .... Earth to Crazy Eddie ..... Obama hasn't even been president for 7 years. 

Do ya see why everyone thinks you're crazy?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


dear, LFPR and U6 are still sky high after 7 years of FDR/Obama. What a surprise!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Like being able to retire in your old age, as opposed to CON$ervoFascist policies that require you to work until you drop dead.



too stupid tell us what policy is that exactly????


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


And according to you, the U-6 hasn't been higher in 20 years than it is now. 

Do ya see now why everyone thinks you're crazy?


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Do ya think repeating your crazy notion that Obama's been president for 7 years is gonna make you appear anything less than batshit insane, Crazy Eddie?


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

*More Americans 75 and older keep working - USA TODAY*
*USA TODAY Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com*/.../2013/01/13/*older-workers*-stay-*working*/1780291
Jan 13, 2013 · ... but many *older* Americans are *working* much later in life and it's *not* just ... It's hard to know how many *older workers* are also forced *to retire*.


----------



## bedowin62 (Jul 27, 2015)

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> liberals are complete idiots older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers


CON$ervoFascists are the biggest IDIOTS, there are so many more Boomers than previous generations that they are BOTH retiring in record numbers even though more are delaying retirement. One does not exclude the other as you gullible suckers were led to believe by your dishonest sources!
Get it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Do ya think repeating your crazy notion that Obama's been president for 7 years is gonna make you appear anything less than batshit insane, Crazy Eddie?



what a surprise this stupid liberal wants to debate how long Barry has been in office rather than his 10.3% unemployment rate, slowest recovery since Great Depression!!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *More Americans 75 and older keep working - USA TODAY*
> *USA TODAY Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com*/.../2013/01/13/*older-workers*-stay-*working*/1780291
> Jan 13, 2013 · ... but many *older* Americans are *working* much later in life and it's *not* just ... It's hard to know how many *older workers* are also forced *to retire*.


Again you are showing what a gullible sucker you are! Just because more Boomers choose to keep working does not mean they are not retiring in record numbers, which they are doing. You could only make your stupid assumption if and only if the number reaching retirement age was a constant or decreasing. But the reality is the number of Boomers reaching retirement are is MORE than any previous generation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > liberals are complete idiots older workers are delaying retirement; not retiring in record numbers
> ...



most importantly Fed says it is not raising rates because LFPR
is still sky high among working aged population.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> libs are losers who lie to themselves


CON$ are idiots who can't tell when they are being lied to.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> his 10.3% unemployment rate


Obama has never had a 10.3% UE rate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > libs are losers who lie to themselves
> ...



Yellen is lying when she says LFPR is too high at 62.6%?????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > his 10.3% unemployment rate
> ...



actually he peaked at 17%
 Isn't learning fun??


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Liar, CON$ervoFascist.

The Baby Boomer Number Game - US News

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million. While *13 percent of Americans are currently age 65 or older, that proportion will jump to 18 percent by 2030*. The current 40 million senior citizens will balloon to 89 million by 2050.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


You are lying, if anything she might have said the LPR was too LOW, but she certainly didn't say what you claim she said.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Actually he peaked at 10%, liar.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!
Frank was a powerless MINORITY Congressman.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



actually it peaked at 17% and is now down to 10.5% which is why Fed is so concerned about barry's 2% recovery!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Yes, you freak of nature, they are. The number of annual retirees ranged from about 1.5 million to 1.7 million from [at least] 1975 through 1999. It jumped from 2000 through 2008 from 1.8m to 2m. Those were the years baby boomers began hitting the earliest retirement age of 55. In 2008, they began turning 62. It increased dramatically since 2009 from 2.6m to 2.8m.

You really are fucking retarded to claim baby boomers are not retiring in record numbers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Frank was typical of all the liberals who supported
132 programs to get people into houses the free market said they could not afford.
When bubble burst Fan fred help 77% of Alt A and sub prime mortgages.e


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Actually UE peaked at 10% and is 5.3% now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Fed has LFPR among working aged population at 62.6% which is way too high to raise rates above 0%. In short Barry has us in a permanent near recession.


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Do ya think repeating your crazy notion that Obama's been president for 7 years is gonna make you appear anything less than batshit insane, Crazy Eddie?
> ...


No one is debating Obama's been in office 7 years -- only making fun of you for being crazy enough to believe he has. As far as the U-6 rate....

Bush.......... 7.3% to 14.2%
Obama .... 14.2% to 10.5%


----------



## Faun (Jul 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Crazy Eddie is as nutty as they come.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



too stupid and typically, do you have any idea what your point is???????


----------



## rdean (Jul 27, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Which president was given the worst mess?
> ...


That's how bad the damage went.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



because Barry's "summer of recovery" featured 17% U6 and even today it is 10.5%?


----------



## pinqy (Jul 28, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


ummm the LPFR has been dropping, which is usually compained about, and the U6 has dropped more than the U3.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2015)

pinqy said:


> ummm the LPFR has been dropping, which is usually compained about, and the U6 has dropped more than the U3.



yes dear they are supposed to drop to normal levels very quickly following a recession but thanks the Obama/FDR here we are after 2 terms of Obama/FDR and what do we have: an Obama/FDR result.


----------



## imawhosure (Jul 28, 2015)

It is all about how the Obysmal administration (leftists) paints it.  They have to convince everyone, everything is ok, and what is not OK, is GWs fault.  It gets old, but people are wising up, no matter how much they use propaganda. 

I can't say with 100% certainty they are going to lose, but I can say that next to nobody believes their numbers any longer; and the more they sit on those numbers, the less people trust what they are saying.

I say, "let them keep lying."  The people out of work or underemployed, know what is actually going on.  Hillary just needs to be shown as Obama II, and the dems will walk the plank.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> It is all about how the Obysmal administration (leftists) paints it.  They have to convince everyone, everything is ok, and what is not OK, is GWs fault.  It gets old, but people are wising up, no matter how much they use propaganda.
> 
> I can't say with 100% certainty they are going to lose, but I can say that next to nobody believes their numbers any longer; and the more they sit on those numbers, the less people trust what they are saying.
> 
> I say, "let them keep lying."  The people out of work or underemployed, know what is actually going on.  Hillary just needs to be shown as Obama II, and the dems will walk the plank.



Yes a lot hangs on what happens to unemployment between now and election time!
The MSM is very silent about U6 and LFPR.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 29, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > ummm the LPFR has been dropping, which is usually compained about, and the U6 has dropped more than the U3.
> ...


What do you mean they are supposed to drop to normal levels after a recession?  What on earth do you think the LFPR is?  It should drop during a recesson and go up afterwards.  It hasn't gone up like it should have.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Right wingers LOVE to promote the LIE that Dubya grew revenues, taking it from 20% of GDP to below 15% (Korean war levels). Weird

Percent of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



*EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES*

Effect of the Reagan Kennedy and Bush Tax Cuts


*'Tax Cuts Still Don’t Pay for Themselves'*

*Burying Supply-Side Once and for All*

Neera Tanden for Democracy Journal Burying Supply-Side Once and for All


*CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)*


*Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."
*


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> ...




You mean when Ronnie tripled US debt after Carter handed him nearly 20% of GDP tax revenues?

Jan 31, 2013 - In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government _spending_ and investment has fallen, dragging down the _Obama_ economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal _spending_ and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.


Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post


AS the GOP worked to make Obama a 1 termer for the first 6 years of his Prez..


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



TRY living in reality versus some CATO imagined BS PLEASE? 

US economy tanked 9%+ the last quarter of 2009. The ENTIRE 8 years of Dubya was supported by Dubya's ponzi scheme built on the credit bubble he cheered on, and protected


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP spent on government.

Here are some  numbers you can't argue with:


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




I thought we were rid of all your incessant spam.

<sigh>


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamas unemployment rate is lower than Reagans was at this point
> ...




LFPR? lol. eah people are retiring, lol

*Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006*: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

Declining Labor Participation Rates


http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/11/art3full.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




dumbto3 is back. He's so stupid he thinks he wins arguments because he uses big letters


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Obama took us from 10.0% to 5.2%! Pretty good for ideas that you say fail!
> ...




lol

Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

*Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006
Declining Labor Participation Rates
*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> LFPR? lol. eah people are retiring, lol



100% stupid and liberal as always. Federal Reserve uses LFPR to understand how bad unemployment under Obama really is. Oh, and they use the LFPR among the working age population, not the retired population.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > LFPR? lol. eah people are retiring, lol
> ...




And your plan is to throw these people onto the cold pavement.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.
> 
> *Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006
> Declining Labor Participation Rates*



Labor Force Participation is very low thanks to Obama's liberal anti business policies. And, U6 unemployment is at 10.5%. 100 Ph.D's at Federal Reserve use these numbers as justification  for keeping  interest rates at 0% to help stimulate Barry's dead economy!!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> I swear liberals are simply idiots who lie TO THEMSELVES.  Retiring Baby Boomers do not account for Obama's 40-year low in Labor Market participation; and if it wasn't "looked at" under Bush it is because Bush's long-term unemployment wasn't nearly this low. what crybabies you losers on the Left are.
> 
> 
> I suppose you excuse-making left-wing nutjobs  think it is a coincidence that at the same time labor market participation is at a forty-year low there are RECORD numbers of Americans on some kind of disability NOT related to the wars in iraq and Afghanistan.  labor market participation is low because Obama expanded the welfare state.



Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

*Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006


Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

Declining Labor Participation Rates


But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

*
The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Glad to see him back! He backs his stuff up with facts. Facts show that the massive corporate tax cuts of Reagan has hurt this country.

Reagan also gave millions of illegals citizenship! lol After Reagan came to office our middle class started becoming smaller and smaller. The same shit is happening even to today.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



You mean AFTER the Dubya economy crashed 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the recession ended because we had 2 quarters of growth? And the economy was OK then? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Matthew said:


> And your plan is to throw these people onto the cold pavement.



100% stupid and liberal of course. The Republican plan is capitalism which just eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty when China switched to it.

Do you understand?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And your plan is to throw these people onto the cold pavement.
> ...


The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Yes, NOT to 7 years of Dubyaonimics and the GOP fighting EVERYTHING Obama wanted right? 

Don't worry the "free market" guys with the lowest sustained (13+ years)  tax burden on the top 2% will create millions of jobs every month, any day now


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> You mean AFTER the Dubya economy crashed 9%



1) it crashed not because of W but because of 132 liberal housing programs 

2) recession ended just after Barry took office but thanks to the libcommie FDR/Obama ideas the economy never recovered.


Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008



100% stupid of course given that Republicans are for capitalism while liberals had 132 programs to get people into homes capitalism said they could not afford.

Do you understand now?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> ...and because LWNJs are so predictable; you are/were about to remind me you can work and still get food stamps?
> 
> but it's not like you were going to admit the jobs "created" under obama were minimum wage; isnt that the reason you want to raise it artifically?
> 
> idiots and hypocrites



You mean the "free markets" aren't paying enough to those guys working to survive? HMM

Artificial  LOL


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> Don't worry the "free market" guys with the lowest sustained (13+ years)  tax burden on the top 2% will create millions of jobs every month, any day now



dear with the highest liberal corporate tax in the world the jobs they are creating are in China.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Go read some REAL history and get off right wing talking points.

Carter was handed a 1970's recession thanks mainly to OPEC and Nixon's/Fords wage and price controls, even with that he had  gotten US revenues back to nearly 20% of GDP like LBJ had it had, of course Ronnie promptly reduced it to 17% and along with Ronnie's tripling US debt, when he cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% the US economy tumbled into Ronnie's recession, the opposite of what was SUPPOSED to happen? Weird you don't know that!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> You mean the "free markets" aren't paying enough to those guys working to survive? HMM



in China they get 1.26 hour, while here an average workers gets $23.45. Our workers are the richest in human history and almost all now have smart phone toys at $150 a month.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And your plan is to throw these people onto the cold pavement.
> ...




I support capitalism to my death. Do you understand that?? I am a capitalist that believes in a market place! I've argued with people that want to do away with the corporation and I think they're fucking idiots! China doesn't use pure capitalism as their economic model,, They're also a social democracy with socialist and capitalist functions in the economic frame work of their economic machine...This is the norm of the major world economies. Can you understand that???

I love capitalism but I understand it needs to be regulated and laws need to be in place to punish abuses. What you need to understand is this debate isn't about pure capitalism or no capitalism. There's far more choices between these two extremes to choose from. Civilization has always had "natural socialism" where the tax payers paid for the infrastructure or the defense. Colleges have been charted for well over a thousand years in Europe and such has also moved to America...

There's a place for the semi-free regulated market and there's a place for tax dollars funded public institutions.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> .....and about that growth in GDP.............
> 
> LOL




You mean when Ronnie allowed the credit bubble to happen (that Dubya later pushed on steroids) and SPENT like crazy and Poppy Bush inherited his S&L crisis that Ronnie was warned about in 1984?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



"But that does not change the fact that for seven years, the economy was VERY GOOD for those in the labor force!"

I guess cheering on a credit bubble AS you fight all 50 states who tried to regulate the subprime lenders who fueled your economy AS you ignore regulator warnings and push Fannie/Freddie to "do more" for low income borrowers AS the US economy was less than 1% growth when you take out the Mortgage Equity Withdrawals (MEW)  of existing homeowners that fueled your false economy, worked for almost 8 years? ALMOST?

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




"When the bubble burst Fan/Fred held 77% of the AltA and sub prime mortgages."

LIAR

F/F performed better by 450%-600% than the private sector

* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *

Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true.* Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis*


Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis McClatchy DC


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008
> ...



Unrestrained capitalism and speculation crashed the economy

The only ones who ended up paying the price?
Americas workers


----------



## Faun (Aug 14, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008
> ...


Programs passed by a Republican-led Senate and a Republican-led House voted repeatedly into office by a Republican electorate. You  know .... Liberal Republicans.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




lol

_Spending_ during _Reagan's_ two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. 

In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase

Reaganomics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021 Congressional Budget Office





















*Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?*

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 14, 2015)

Obama has cut infrastructure, science, and education....At the same time as the super rich have just gotten richer. If he did otherwise, the republicans would screamed bloody murder.

Bush spent more on infrastructure, science and education.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



As you can see from the chart, spending started out high during the Reagan administration and declined over time.  Your claim is cherry picked horseshit, in other words.

Notice the sharp spike at the beginning of the Obama administration.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



wrong.  They were all Democrat programs, like the CRA.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There was no deregulation, numskull.   You're right about one thing, Americans always pay the price for Democrat incompetence and thievery.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Is that why the federal government spent hundreds of billions bailing them out?


----------



## Faun (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Idiot...

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. (more)


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, right.  The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.  Real objective group there.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Sure Bubba, sure, don't use logic OR HONESTY, just stick with the right wing talking points, lol

Don't remember WHO AND WHY the spending went up under Dubya/Obama? Why was it that way for Ronnie? Oh right 


"*Starving the beast*" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance.* Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."*

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Sure Bubba, sure


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis *since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007.* "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT* OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and *Bush's regulators let them*

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




*Nah, that was thanks to Dubya and his "belief" in the private markets Bubba, you know the ones that had to pay tens of billions in fines for DEFRAUDING F/F?*

*How much did we spend to rescue the "Banksters" again Bubba? *

Bush&'s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*

*FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


*GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance*



...Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that *private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.*

*
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance Bank Think*


----------



## Faun (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Riiiight ... because Bush wanted to exonerate Carter and Clinton. 

Proving once again what a dumbfuck you are.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Right, a law around for 30+ years caused the market to create the subprime bubble (world wide), 2004-2007, lol

*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected.  It wouldn't matter anyway, because the Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and government bureaucrats are never going to blame government for any of the catastrophe's it causes.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBLE AND BUST 2000-2007? lol

*Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."*

*Most Subprime Mortgages Not Issued By Institutions Under CRA. *In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005, "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the *Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible.*" (NOT THAT THEY WERE EVEN MADE FOR THOSE GOALS!!!!)


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Good Bubba, YOU get to throw up "Gov't bad" and hope it sticks to the wall. lol


*Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act*
Ellen Seidman

June 26, 2009

Homeownership rates and CRA enforcement soared in the 1990s, but sub-prime came later. CRA shouldn't be the scapegoat for the housing meltdown.
Don t Blame the Community Reinvestment Act


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 14, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've already told you that Bernake is a political whore.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yet ALL you have is the rights wings, "GOV'T DID IT" MEME brought to US by CATO, AEI, Kochs, etc. Weird. Going to explain the world wide credit bubble and bust?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 14, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF)* found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity*. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. *Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.*


FRB Did the Community Reinvestment Act CRA contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis And is the CRA being reformed 


*No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis*

Despite the multiple times the right wing’s arguments have been debunked, they are once again repeating the false narrative that the financial crisis was caused by government policy and lending to low-income borrowers

The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time (and time and time and time and time and time) again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995 (as Gramm does), the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What’s more, most subprime lenders weren’t banks and therefore weren’t even subject to CRA. *That’s why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit.*

Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements.

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 15, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yeah, all the banks colluded together and inflated the credit market at the same time because they wanted to go bankrupt.

That's credible . . . .  NOT!


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 15, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



So what the F..K happened before THEN you obviously brainless, short sighted dimwit???

How many times must you dumb f...ks be reminded of THESE EVENTS THAT have NEVER occurred in any other presidency !

May I remind you as it appears IDIOTS like you have NO MEMORY!!!!

How about these events...was there ANY AFFECT on the economy?
Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!

Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses? 
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!  $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100  JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???  
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!  
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product  in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was    $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office  in  2008 GDP was    $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION. 
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001  132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008  138,056,000 people working..

IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected.  GDP grew!


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 15, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



ONCE again you ASSUME like most idiots there had to be ONE SINGLE CAUSE!
THERE WERE MANY causes and house-flipping, ignorant people who couldn't make the payment on one house were given
additional loans.  
SUBPRIME loans "Skyrocketed" after this lawsuit was dropped you dumb f...k!

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and* roughly half of the 186 African-American clients *in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

*As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.*

The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama worked on as an attorney for the lead plaintiff. 
*[RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]*

Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.

Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks The Daily Caller


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Wrong again, dumbfuck. That report was written while Bush was president. Any more imaginary shit you want to invent in your sycophantic rant? Your last one, that Bush appointees drafted a report that excoriated Bush while exonerating Carter and Clinton, was fucking hysterical, dumbfuck!


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I said "after they were elected," not after they were in office, numskull.  They knew who their future bosses were, and they wouldn't take kindly to blaming Democrats or the government.


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit, dumbfuck! 

Could you be more clueless??

Banks had little to lose -- their risk was insured by the GSE's. You know, the ones Republicans refused to increase oversight of to avoid such a catastrophe. Even Bush was asking for GSE reform. Congress wouldn't give it to him. 

Banks had nothing to lose and everything to gain. 

And thanks to Bush and Republicans, millions of folks were able to buy a house at 1% interest and zero down payment. A few years later when interest rates rose and those folks' monthly payments doubled as a result, *they had practically no equity in their homes * and little reason not to just walk away and default. That is what crashed the real-estate markets, ya dumbfuck, not the CRA; which unlike the toxic subprime loans, we're heavily monitored.


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Actually, what you said was...

_"The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate."_​
Nothing about the election. The part about the election *is what you changed your position to * after  I showed what a retard you were for taking the position above. Now, everyone gets to see how stupid you are for attributing it to the election, *as though the Federal Reserve answers to the president. * 

You're on a roll, dumbfuck.... 

Now what imaginary shit will you invent in your sycophantic rant to keep your delusions alive?


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yea and this report was written AFTER the Federal Reserve white wash of CRA!!!

The below quote comes from Page xvii  showing where Federal Reserve is an example of FAILURE...
... So again how can anyone believe their report!!!!

The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s *pivotal failure* to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, which it could have done by setting *prudent mortgage-lending standards. *
The Federal Reserve was the one entity *empowered to do so *and it did not. 
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: 
financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, 
did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; 
firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, 
secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk. 
*What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines? *

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
These were the people that made up the report:


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The report which is found here:http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
STATED:
I_*t is also possible that the remaining share of higher-priced lower-income lending may be indirectly attributable to CRA to some degree due to the incentives under the CRA investment test.  
Specifically, banking institutions *_may have received “CRA credit” for purchases of higher-priced loans or mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that subsequently affect the credit supply in the mortgage market. 

The report that shows that the FEDERAL RESERVE was also culpable was done
Submitted by THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION  Pursuant to Public Law 111-21 January 2011 
And their finding was the same idiots that wrote YOUR report showing NO responsibility... WERE one of the many parties INCLUDING
CRA responsible:

The prime example is the *Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages, *
which it could have done by setting *prudent mortgage-lending standards. *
The Federal Reserve was the one entity* empowered to do so and it did not.* 
The record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk. 

What else could one expect on a highway where there were neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines? 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

So The Federal Reserve report was written WHILE the bubble crisis occurred... pretty easy to do AT THAT TIME!!!
But after several years of closer scrutiny by the above commission The Federal Reserve Along with CRA, along with mortgage banks,etc.
were ALL to blame!
And to repeat what was being asked by the Bush administration....
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. 
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. 

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. 
Setting the Record Straight The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman* Barney Frank (*D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
             "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - _*are not facing any kind of financial crisis .*_
*The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.".*.. 
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher* Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
            called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, * "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So the blame for the housing bubble was all inclusive...including Bush for those of you who are not willing to accept that the CRA with it's attorney Obama forcing the issue will gasp!  Yes Bush was partially to blame as he was also involved in some other issues...LIKE
1) Recession that started under Clinton
2) Dot.com bust that lost $5 trillion and therefore caused stock loss write offs against tax payments...as well as 400,000+ jobs!
3) A minor event known as 9/11... costing $1 trillion, plus 3,000 lives,etc.
4) Worst hurricane SEASONS ever in any presidency again $250 billion losses, over 2,500 lives... businesses gone...
All the above events and you idiots blaming Bush ONLY for the housing collapse!
Idiots!  Bush was kind of busy and depended on Congress which let him down by NOT paying attention as Frank and Dodds attest!


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


A lot of Republicans on that commission!


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


My goodness, you righties truly have no limits when it comes to being retarded, do ya?



Dumbfuck ... first of all, that paragraph doesn't refute the findings of the Federal Reserve which I posted earlier. It merely points a finger at the Federal Reserve for not taking action, like the Republican-led Congress, to prevent the financial meltdown.

But even worse for your insanity is that the Congressional-mandated report you cited *agrees wholeheartedly the Federal Reserve*'s finding that the CRA did not cause the financial collapse. From the report *you referenced*...

_"*The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.* Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."_​
Do you understand that? The report you cite independently confirmed the CRA loans constituted only about 6% of the toxic loans which crashed the economy. The CRA was not responsible. 

Thanks to your stupidity, you unwittingly confirmed my position.


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Yes, Bush's requests of Congress went unheeded by Congress for six years. And who controlled Congress over those 6 years? 4.5 years, Republicans controlled the Senate; and Republicans controlled the House all 6 years.

Thanks for playin'!


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And what did they find ... ?

_*The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.*_​


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I didn't change my position, numskull.  They are political appointees.  As such, they are careful not to anger the people they have to answer to.


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Of course you changed your position. First you attributed the Board's findings as a defense of the president who appointed them. When that argument failed you, you changed it to them defending the incoming president.

That argument fails you too since they don't answer to the president or the Congress. You're merely lying again when you claim they do.

So now what are you going to change your argument to?


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




Nonetheless, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing *CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. *The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "*the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: *
"The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."
*Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group* than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[52]

Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139]

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
*Ah ha! So it wasn’t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!*
Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything. 
The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards.  This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
: Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider

Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. *When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.*
Hey Barney Frank The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Of course they took additional risk. That's why they were heavily regulated, unlike the toxic subprime loans which actually did cause the financial collapse.

No one is disputing they assumed additional risk. What they did not do, was cause the financial collapse. Your link proves that as did my own.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



They purchased the subprime mortgages making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them.    they are one of the prime culprits responsible.

The claim that banks were responsible is absurd since they were doing exactly what regulators told them to do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That isn't what I said, but you're too stupid to comprehend the argument, so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> *They purchased the subprime mortgages* making it possible for banks and mortgage companies to continue issuing them.


Under Bush's orders!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




YOU MEAN WHEN WALL STREET STEPPED IN AND TOOK THE LOANS OFF THEIR HANDS AND THE BANKS HAD NO SKIN IN THE GAME? Weird YOU are NEVER honest Bubba


AGAIN

Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans.* Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.*



*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks*. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




*Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.*

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Yep, Dubya's credit bubble he cheered on, AS he gutted regulators creatyed a great ponzi scheme, AS he gutted federal revenues AND put EVERYTHING on the credit card as he exploded spending. Weird you don't get that?

HINT, DUBYA'S FINAL F/Y BUDGET STARTED OCT 1, 2008. The deficit was projected at $1.2+ trillion 13 days BEFORE Obama

Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget _deficit_ in _2009_ is projected to spike to a record _$1.2 trillion_, or 8.3% of gross domestic product

CBO projects record 1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7 2009

16% in 8 years? lol

Your numbers are right wing fiction BTW...

Ignoring Dubya IGNORED warnings about 9/11, Katrina, Clinton's recession? lol, basically it was done and settled within 2 months of Dubya entering office,m the big NASDAQ markdowns were under Clinton Bubba

United States _lost_ 653,000 _private_-_sector jobs_ on _Bush's_ watch.


Economist s View Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs Bush and Obama


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




LOL, SERIOUSLY? Grow a fukking brain Bubba, Banks didn't get forced to loan, and your right wing spin on Obama is BS

Shocking

*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. *




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street.



Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


*WEIRD, WE ELECT GUYS LIKE REAGAN (S&L) AND DUBYA, THEN ARE SHOCKED THEY IGNORE REGULATOR WARNINGS, AND "BELIEVE IN" IN THE "FREE MARKETS JUST WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1880'S AND 1920'S!!! *



Why can't conservative learn from their past mistakes? Why do they have to keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



CRA AROUND FOR DECADES CAUSED THE SUBPRIME BUBBLE AND WORLD WIDE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST? lol

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. *This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




BUSH WAS BUSY? Oh right FORCING FANNIE/FREDDIE TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S TO "MEET HIS GOALS"

LOL

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
*Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
*Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING*


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

*June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan *


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that *would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people*, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The problem is Dubya didn't REALLY want to "reform F/F, he did the opposite, forcing them to up their "affordable housing" goals, required them to buy $440 billion in MBS's  and allow them to include sbprimes in their goals, something Clinton stopped!

Dubya could get 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (that stopped the Gov't from negotiating drug prices), but couldn't get Dems to support a stronger and reformed F/F? lol

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




LOL,GET A FUKKIN BRAIN BUBS, GET OFF ED PINTO AND CATO-AEI-KOCH TALKING POINTS!

YOUR LINK TO PETER WALLISON, ED PINTO/AEI TALKING HEAD IS HILARIOUS THOUGH

Using Ed Pinto's numbers as they are supposed to be taken seriously? lol


* No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*


*1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom*:
*2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:*
*4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now*



*AEI'S Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”*

Hey Mayor Bloomberg No the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown but thats just according to the data The Big Picture


*No,  government did not cause the housing crisis*

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post




*Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis*

Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis ThinkProgress


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 15, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...





NAME THE LAW THAT REQUIRED WALL STREET TO GET INTO THIS? WHY DID ALL 5 W/S INVESTMENT BANKS FOLD AGAIN? lol


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 15, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



Yep, whose pulling who out.

The GOP has had the House for five years.  And the senate for one.

Try again.

If the GOP were half competent...people like you would move to Canada.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



Yep, Dubya/GOP dug a DEEP hole right?


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


I see your insanity still runs rampant. Most of the banks writing the toxic loans weren't even participating with the CRA. Almost all of the toxic loans were written by banks voluntarily because they had nothing to lose; not because "regulators told them to do so." You are so insane, you don't even know what you're saying. Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse, your dementia refuses to let go of its death grip of your hallucinations.


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The hell you didn't. I even quoted you. Just how demented are you to deny your own quotes???

*Your original stupid defense* to me showing you that CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse was a failed attempt to dismiss a report from the Federal Reserve board because they are appointed by the president...

_"Yeah, right. The Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Real objective group there."_​ 
After I pointed out your stupidity of Bush appointees trying to exonorate Carter and Clinton, *you then changed your idiocy* from _"the Federal Reserve board [members] appointed by the president"_ to them covering for the president elect, *who had not appointed them*...

_"The opinion was rendered after Obama and a filibuster proof democrat majority in Congress were elected."_​ 
Your defense was so fragile, you had to change it. And then, for the record, even what you changed your moronic argument too easily fell apart as you were shown a second report from another source, echoing the same sentiments as the first.

In truth, you never had a chance because as we've all seen here, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. YOu actually thought you could formulate a defense by merely making shit up on the fly and then alter it as needed. Boi, were you ever wrong.


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Can you believe that shit? Bush was too busy to sign his autograph on a bill. That's possibly the dumbest excuse yet. The reality is that the Republican-led Congress never got a bill to Bush's desk for him to sign. That's the real reason Bush didn't sign a bill on GSE reform until the Democrat-led Congress planted such a bill in front of him.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008



The Republican plan was freedom. The economy was crushed by Bush and 132 liberal programs designed to get people into houses the Republican capitalist free market said they could not afford.

Only a liberal could be stupid enough to say the 132 programs had nothing to do with the folks who could not afford their homes.

Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> . Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,



perhaps not 100% responsible but CRA was a typical liberal program
designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.


For the first time, banks were required to show results. One of the five performance criteria in the "lending test" — the most heavily weighted component of the CRA exam — was adopting "flexible lending practices" to address the credit needs of poor borrowers in "predominantly minority neighborhoods." Banks that didn't bend their underwriting rules risked flunking the exam.

Ex-Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lawrence Lindsey, a staunch CRA defender, acknowledges that the changes "did contribute to a downgrading of credit standards."

FICTION: "Many of these (CRA) loans were not very risky," the FCIC report claims.

FACT: Studies show that CRA loans have higher delinquencies and defaults and act as a major drag on bank earnings. In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.

FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.

FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.

All told, they shook down banks for $4.6 trillion in such commitments before the crisis, boasts a report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, or NCRC, the nation's top CRA lobbyist (which conveniently removed the report from its website during the FCIC hearings).

FICTION: "These loans performed well," the FCIC report maintained.

FACT: Brookings found that the loan commitments were set aside for low-income minorities with "marginal credit scores" and posed a higher risk. They were even riskier than regular CRA loans, because the banks delegated underwriting authority to the nonprofit shakedown groups, which had no experience judging credit risk.

NACA thinks traditional underwriting standards are "patronizing and racist." It advertises that anyone — "regardless of how bad your credit is" — can qualify for the mortgages it's arranged through special deals with banks. Not surprisingly, one study found that its delinquency rates were eight times higher than the national average.

Banks reported delinquency rates ranging from 5% to 50% on loans made pursuant to their merger-related commitments.

Yet the FCIC refused to investigate the more than 300 CRA agreements that banks and community organizers entered into before the subprime bubble burst.

Despite repeated requests by Commissioner Peter Wallison, the panel never examined the performance of the trillions in loan commitments.

Why would Chairman Angelides steer blame away from the CRA? Because he's a big fan of the CRA. And as California state treasurer, from 1999 to 2007, he steered billions in state funds into unsafe CRA mortgages securitized by Freddie Mac.

At the time, Greenlining advised Angelides on where to invest California state funds, even providing him with its own CRA report card on "good" and "bad" banks. He has also personally benefited from CRA projects brokered by his real estate development firms, according to "The Great American Bank Robbery."

As part of the CRA racket, Angelides should have been a witness in the crisis investigation, not its chief inquisitor. With the cover-up complete, he now hopes that CRA critics will go away.

"The debate about the role of the CRA should now be over as evidence presented in the commission's report is clear," Angelides declared earlier this month.

Sorry, sir, but the debate will end when the public has all the facts, not just your cooked report.The CRA certainly did not cause the financial crisis. However, it did contribute to it.

Ironically, the very same people who insisted money be lent to people who could not afford houses are the very same people now bitching about those same "predatory loans".

Forcing banks to lend money is a piss poor idea. Piss poor loans help neither the lender nor the borrower. Yet, those who added fuel to the housing bubble have now whitewashed their role in the affair and beg for still more funds.

President Obama want to expand the CRA. Instead it should be added to the scrap heap of history along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, HAMP, and thousands of affordable home programs all of which did anything but make homes affordable.

Now that home prices are falling, one might think the affordable home advocates would be happy. They are not. The hypocrites now want to prop up home prices on the belief that falling home prices hurt neighborhoods.

Read more at Mish s Global Economic Trend Analysis How the CRA Fueled the Housing Bubble


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

National Coalition Reinvestment Community:

"since the passage of the CRA in 1977 leaders and community organizations have signed over 446 CRA agreements totaling more than $4.5 trillion in reinvestment dollars flowing to minority and lower income neighborhoods."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

BoA 10k 2009: "At December 31,2009, our CRA portfolio comprised 6% of the total residential mortgage balances but 17% of the non performing residential mortgage loans."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion  in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Jamie [libsoviet] Gorelick: "your CRA business is very important to us . Since 1997, we have done nearly $7 billion in specially targeted CRA business- all with depositories like yours. But that is just the beginning. Before the decade is over Fannie Freddie is committed to finance over $20 billion in specially target CRA business and over $500 billion in CRA business altogether....

We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals... We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities...We will also purchase CRA loans you make right at the point of origination.... you can originate CRA loans for our purchase with one of our CRA friendly products, like our 3% down fanny 97. Or we have special community lending products with flexible underwriting and special financing... Our approach is CRA your way"


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Republican plan crashed the global economy in 2008
> ...




*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to *our *policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment bank;s capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2003)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments (2004-2007 supported by all but 2 GOP members of Congress in 2004's bill) 
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > . Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,
> ...



MORE right wing nonsense that you CAN'T show how the FIVE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS GOT INVOLVED IN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME (ALL NOT INVESTMENT BANKS TODAY, 3 ARE TOTALLY GONE)? 

CRA? lol, BANKS GAVE OUT LOANS TO ANYONE WITH A PULSE YOU FDUMBFUKK!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



W was a liberal so why surprised he helped cause a recession????


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Jamie [libsoviet] Gorelick: "your CRA business is very important to us . Since 1997, we have done nearly $7 billion in specially targeted CRA business- all with depositories like yours. But that is just the beginning. Before the decade is over Fannie Freddie is committed to finance over $20 billion in specially target CRA business and over $500 billion in CRA business altogether....
> 
> We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals... We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities...We will also purchase CRA loans you make right at the point of origination.... you can originate CRA loans for our purchase with one of our CRA friendly products, like our 3% down fanny 97. Or we have special community lending products with flexible underwriting and special financing... Our approach is CRA your way"




$20 BILLION? lol, the amount of subprimes during Dubya's ponzi scheme was $3+ trillion. GROW A FUKKING BRAIN!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion  in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."




LINK? Didn't think so Bubba, lol


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion  in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."




LINK? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> MORE right wing nonsense that you CAN'T show how the FIVE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS GOT INVOLVED IN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME



1) Fanny Freddie CRA started long before the liberal Bush

2) IBanks got involved because govt was begging them for mortgages


Does the liberal understand now??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > HUD press release July 29,1999 "plan to require the nations two largest housing finance companies (Fan/Fred) to buy $2.4 trillion  in mortgages over the next ten years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low income families."
> ...



too stupid the idiot liberal  doesn't know how to use Google . Want to bet $10,000 the press release is real and quoted accurately???


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



So TWICE I'VE ASKED FOR LINKS AND NONE THERE HUH? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > MORE right wing nonsense that you CAN'T show how the FIVE WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKS GOT INVOLVED IN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME PONZI SCHEME
> ...




*For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis*

_The housing bubble occurred during a period when Fannie and Freddie's market share of high-risk mortgages dropped. _

For the Last Time Fannie and Freddie Didn t Cause the Housing Crisis - The Atlantic


*No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis*

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



100% stupid of course. CRA alone was responsible for 20% of Bank of America's non performing loans.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> *For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis*




Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"


"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No link to your BS huh? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



so the perfect idiot liberal does not want to bet that Bank of America said on legal document that 17% of its non performing loans in 2009 were CRA loans??


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis*
> ...



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


($440 BILLION) 

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > . Even after being shown two indepent sources which concluded CRA loans were not responsible for the financial collapse,
> ...


_*Mish*_ said so.



*Mish's* *blog* is rendered useless against two independent teams of economists whose findings laugh at *Mish's*.

But hey, kudos to you for scouring the Internet for an opinion you like.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




3RD TIME, NO LINK? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



5th time: Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law  that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/71/71595/reports/2009_AR.pdf


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




NO LINK HUH? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 16, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



6th time Dear, BoA said in legal documents under penalty of law that CRA loans were 20% of its non-performing loans and that was just one of the liberal programs to subvert the free market

Do you understand? Want to bet $10,000???


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


That was one bank and it was 17%, not 20%. You do know there were other lenders, right? You do know that most lenders didn't write any CRA loans, right? You do know that CRA loans do not cover commercial real-estate loans at all, right?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




BOFA 2009_

Residential mortgage portfolio.

*The 2006 and 2007 vintage loans*, which represented 42 percent of our residential mortgage portfolio at December 31, 2009, continued to season and have higher refreshed LTVs and* accounted for 69 percent of nonperforming residential mortgage loans at December 31, 2009 *and *approximately 75 percent of residential mortgage net charge-off OF 2009*!

WEIRD, WHY DID CRA REQUIRE THEM TO LOWER STANDARDS IN 2006-2007 BUBBA? lol


http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/71/71595/reports/2009_AR.pdf


A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was *triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


----------



## Faun (Aug 16, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Who would bet with you, Crazy Eddie? Last time I saw you make such a bet, you lost but refused to pay up. You're a welsh, a liar, and crazy. Your bets are as worthless as your posts.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




They bought Countrywide, BTW, a biggie in CRA...


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2015)

To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....

After 78 months in office ...

Ronald Reagan ... 8.0%
Barack Obama .... 8.0%


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....
> 
> After 78 months in office ...
> 
> ...



Which, to any intelligent person, means not very much at all.


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....
> ...


That's besides the point. Notice how not a single rightie wants to talk about this subject anymore now that Obama is tied with Reagan.


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....
> 
> After 78 months in office ...
> 
> ...




Here are the FACTS from The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
After 78 months the unemployment rate for Reagan was :7.2%
Obama at the 78th month 5.3%

One should keep in perspective though that the Misery Index which was a Carter’s misery index peaked at 21.98% in June of 1980.  
His misery index was still above 20% come November 1980, so Reagan (R) was able to use Carter’s own words and the misery index against him in the following election and make Carter a rare one-term President.

Reagan took office in January 1981 with a misery index of 19.33%. By November of 1984 the misery index had fallen steadily to 11.25% and Reagan was reelected. By November 1988 the misery index was 9.55%
Misery Index


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....
> ...


First of all, thank you for reiterating my point from my last post..... even though this thread was started by a rightard, you righties no longer want to talk about the president with the worst unemployment average since Obama and Reagan are tied at 8%. No sooner do I point that out and along you come, trying to derail the thread off topic again.

At any rate, the average monthly misery after 78 months in office...

Ronald Reagan ... 12.62
Barack Obama ...... 9.47


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right no question Reagan had a misery index that compared to Obama was "miserly"!!
The problem is Obama has had very little issues to fix as Reagan did.

The two components in case  you don't remember of the Misery Index are inflation and unemployment.
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/US_Misery_Index_July_2015.jpg



 


Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said. That leaves out a ton more.
Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work. Policies that remove the barriers to employment, thus decreasing this number, are obviously beneficial,” he and colleague Megan Russell in their new investors note from their offices in Charlottesville, Va.
Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”
Wall Street adviser Actual unemployment is 37.2 misery index worst in 40 years Washington Examiner


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


The misery index after 77 months in office.

Ronald Reagan ... 9.85
Barack Obama .....5.42


----------



## pinqy (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.


 This is old, so let's see...the official UE rate was 6.7% in December 2013.  The funny thing is that his 37.2% is actually those Not in the Labor Force as a percent of the population.  That ignores the unemployed (those looking for work.  The percent of the adult civilian non-institutional not working in Dec 2013 was 41.4%

So I think we can disregard anything that idiot has to say about the numbers.

But let's look as these allegedly scary numbers and use the current one.

The Population age 16+ who are not in the military, prison, or an institution in July 2015: 250,876,000
Employed: 148,840,000 (59.3%)  Oh, no...this means 102,036,000 people aren't working!
But wait.....87,635,000 don't want a job.
So 59.3% are working,
34.9% don't want a job....leaving 5.7% of the population who wants to work and isn't.  Huh...Why did Marotta think that people not willing or able to work were really unemployed.

But wait....14,401,000 say they want a job, but only 8,266,000 actually looked for work in July.  The rest weren't trying.

But the definition of unemployed has always been those not working who are trying to work.  

So where's the fraud?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > To drag this thread back on topic .... the presidents with the worst average unemployment rate....
> ...



Misery ndex? LFPR? U6? The crap the right wing has when it goes against their BS

Hint Reagan's recession was created AFTER he cut taxes ( the opposite of what was supposed to happen) and unemployment shot up to 10.8%, highest post WW2


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




You mean  don't measure Obama like we do Ronnie? lol

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a HUGE hole for US!


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 17, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



ONCE AGAIN UNTIL YOU IDIOTS that make those STUPID, IGNORANT totally absent of any perspective comments about GWB "digging a hole"
REMEMBER these EVENTS... I'm POSTING THEM EVERY TIME YOU IDIOTS seem to forget THESE EVENTS HAPPENED!!@!
NOT ONE president has every had this accumulated cataclysmic events occur in one Presidency!

I will continue to POST THESE EVENTS until you dummies recognize THEY HAPPENED!
THEY had an affect on the economy!  But you dumb sh...ts don't remember or are ignoring for what reason I don't understand!
THESE ARE THE FACTS!  THE REALITIES!!!


*Recession*
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

*A Major $5 trillion market loss*
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses? 
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!  $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

*The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!*
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100  JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???  
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

*Anthrax Attacks...*
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 

*4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.*
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!  
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product  in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was    $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office  in  2008 GDP was    $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION. 
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001  132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008  138,056,000 people working..

IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected.  GDP grew!

But IDIOTS like you FFOs and LIPs  ..............
WHY is it so hard for idiots like you to RECOGNIZE that these EVENTS cost jobs and in spite of the economy GREW!!!

FACTS... NOT hyperbole! REALITY!!!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



1) Recession? That lil blip that was almost nothing? Seriously? You are trying to argue PAPER MONEY (most of the $5 trillion lost in dotcom bust which had peaked  March 2000????


2) 9/11 Yep, Dubya's admin ignored warnings and it cost US a lot!


*Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized*


We already knew about the presidential brief from Aug. 6, 2001 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The White House has shown that this declassified document was primarily a history of Al Qaeda, not a warning of imminent attack.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months. 

*These and other similar warnings were ignored by the White House. *The Neocons in charge insisted that the threat was instead a coordinated diversion meant to distract attention from Saddam Hussein, according to Eichenwald. *This opinion frustrated the intelligence community, who saw the theory as totally illogical.*

Bush Received More Warnings About 9 11 Than We Realized - Business Insider


"IN spite of recession, dot.com bust, 9/11, worst hurricanes.... MORE people were working... more tax revenue was collected. GDP grew!"

Liar, Dubya had a PONZI scheme bubble (subprime) that he cheered on that artificially inflated jobs, until they didn't. BOTH tax cuts cost the US treasury revenues, EVERY credible economist agrees!!!


Total private sector job

Jan 2001 111,861,000
Dec 2008 107,203,000 (THIS IS WITHOUT THE 4_ MILLION JOBS LOST IN 2009)





QUITE THE BUBBLE HUH?

JUST PUT IN THE DATES BUBBA

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was *triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*


*FBI saw threat of loan crisis*


A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in *2004*, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

*"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"*

*"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"*

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - latimes



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Faun (Aug 17, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


No recession started under Clinton. That's a lie and that's as far as I got in your post since it's reasonable to assume that everything else you posted is also a lie. 

If truth and facts were on your side you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


So "recessions" are just like water faucets.  You turn on a faucet  water comes out.  Recession starts immediately... is that your perception?
For totally ignorant people about the economy the prime basis for determining a "recession" is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession. 
Recession Definition Investopedia 

NOW you extremely economics illiterate................
The official start of the 2001 recession started according to the following FACT:
year Qtr GDP in billions

2000 I                9,629.4
2000 II               9,822.8
2000 III              9,862.1 
2000 IV             9,953.6 downturn....
2001 I              10,024.8  UP!
2001 II             10,088.2  UP!
2001 III            10,096.2  UP!
2001 IV            10,193.9  UP!


 
The U.S. Recession of 2001-2002


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

But of course YOU blame Bush for 9/11 but totally seem to forget the Gorelick Memo that was created to prevent the CIA from sharing with the FBI the 9/11 bombers in this country!  All because Clinton accepted bribes from China!

Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! 
looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
1995 memo she wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK WALL!
Here read what NOT my words but other sources:
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’ that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”

Could 9 11 Have Been Prevented The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew

The 9/11 attacks had both immediate and long-term economic impacts, some of which continue to this day. 
The attacks caused the Dow to drop more than 600 points, the 2001 recession to deepen, 
and led to one of the biggest government spending programs in U.S. history -- the War on Terror.

*9/11 Death Toll*
Nearly 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center, 125 died at the Pentagon and 256 died on the four planes. The total death toll of 2,975 surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941. (Source: 9/11 Commission Report; CBS News, "Official 9/11 Death Toll Climbs by One," September 10, 2009)
*2001 Recession*
The stock market closed for four trading days after the attacks, the first time since the Great Depression. (In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt closed the markets for two days, as part of a bank holiday to prevent a run on the banks.) The stock market reopened on September 17, 2001. The Dow promptly fell 7.13%, closing at 8,920.70. The 617.78 point loss was the Dow's worst one-day drop ever.
9 11 Attacks Economic Impact


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

And of course YOU totally Bush bashing ignoratii.... YOU never mention the hurricanes that happened during 2001 through 2008.
NOTHING in the history of the USA has ever occurred as they did during his terms.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

Because ignorati like you don't see the connection between businesses being destroyed and TAX revenue PLUS disaster recovery funds being spent here let me help you!
*What tax incentives were created in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma?*
Congress passed two major pieces of legislation providing tax relief to victims of the hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast in the fall of 2005. The Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (KETRA*)* established tax incentives to provide relief to Hurricane Katrina victims and stimulate donations to relief efforts. The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 extended KETRA incentives to areas affected by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma and created additional tax incentives to support the economic recovery of the region, dubbed the Gulf Opportunity Zone (GO Zone). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that, from 2006 to 2010, KETRA and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act will cost $6.1 billion and $7.8 billion, respectively.
What tax incentives were created in response to Hurricanes Katrina Rita and Wilma 
THESE cost TAX revenue PLUS !

Hurricane Katrina ALONE!!!
The *economic effects of Hurricane Katrina*, which hit Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Mississippi in late August 2005, were far-reaching. 2006, the Bush Administration had sought $105 billion for repairs and reconstruction in the region, making it the costliest natural disaster in US history.[1] And this does not account for damage to the economy caused by potential interruption of the oil supply and exports of commodities such as cotton. Also, before Hurricane Katrina, the region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, *with 600,000 of them in New Orleans. One study, by Mark Burton and Michael J. Hicks estimated the total economic impact to Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion. Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


But of course you idiots don't seem to take these events into consideration!
YET in spite of the recession starting in 2000, in spite of the $5 trillion in dot.com bust LOST tax revenue, in spite of hurricanes, this is the FACT of TAX REVENUE
under BUSH!!!
Tax revenues were increasing after the Recession/Dot.com bust/911 and worst hurricanes !
Historical Tables The White House


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


As always, you prove to be too retarded to make a cogent argument. First off all, you're referencing nominal figures, not real figures. Too fucking stupid.  You don't use nominal figures because you like them better than real numbers.

Secondly, for some bizarre reason, you put the word, _"downturn,"_ next to a quarter indicating growth. Just how stupid are you to think you can magically alter history if you just type a misplaced word? 

And lastly, the recession started in March, 2001, and there's nothing on this planet you can use to change that. In fact, there might not have even been a recession if not for 9.11.


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> But of course YOU blame Bush for 9/11 but totally seem to forget the Gorelick Memo that was created to prevent the CIA from sharing with the FBI the 9/11 bombers in this country!  All because Clinton accepted bribes from China!
> 
> Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!!
> looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
> ...


Of course Bush is responsible for not protecting us on 9.11. That was his job and he failed miserably. Despite warnings of a possible attack, Bush did absolutely nothing to protect America.


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And like a little kid you think "hmm Recession starts March 1, 2001 because that's when the NBER said so."
Recessions are not like water faucets.  They don't just magically start on a specific date.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> But of course YOU blame Bush for 9/11 but totally seem to forget the Gorelick Memo that was created to prevent the CIA from sharing with the FBI the 9/11 bombers in this country!  All because Clinton accepted bribes from China!
> 
> Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!!
> looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
> ...



REALLY? So HIGH LEVEL warnings to the Bush white house  (at least 18) should be ignored? lol

REALLY? IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT? lol


*'He Kept Us Safe': Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack*


*... despite repeated, urgent warnings from intelligence officials about an impending Al Qaeda attack, Bush did nothing because his neoconservative advisers told him that the threats were merely a “ruse” and a distraction.*

* He Kept Us Safe Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack - The National Memo*


*While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.*

*The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1,  the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible. *

* But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster.

...“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0*


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> And of course YOU totally Bush bashing ignoratii.... YOU never mention the hurricanes that happened during 2001 through 2008.
> NOTHING in the history of the USA has ever occurred as they did during his terms.
> 
> $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
> ...



WAIT, NOW you want to argue tax revenues DIDN'T increase after BOTH OF DUBYA'S TAX CUTS  (one while we were at war and expected to blow up the budgets!)? 

HINT THE IMPACT OF DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE HE CHEERED ON IN THE US ALONE WAS $45+ TRILLION!


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

every messageboard you can always find some Sorostard spamming up the joint with irreelvant, spoon-fed stupidity


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > And of course YOU totally Bush bashing ignoratii.... YOU never mention the hurricanes that happened during 2001 through 2008.
> ...


 

"dubya's subprime bubble.."
 and this is why you cant be taken seriously. Democrats not only supported those policies; they were neck-deep in the banks that offered sub-prime mortgages. democrats WANT TO RETURN TO THOSE POLICIES


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

a community organizer from Chicago SUED BANKS TO EASE THEIR LENDING PRACTICES

HIS INITIALS ARE BHO


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > But of course YOU blame Bush for 9/11 but totally seem to forget the Gorelick Memo that was created to prevent the CIA from sharing with the FBI the 9/11 bombers in this country!  All because Clinton accepted bribes from China!
> ...


 

YES THEY WERE IN THE USA ALREADY; in fact ALL OF THEM were already in the USA when Clinton handed the country over to Bush; THEY CAME IN ON CLINTON'S WATCH.
shame on bush for retaining Clinton's TOP INTEL GUY CIA DIRECTOR GEORGE TENET


 snicker; love it when you bold-typing, propaganda-spewing left-wing idiots are chopped down


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Gawddd what a fukkin liar you are Bubs


George W. Bush

From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers

SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit.







Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
*
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.
*



*Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them*



Alan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop *this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages i*s that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. *The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable*


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> a community organizer from Chicago SUED BANKS TO EASE THEIR LENDING PRACTICES
> 
> HIS INITIALS ARE BHO




Liar. Try google it's your friend

_Obama Sued To Stop_ Mortgage '_Red-Lining_'.  (you know something illegal!!!)

snopes.com Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 

eyou poor dumb


Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 

yes you poor dumb lemming. we all see why it takes you so long to come back with another long, boring piece of propaganda; you have to have it anally downloaded into you directly from George Soros


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > a community organizer from Chicago SUED BANKS TO EASE THEIR LENDING PRACTICES
> ...


 

two different things  you dullard

try again


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Oh right, since they were already here in the US, why should Dubya and his admin listen to over 18 high level warnings right? NEVER having a meeting on Bin Laden or Al Queda...


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

redlining is where poeple are prevented from getting loans and suc

obama sued to get them not only loans but sub-prime loans y ou idiot

you made my point for me

thanks!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



You REALLY need to grow a brain Bubba, THAT''S what Obama did when he worked the case!


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 

once again you idiot; Bush retained clinton's top Intel guy. was he wrong in doing that?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> redlining is where poeple are prevented from getting loans and suc
> 
> obama sued to get them not only loans but sub-prime loans y ou idiot
> 
> ...



Sure Bubba, sure. To slow to try reading the Snopes link? I get it Bubs


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 

exactly you stupid phuk; he wanted redlining stopped and for them to GET MORTGAGES AT SUB-PRIME RATES


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


You mean "Slam Dunk Tenet"????
Well at least  Sandy(the burglar) Berger wasn't involved!


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate loan businesses in January 2000. During his time as a community organizer Barack Obama led several protests against banks to make loans to high risk individuals. (*NBC 5* Week of January 3, 2000)


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, *“Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”*
Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.
CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Yep, it wasn't the 18 differ warnings that NEVER got a top level meeting under Dubya's Admin, right?

Weird he kept him for his first 3 years as Prewz right? It MUST'VE been Tenets fault then? lol


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Democrats made risky lending practices THE LAW

 gosh ur stupid


----------



## healthmyths (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > redlining is where poeple are prevented from getting loans and suc
> ...


How about this "Snopes" Link???
Accuracy In Politics Snopes Got Snoped


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 

yawn; ALL of them came in on clinton's watch YEARS EARLIER

 you're a clown


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

here is a Democrat insisting there was nothing wrong in the mortgage loan industry


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




Tenet says neither Clinton nor President Bush would give him the go ahead. Then, by the summer of 2001, *Tenet says he was so alarmed by intelligence that an attack was coming, he asked for an immediate meeting to brief then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.*

"Essentially, the briefing says, there are gonna be multiple spectacular attacks against the United States.* We believe these attacks are imminent. Mass casualties are a likelihood," Tenet remembers.*

George Tenet At the center of the storm - CBS News


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)




----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

what would you do if you ever had to think for yourself lefttard??


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.




Weird, less than 6% of loans 2004-2007 were even DONE by CRA qualified banks, much less FOR the purposes

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST (THANKS "FREE MARKET"), ONE DUBYA CHEERED ON IN THE US!


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

did Tenet know where there were exactly?
did he tell anybody where they were

 yes or no questions leftard


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
> ...


 

you're simply making a fool of yourself; Democrats DEMANDED THOSE LOANS BE MADE


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
> ...


 

THE CHART SHOWS $6 TRILLION WORTH LEFTARD?

 is that your idea of 6%?


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

*Democratic Donor Makes Fortune Off Subprime Mortgages ...*
freebeacon.com/.../*democratic*-donor-make...

Cached
The Washington Free Beacon
Loading...
Aug 11, 2015 - The man described on Monday by the Wall Street Journal as the new king of *subprime lending* is a major *Democratic* donor.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> here is a Democrat insisting there was nothing wrong in the mortgage loan industry




You mean the CONservative Dem who became a GOPer? Weird, which guys had responsibility of F/F  (GSE's) and FBI, HUD, SEC, etc 2004-2007 again?


A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


*Fannie & Freddie Mac & CRA didn’t cause the Mortgage Crisis*

*Fannie Freddie Mac CRA didn t cause the Mortgage Crisis Fact and Myth*


*BUT DUBYA SURE HOSED F/F*

*June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004*


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

*Dodd-Frank Regulators Admit That Clinton's Subprime ...*
Dodd-Frank Regulators Admit That Clinton s Subprime Mortgage Scheme Caused the Economic and Housing Crisis Scotty Starnes s Blog

Cached
Similar
Jan 11, 2013 - Who pushed for these *subprime mortgages*? *Democrats*. Banks use to only lend to people who had good credit and real income to pay for ...


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

YAWN

 so typical of left-wing crybabies to run away from facts and to spew propaganda


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



HINT: Subprime rates AREN'T supposed to be low rates Bubs, the OPPOSITE...


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Democrats DEMANDED sub-prime loans be made in the name of "fairness"

 this is your mess leftard


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

the taxpayer covered the difference between the rates idiot
 that is the whole point


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

and it's happening again under obama leftard:

*Subprime mortgages are making a comeback - Mar. 21, 2014*
money.cnn.com/2014/03/21/real.../*subprime*-mortgages/

Cached
Similar
CNNMoney
Loading...
Mar 21, 2014 - During the housing bubble, lenders were handing out *subprime* loans with cheap teaser *rates* and little or no down payments. Now, lenders are


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Congressman Frank, of course, blamed the financial crisis on the failure adequately to regulate the banks. In this, he is following the traditional Washington practice of blaming others for his own mistakes. For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark,* "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."* Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
> But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, *“Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”*
> Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
> To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
> ...




MORE right wing junk? lol



Debunking the CRA Myth – Again


*Abstract*
Since its enactment in 1977, the Community Reinvestment  Act (CRA) has been the subject of extensive debate, which has intensified in  the wake of the subprime crisis. One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low‐ and moderate‐income borrowers.

*This argument has been made primarily by conservative  think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to  include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the  private market.*

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation. Indeed, the “blame the CRA” story has been refuted by industry leaders and  researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go  away.

In this paper, *center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and  show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom. In particular,  they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National  Bureau of Economic Research, titled “Did the Community Reinvestment  Act Lead to Risky Lending,” which purports to find evidence that “yes, it did.”  The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in  the authors’ interpretation of the results*, and thus fails to contribute to the  existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA.


UNC Center for Community Capital








*Low-income loans didn't cause the financial crisis*



Manuel Adelino of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, Antoinette Schoar of the MIT Sloan School of Management and Felipe Severino of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth undermines this story. In their paper, "Changes in Buyer Composition and theExpansion of Credit During the Boom," the researchers found:"While there was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during this time period, the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable.* In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period*. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence in the paper suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing disproportionally to poor people."

Lots of previous evidence supports this conclusion. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission established by Congress concluded:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA.* Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."*

Low-income households didn t cause the financial crisis - CBS News


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

it's so embarrassing. you go away for a few minutes and it's clear you're just fetching some spoon-fed talking point to blow up in giant font here

it's AWKWARD watching y ou make a fool of yourself Dad


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
> But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, *“Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”*
> Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
> To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
> ...





The busting of the housing bubble has been met with much finger-pointing.  Advocates of smaller government and an unfettered free market have been quick to blame Fannie & Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act, claiming that this is ‘another example’ of government incompetence.  The argument of course, is that Fannie & Freddie (nationalized banks) made bad loans and the CRA pushed (if not forced) private lenders to make loans to borrowers who, under normal lending standards, would not qualify for loans.

The problem with this argument is that it was not GSE’s (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) like Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac*) that made the bulk of these loans, but rather private lenders in a less regulated sector (and therefore not subject to the CRA).*
















Fannie Freddie Mac CRA didn t cause the Mortgage Crisis Fact and Myth


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

You have no sense of shame; you're so transparent

i actually pity you


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

you go fetch 3 or 4 copy and paste articles at a time; desperately hoping to stay ahead while people dicipher through the propaganda you're spewing


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Democrats made risky lending practices THE LAW
> 
> gosh ur stupid




REALLY? NAME THIS LAW:


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
*
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.*

*NOW NAME THE LAW REQUIRING THIS BUBS? LOL*




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...




An ad hom on Snopes? You mean they CAN'T refute it? Got it. LOL
'


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

all the left-wing talking points essentially say the same thing; a bunch of people the Left INSISTS they are superior to intellectually constantly got the best of them and their big Progressive brains


lol


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Snopes is biased; and that's been proven leftard

ok go cry now


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> once again you idiot; Bush retained clinton's top Intel guy. was he wrong in doing that?


Not for that, but for then IGNORING him!!!!


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?
A Banks.
Q WHY??!?!!!?!
A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them


*THE ANSWER IS "C" LEFTARD; FOR "FAIRNESS". LEFTARD, THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS "C"*

*LOL*


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > once again you idiot; Bush retained clinton's top Intel guy. was he wrong in doing that?
> ...


 

YAWN
 i asked that idiot i'll ask you the same question

where were they?
did tenet know?

yes or no leftard?


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

who let ALL of them in, Bush or Clinton?

 easy question leftard; waiting...............


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

i see two losers addicted to lying to themselves; wallowing BDS  and living in the past


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

the loser is off getting more propaganda to spew


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


>




No source from your CRA "graph". I'm shocked. No really I am, lol

Predatory origination practices were especially prevalent within the HEL segment. Alt-A and subprime mortgages (sometimes called “B/C” mortgages to denote their lower credit quality) were sold to people with impaired credit history, or people who lacked the ability to make a large down payment, or people who did not have verification of their income. Alt-A is not strictly defined but is generally viewed as an intermediate category that encompasses borrowers with FICO scores to qualify for prime but who lack some other qualification. 

The term subprime actually has a set of formal definitions. To qualify for a prime or conventional mortgage, a person needed 20% down and a credit FICO score of 660 or above (the average score is 710 on a scale from 450-900). Mortgagees who did not have these qualifications  were not eligible for prime or conventional mortgages





*In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market.* In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.

*
By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.*

This meant in a very short period of time, banks reoriented housing finance–one of the largest industries in the economy–around securitizations of highly risky loans. This astounding change in the character of the mortgage market was noticed by regulators and Congress. But, the Federal Reserve chose to ignore what was going on


Allan Greenspan has famously testified before Congress that the reason he did nothing to stop this rapid growth in unconventional mortgages is that he believed banks would not have made these loans if they thought they were too risky.


There were two main reasons banks pursued these risky subprime loans so aggressively. The first, which we discuss at greater length below, is that there were fewer and fewer loans left to sell in the saturated prime market. The other reason is that subprime origination and securitization turned out to be enormously profitable





According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



NEXT


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

YAWN

 so  predictable


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

the more a leftard posts, the less the leftard actually says


----------



## bedowin62 (Aug 18, 2015)

B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-BUT I HAVE A GRAPH!!!!


LOL!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Sure Bubba, sure. The WORLD WIDE creedit bubble and bust brought to US by Banksters and cheered on by Dubya, was the Dems fault *shaking head*



Jun 16, 2005 - The _worldwide_ rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. .
*Prepare for the economic pain when it pops *


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000

According to estimates by _The Economist_, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion,* an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs*. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...




THE chart? Oh must be a Ed Pinto/AEI "math" chart right? lol


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Snopes is biased; and that's been proven leftard
> 
> ok go cry now


A hell of a lot less biased than the extreme Right-tard Free Bacon site you posted.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Democratic Donor Makes Fortune Off Subprime Mortgages ...*
> freebeacon.com/.../*democratic*-donor-make...
> 
> Cached
> ...



Weird, perhaps READ YOUR OWN LINK/ lol


"The average interest rate of Springleaf’s loans is 26 percent."


Democratic Donor Makes Fortune Off Subprime Mortgages Washington Free Beacon

HMM, WAS THAT WHAT DUBYA CHEERED ON WHEN HE IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS BUBBA?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Dodd-Frank Regulators Admit That Clinton's Subprime ...*
> Dodd-Frank Regulators Admit That Clinton s Subprime Mortgage Scheme Caused the Economic and Housing Crisis Scotty Starnes s Blog
> 
> Cached
> ...



LOL, You mean laws the GOP/Conservatives fight since it WASN'T a requirement under Dems to give anyone with a pulse a loan, but BANKSTERS who fought for deregulation for 30 years so they could profit under ANOTHER GOP Prez

Headlines from your blog DON'T prove anything, nor does the blog, opinions based on BS


*PLEASE *give me the law that required ALL 5 INVESTMENT BANKS TO JUMP INTO THE SUBPRIME MESS (all 5 gone as investment banks today, 3 totally gone!!!)


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> the taxpayer covered the difference between the rates idiot
> that is the whole point



Gawd YOU are stupid


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Congressman Frank, of course, blamed the financial crisis on the failure adequately to regulate the banks. In this, he is following the traditional Washington practice of blaming others for his own mistakes. For most of his career, Barney Frank was the principal advocate in Congress for using the government's authority to force lower underwriting standards in the business of housing finance. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark,* "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."* Rather than reversing course, he was pressing on when others were beginning to have doubts.



A Timeline of Republicans’ Failure to Stop Reckless Mortgage Lending



*2004: Reps. Brad Miller (D ‐ NC), Mel Watt (D ‐ NC), and Frank worked to restrict predatory lending, but Republicans blocked their effort*s. *States across the country sought to beef up their own protections against predatory lending, but under the Bush administration regulators preempted state consumer protection regulation of federally ‐ chartered banks.* This prevented any state laws or rules regarding predatory lending at federally ‐ chartered institutions from having any effect. 


2004 ‐ 2007: While the Republican Congress and the Bush administration looked on – and even provided encouragement – Wall Street came to dominate the market for securitized mortgage products, including securities backed by mortgages (MBS) held by homebuyers who were never required to document any income, employment, or assets. *A report from the Brookings Institution points out that, “while the GSEs dominated the securitization market during the 1980s and 1990s, by 2000 they began losing market share to private financial institutions as more and more subprime mortgages began to be securitized.”*


http://democrats.financialservices....e_mortgage_lending/gses_subprime_timeline.pdf


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.



READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES HUH?


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a* dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics


THAT WAS BARNEY? F/F? CRA? lol

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You keep making this unsubstantiated claim....

You keep avoiding posting proof.


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You're a fucking retard. You think I should believe you and not the NBER??? 

Need I remind you? When referencing GDP, you used nominal figures, not real figures. Even worse for you, you posted the word, "downturn," next to a quarter showing growth. 

We learned two things from this exercise...

1... you're batshit insane.

2... the 2001 recession started in March, 2001.


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Snopes is biased; and that's been proven leftard
> 
> ok go cry now


It has not. Morons think it has been because it's often used to prove they're morons.


----------



## Faun (Aug 18, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> 
> so  predictable


Still workin' those jaw muscles, huh? That's good.... you need the practice.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 7.92%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.92%

641.4/81 = 7.9185 = 7.92%*

There are 15 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate has dropped to a new low of 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


 
President Obama was given a higher unemployment rate than Reagan and will leave office with a lower unemployment rate than Reagan ever had

No other President on the list was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> ...



That doesn't matter, silly!


----------



## tyroneweaver (Oct 2, 2015)

still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter.  Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low

Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you are of the very very simple mind that On March 1,2001 at 12:01 AM the recession started.  The GDP immediately dropped below zero.

Here is what the "experts" define as a "recession"
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession. 

Recession Definition | Investopedia Recession Definition | Investopedia 
US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

TELL ME you idiot... WHERE during the 4 quarters preceding March 2001 are there any quarters with "negative" figures???
Dec 31, 2001 2.19% 
Sep 30, 2001 2.72% 
Jun 30, 2001 3.50% 
Mar 31, 2001 4.76% 
Dec 31, 2000 5.50% 
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%

NOW YOU want to see "negative GDP"? Hmmmm... Obrama became president in 2009!
Dec 31, 2009 0.11% 
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09% 
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19% 
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94% 


*US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter*
Mar 31, 2015 3.91%
Dec 31, 2014 3.66%
Sep 30, 2014 4.31%
Jun 30, 2014 4.27%
Mar 31, 2014 3.28%
Dec 31, 2013 4.57%
Sep 30, 2013 3.71%
Jun 30, 2013 3.26%
Mar 31, 2013 3.42%
Dec 31, 2012 3.47%
Sep 30, 2012 4.37%
Jun 30, 2012 4.10%
Mar 31, 2012 4.71%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Sep 30, 2011 3.52%
Jun 30, 2011 3.84%
Mar 31, 2011 3.80%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Sep 30, 2010 4.68%
Jun 30, 2010 3.82%
Mar 31, 2010 2.07%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Sep 30, 2009 -3.09%
Jun 30, 2009 -3.19%
Mar 31, 2009 -1.94%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Sep 30, 2008 1.88%
Jun 30, 2008 2.71%
Mar 31, 2008 3.06%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Sep 30, 2007 4.75%
Jun 30, 2007 4.51%
Mar 31, 2007 4.28%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Sep 30, 2006 5.32%
Jun 30, 2006 6.36%
Mar 31, 2006 6.52%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Sep 30, 2005 6.77%
Jun 30, 2005 6.51%
Mar 31, 2005 6.88%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Sep 30, 2004 6.39%
Jun 30, 2004 7.13%
Mar 31, 2004 6.75%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Sep 30, 2003 5.33%
Jun 30, 2003 3.99%
Mar 31, 2003 3.65%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Sep 30, 2002 3.74%
Jun 30, 2002 2.79%
Mar 31, 2002 3.11%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Sep 30, 2001 2.72%
Jun 30, 2001 3.50%
Mar 31, 2001 4.76%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%
Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Dec 31, 1999 6.44%
Sep 30, 1999 6.19%
Jun 30, 1999 6.25%
Mar 31, 1999 6.27%
Dec 31, 1998 6.11%
Sep 30, 1998 5.23%
Jun 30, 1998 5.18%
Mar 31, 1998 5.80%
Dec 31, 1997 6.05%
Sep 30, 1997 6.53%
Jun 30, 1997 6.08%
Mar 31, 1997 6.45%


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> ...



Obama will also have a much lower labor force participation rate and its not yet clear whether the average unemployment rate over the entire time Obama was in office will be lower or higher than Reagans. Simply sighting the last monthly unemployment rate level Obama has, 1 month out of 96, is meaningless and irrelevant. One much consider all the data when rating a Presidents performance, not just their last month in office.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


After 78 months in office...

Reagan ... 7.9%
Obama .... 7.9%

Reagan started at 7.5%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.4 points higher than when he started.

Obama started at 7.8%. After 78 months in office, the unemployment rate averaged 0.1 point higher than when he started.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


If the unemployment rate averages out at 5.4% or better over the remainder of Obama's presidency, Obama will finish ahead of Reagan.


----------



## jillian (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



what was it when baby bush left office, idiota?


----------



## Siete (Oct 2, 2015)

*Obama* is also the only president since World War II -- besides *Ronald Reagan* -- to win re-election with the jobless rate above 6 percent.


----------



## jillian (Oct 2, 2015)

Siete said:


> *Obama* is also the only president since World War II -- besides *Ronald Reagan* -- to win re-election with the jobless rate above 6 percent.



this president didn't crash the economy.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 2, 2015)

Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%

but as we see there are plenty of them in this country

good grief.


----------



## Siete (Oct 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
> 
> but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
> 
> good grief.



only idiots are smarter than the BLS.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



I'm not even going to get into this because we already know many of the reasons for this and this has been projected for a long time.  What I want to know is what cons really believe, because I'm so tired of them talking out their ass all the time and being so hypocritical.  See, cons tell us that the unemployment rate is actually much higher and that everyone has stopped looking for work because there just aren't any jobs out there due to the horrible economy.  On the flip side, cons tell us that people are lazy and just want to suck off the government by collecting welfare because they are too lazy to get a job.  Well which one is it?  Are they just too lazy to work or are there no jobs for them in the first place?  You can't have it both ways, but of course cons do want it both ways, because they think it makes them sound intelligent or something.  So tell us, is the economy as bad as you say or are people just lazy?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

tyroneweaver said:


> still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter.  Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
> Truman and johnson had everybody fighting a war, that's why their numbers are low
> 
> Have to give Carter some credit, He burned the country down in only 4 yrs


Find a president who created more jobs in 4 years than Carter?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 
Over 300,000 baby boomers a month are retiring and leaving the workforce under Obama. How many baby boomers retired under Reagan?

Do 10,000 baby boomers retire every day?


----------



## pinqy (Oct 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
> 
> but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
> 
> good grief.


There are approximately 7,915,000 unemployed, defined as not working, willing and able to work and looked for work in last 4 weeksn unless on temporary layoff expecting to return..
There are approximately 148,800,000 employed, defined as worked at least one hour for pay or 15 hours unpaid in a family business or temporarily absent from a job.
So the labor force is 7,915,000 + 148,800,000 = 156,715,000
7,915,000/156,715,000 = 5.05%, rounded up to 5.1%.
What errors are you seeing?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Who knows where on Earth you get your numbers from? But the BEA produced these numbers (notice, they're nowhere near the figures you post):

2000q1 1.2 
2000q2 7.8 
2000q3 0.5 
2000q4 2.3 
2001q1 -1.1 
2001q2 2.1 
2001q3 -1.3 
2001q4 1.1

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And you're idiocy of pointing out negative GDP during the beginning of Obama's presidency is beyond idiotic (which is why you post it). Yes, GDP was negative during the Great Bush Recession.

2008q1 -2.7 
2008q2 2.0 
2008q3 -1.9 
2008q4 -8.2
2009q1 -5.4 
2009q2 -0.5 
2009q3 1.3 
2009q4 3.9


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 2, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
> ...



Someone is lying about the worker participation rate anyway.  This idea that there are close to 100 million out of the labor force doesn't add up.  The US population is 320 million.  149 million working and 8 million knowingly unemployed.  That leaves 163 million.  There are 45 million retirees so that brings the number down to 118 million, although there is a small percentage of retirees who still do work.  There are about 70 million children under the age of 16 who cannot be counted into the labor force.  So now we are down to 48 million.  What we have not accounted for are the disabled, full-time college students who do not work, stay at home moms/dads, and anyone who chooses not to work becuase they don't have to.


----------



## Siete (Oct 2, 2015)

math huh?

ok


The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years.


----------



## pinqy (Oct 2, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


The U..S population is around 320 million.  Subtract all those who face substantila barriers in working or changing jobs: the military, children under 16, people in prison, and those in institutions (such as mental institutes, old age homes, and other long term care).  That leaves us with 251,325,000 which is the Population used by BLS.  Labor force is employed plus unemployed = 156,715,000 which gives a participation rate of 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4%  And 251,325,000 - 156,715,000 = 94,610,000 not in the labor force.

disabled, students, stay at homes, retirees, etc are Not in the Labor Force (if they're not working or looking for work).


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...



Keeps getting worse because of automation, computerization which doesn't always give jobs to Americans.  Also, Obama faced  almost treasonous opposition by republicans from day one.  Obama was not my favorite democratic pick, but I thought he did pretty good.  Too bad he's continuing the free trade kool aid philosophy though.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > still the biggest clown on that list is Jimmy Carter.  Ford handed him over a pretty good economy and the moron blew it.
> ...


finda president who in 4 years screwed  up the country so bad.
besides reagan's second term created more jobs than Carter
Imagine how many he could have created in the first if Carter hadn't given him such a screwed up economy


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
> 
> but as we see there are plenty of them in this country
> 
> good grief.


Probably the same idiots who believe Reagan had an average UE rate of 7.54%


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

Note how the scale ramps up with each president over the last several Cammanders. That's not a reflection on them, however, I'd be more than happy to cast stones in Obomination's direction, no problem. I believe the escalating increase in unemployment it has everything to do with we've raised a couple of generations now who are slackers, unskilled, uninitiated, fuckers. Seriously, we're to blame.


----------



## jillian (Oct 2, 2015)

ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.


----------



## jillian (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Note how the scale ramps up with each president over the last several Cammanders. That's not a reflect on them, however, I'd be more than happy to cast stones on Obomination'direction. I believe the escalating increase in unemployment it has everything to do with we've raised a couple of generations now who are slackers, unskilled, uninitiated, fuckers. Seriously, we're to blame.



yah... couldn't possibly have to do with of-shoring and automation and destruction of labor unions by multinational corporations...  or the destruction of the economy during baby bush's term.... 

nah... must be people not wanting to work.


----------



## Siete (Oct 2, 2015)

jillian said:


> ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.



they might as well  start as much shit as possible, they'll never see the WH again for decades.


----------



## jillian (Oct 2, 2015)

Siete said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ahhh the beauty of rightwingnut troll threads.
> ...



not if they keep doing what they're doing.

but i'm ok with that.

they're "untrustable".


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> ...



           Again, picking a one particular month to look at is irrelevant. You need to look at the average of 96 months of data to get the full picture. Were at 81 months in the Obama administration. 15 more months to go. The first month and the last month of a Presidents time in office is irrelevant. What matters is the average over such a long period of time!


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Maybe, but even if that were to happen, Obama will not have as good a labor force participation rate as Reagan did. Finally, Obama will never be able to catch George W. Bush who averaged 5.27% over his 96 months in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

jillian said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



         Were looking at what it was on average over entire administrations which for a two term president is 96 months. To simply look at one month at the end is irrelevant and meaningless. A Presidents performance is not based on simply his/her last month in office. Every month in office matters and is important and most be considered equally.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> ...



               The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work. If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

pinqy said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot would believe our Unemployment is at 5.1-5.2%
> ...



             There are millions who are no longer looking for work, or have decided to go ahead and retire. If those groups were still in the labor market looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 10%.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 2, 2015)

Can't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan

We already know he is a better President


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



                The labor force participation rate in Bush's last year in office was 66%. The current labor force participation rate is 62.4%. That is the lowest the labor force participation rate has been in 38 years. The current economy under Obama would not be able to support a labor force participation rate of 66% and maintain the current unemployment rate. The unemployment rate would dramatically rise if the labor force participation rate were at 66% again.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Can't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan
> 
> We already know he is a better President



Its not clear yet that he will past Reagan, and if he does its because the labor force participation rate has dramatically dropped since Obama has been in office.

Obama has done some good things, but he is probably the worst President of the past 40 years, but he still has 15 months to go so not everything is in yet to fully decide on that.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but* there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work.* If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.


The LPR was declining under Bush from 67.2% when he started to 65.7% when he left, and he didn't have Boomers retiring.

There are also other reasons why people leave the workforce besides the small and declining number who have given up looking, family caregivers for exampled. 39% of all US adults were family caregivers in 2012 which was up from 30% in 2010. Only 50% of adult family caregivers work full time.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



You neglected to point out that Labor Force Participation Rate not only dropped under Bush but has dropped for the last 15 years
You also neglected to point out that it is expected to drop until 2025 

An oversight on your part?


----------



## pinqy (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


In other words: If there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher. Not exactly deep analysis.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Can't wait for Obama to officially pass the great Reagan
> ...


Again you are being deceptive about your obsession with labor force participation rate

You have issues with 18 year olds and retirees not in the workforce?


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

tyroneweaver said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...


You are correct, Reagan did have more jobs gains in his second term than Carter...

Carter ..... 10,345,000
Reagan ... 10,795,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

With a larger population, Reagan edged Carter out by 4%.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


I didn't pick 1 month. WTF are you talking about??


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Which only serves to demonstrate just how useless this metric is as Bush has one of the worst records in term of employment.

In his first term, he added paltry 56,000 jobs in his first term and 1.2 million jobs in his second term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data 

By the time he left office, there were nearly half a million fewer people working in the private sector than when he started; making him only the second president, with Herbert Hoover, to lose such jobs on his watch.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Kerry Won Ohio2 (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Hmmmm.....could that be because Dubya left a flaming pile of shit at Obama's doorstep when he left office?

History does matter, Repug lightweight.  Fuck it, you're an idiot.


----------



## Faun (Oct 2, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The only way that's true is if 100% of the people in that group were unable to find work. I look forward to you proving that ridiculous statement....


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:
BEA National Economic Accounts 

Gross Domestic Product
Percent change from preceding period
For YOU simple mind I've changed the colors to RED when there was negative growth!!!
Clinton's last year....
2000q1 4.3
2000q2 10.2
2000q3 3.1
2000q4 4.5
Bush years..
OH and yea how about THESE EVENTS that no other President ever experienced: 1) Dot.com bust-- 2) 9/11   3) Worst hurricane SEASONS...All of which made
these numbers worse BUT still there was growth!!!
2001q1 1.4
2001q2 5.1
2001q3 0.0
2001q4 2.3
2002q1 5.1
2002q2 3.8
2002q3 3.8
2002q4 2.4
2003q1 4.6
2003q2 5.1
2003q3 9.3
2003q4 6.8
2004q1 5.9
2004q2 6.6
2004q3 6.3
2004q4 6.4
2005q1 8.3
2005q2 5.1
2005q3 7.3
2005q4 5.4
2006q1 8.2
2006q2 4.5
2006q3 3.2
2006q4 4.6
2007q1 4.8
2007q2 5.4
2007q3 4.2
2007q4 3.2
2008q1 -0.5
2008q2 4.0
2008q3 0.8
* 2008q4 -7.7 
Obama's years
 2009q1 -4.5 
 2009q2 -1.2 *
2009q3 1.2
2009q4 5.2
2010q1 3.2
2010q2 5.8
2010q3 4.6
2010q4 4.7
2011q1 0.2
2011q2 6.0
2011q3 3.3
2011q4 5.2
2012q1 4.9
2012q2 3.8
2012q3 2.7
2012q4 1.7
2013q1 3.6
2013q2 2.1
2013q3 4.9
2013q4 5.6
2014q1 0.6
2014q2 6.9
2014q3 6.0
2014q4 2.2
2015q1 0.8
2015q2 6.1


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 2, 2015)

Kerry Won Ohio2 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



THIS IS THE HISTORY ---  IDIOT!!!
NOT ONE President in history ever had this many earth changing events in one presidency!  NEVER!


*Recession*  Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A* Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses? *
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!  So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!  
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

*The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!*
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100  JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???  
*Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World*

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
*Remember the Anthrax Attacks...*
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope.  That happened millions of times!

*$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.*
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history!  The worst!  No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. 
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. 
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!  Because of all this economic and personal disasters...
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product  in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was    $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office  in  2008 GDP was    $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION. 
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001  132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008  138,056,000 people working..


----------



## tyroneweaver (Oct 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


yup, to bad he couldn't translate that into votes, cause he got his ### handed to him


----------



## Kerry Won Ohio2 (Oct 2, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Kerry Won Ohio2 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Many of these "earth changing events" were of Bush's own doing, dolt.  The War in Iraq.  Doubling the national debt.  The crippling of government agencies such as FEMA, which greatly facilitated the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  So spare me your hysterics, you fucking Repug idiot.

Bush went on vacation for a month in August 2001 after being warned that an al Qaeda attack was imminent.  His failure to take the warnings seriously prior to 9/11 easily makes him one of the worst Presidents ever.  He should face charges for dereliction of duty.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 3, 2015)

pinqy said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



They are including all retirees in their number.  It's the only way to come up with that number.  I just ran the numbers for you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You are too fucking retarded.

First of all, those numbers don't even match the numbers you posted earlier. So where did you get those earlier numbers from since they obviously didn't come from the BEA?

Secondly, you expose your ignorance by posting *nominal figures*.  *Real figures* are use to determine recessions, not nominal figures.

Thirdly, you've once again exposed yourself as a complete nutjob who doesn't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

And lastly, the recession began in March, 2001. Nothing you've posted changes that fact. All you've done is reveal you're disconnected from reality.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

tyroneweaver said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...


Yes he did, and deservingly so. But not because of jobs, which as you were shown, was as strong as Reagan. Even stronger if you factor in the size of the population.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



First you ignorant lazy dick-head* I did provide the source ,dumb f...KK!  *
HERE it  is AGAIN  from the post that showed the numbers YOU dispute!!!     ----------   US GDP Growth Rate by Quarter

READ closer dumb f..k because almost every time I use any numbers I source them! 

But YOU f...king idiots never do so.  You spout some numbers with NO substantiation! 

YOU know your credibility is SO questionable because YOU don't source YOUR idiotic statement  for example:* "Recession began in March 2001"!

WHERE IS YOUR link?  Your supporting proof that   "Recession began in March 2001"?

Especially when the primary source that evidently YOU come with states the below rationale for their non-government definition!
*
Where is your proof because EVEN when the group that YOU think are the experts and said so and here is the LINK dumb f...k that shows THEY are subjective!!
And it is this non-government group that the MSM uses in reporting recessions even though the financial press refuses their "expertise"
as the definition of a  recession is:
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP);
although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.
Recession Definition | Investopedia

So dumb f...k,  above with the SOURCE is  the classic accepted  definition of recession which is 2 consecutive quarters used by the financial press! 

The NBER  may or not accept 2 quarters...depending on who is in office!!!

NOW idiot, here is the source for NBER's definition -------> The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

*The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions*
_The Business Cycle Dating Committee's general procedure for determining the dates of business cycles
_
*Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A:* Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. *In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. *
In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

*Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A:* The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

NOT the government though!  They simply report the increase or decrease of the GDP! 

Which is what I was reporting!

Using the Federal government reporting then from this source dummy!!!   ---------->   BEA National Economic Accounts
and USING  GDP percent change based on chained 2009 dollars (Again which you disputed my original submission!!!)
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5
2000q4 2.3
 2001q1 -1.1 *So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?*
2001q2 2.1
 2001q3 -1.3  *So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?*
2001q4 1.1
2002q1 3.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.3
2003q1 2.1
2003q2 3.8
2003q3 6.9
2003q4 4.8
2004q1 2.3
2004q2 3.0
2004q3 3.7
2004q4 3.5
2005q1 4.3
2005q2 2.1
2005q3 3.4
2005q4 2.3
2006q1 4.9
2006q2 1.2
2006q3 0.4
2006q4 3.2
2007q1 0.2
2007q2 3.1
2007q3 2.7
2007q4 1.4
 2008q1 -2.7  *So idiot.... per the classic definition ---- WHERE ARE 2 consecutive QUARTERS?*
2008q2 2.0
 2008q3 -1.9  
2008q4 -8.2 *NOW THIS IS THE BEGINNING of a "recession " i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of declining GDP!!!*
 2009q1 -5.4 
2009q2 -0.5 
2009q3 1.3
2009q4 3.9
2010q1 1.7
2010q2 3.9
2010q3 2.7
2010q4 2.5
2011q1 -1.5
2011q2 2.9
2011q3 0.8
2011q4 4.6
2012q1 2.7
2012q2 1.9
2012q3 0.5
2012q4 0.1
2013q1 1.9
2013q2 1.1
2013q3 3.0
2013q4 3.8
 2014q1 -0.9 
2014q2 4.6
2014q3 4.3
2014q4 2.1
2015q1 0.6
2015q2 3.9


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



for all the times you've claimed the 2001 recession as one of the problems the GW Bush had,

when you're defending his record, now you're going to say it never happened?

lol, classic


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 3, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2015 was 5.1%. This is Obama's 81st month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 8.02% in June 2015 at 78 months to the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months.
> ...


Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking! Obama's labor market has the the lowest labor participation rate in decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2015)

GHook93 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Reagan's economy also had millions more manufacturing jobs that Obama's economy no longer has access to.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 3, 2015)

Now why are men out shooting up things? Obamanomics right in our face
Another good chart in the comment section with this article.

SNIP:
*Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977*

Jim Hoft Oct 2nd, 2015 9:49 am 20 Comments




*Obamanomics in action–
The Obama economy added only 142,000 jobs in September – much lower than expected.*
The US labor participation rate is the lowest it’s been since October 1977.




*** After the worst recovery since World War II the US economy is moving towards recession.*



CNS News reported:

A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month — an increase of 579,000 from August — and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.

In other disappointing news, the economy added only 142,000 jobs in September, well below economists’ expectations, but the unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August…

…In September, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,325,000. Of those, 156,715,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

all of it here:
Obamanomics in Action: Worst Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1977 - The Gateway Pundit


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 3, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You are right!  I've said the recession that NBER according to their premise never happened under Bush!  There never were 2 consecutive quarters.
But the MSM called it a recession based on NBER and the MSM and idiots like you found this a perfect example of Bush malfunctioning.
My point in showing the "MSM/NBER defined recession" though was to show that recessions don't just start on 3/1/2001 which the naive people like you believe.
The "recession" that naive people like you define as starting 3/1/01 was actually a slow down starting with Clinton in
2000q2 7.8%
2000q3 0.5%
2000q4 2.3%
2001q1 -1.1%  Started under Clinton But Bush had to contend with it as well as during the rest of his term these gigantic world changing events:


*$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue*
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes!  
So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

T*he worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!*
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100  JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???  
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

People like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to these companies!
*Remember the Anthrax Attacks...*
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope.  That happened millions of times!

*$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.*
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history!  The worst!  No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. 
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. 
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!  
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts


----------



## pinqy (Oct 3, 2015)

GHook93 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The definition of u employed under Reagan was "Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days." 

This was changed to "All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed." 

Please point out where long term unemployed were removed as you claim.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Year over year, tax revenues fell 4 of the 8 years Bush was president.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 3, 2015)

Everyone in this country should be PISSED at this Democrat party
we are WORSE off than we were with Bush

snip

*After seven years of Obama, who raised taxes, almost doubled the national debt and created massive new government bureaucracies through the Affordable Care Act*
*America’s RINO Economy: Recovery in name only*



By Jeff Crouere -- Bio and Archives _October 2, 2015_





For the past few years, the Obama lovers in the media have been boasting about the supposedly great economy Americans are enjoying. According to this fictitious narrative, Obama’s strong leadership saved the economy and led to our “recovery,” but, in reality, we face today a RINO or “Recovery in Name Only” economy. 

The real economy was exposed in the September labor report. The country created only 142,000 new jobs, much less than expectations. This year, we are adding fewer than 200,000 new jobs each month, well below last year’s average of 260,000 new jobs per month.

The so-called experts blame it on the global economic slowdown, yet, the economy of the United States has been troubled for years. We never recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 and have really been suffering from a prolonged recession.

The stock market only “recovered” because of a massive influx of money from the Federal Reserve. This policy of “Quantitative Easing” was the main reason the market did not totally collapse. Now, interest rates are being kept artificially low because the Federal Reserve is not confident the weak economy can sustain an increase.

They have every reason to be concerned. Weekly earnings fell approximately three dollars to $865.61 and hourly wages decreased one penny last month and have only increased 2.2% this year. Workers are earning less and working less hours as the average work week declined to only 34.5 hours. The old adage of a 40 hour work week is from a bygone era of economic prosperity that does not reflect today’s economic reality. 

Some hopelessly positive analysts will cheer that the unemployment rate remained steady at only 5.1%. However, this rate is totally meaningless in an economy with only 148.8 million Americans working and an astounding 94.6 million people outside of the workforce.

Americans outside of the labor force include all people 16 years of age and older who are not employed and have not made any efforts to look for a job. Millions of these individuals are so discouraged about the labor market that they have stopped looking for employment. Many are completely dependent on government assistance. In America today, 50 million Americans are living in poverty, while 46 million people are receiving food stamps, a figure that has been exceeded for 38 straight months. A mere 15 years ago, only 17 million Americans received food stamp benefits.

In the last month, 579,000 Americans left the workforce, a number more than four times higher than the number of new jobs in September. Thus, the labor force participation rate fell to 62.2 percent, the lowest since 1977.

In 1977, the country was suffering from the administration of Jimmy Carter, who ruined our economy. His policies were disastrous for the American people and led to high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates. Thankfully, Carter was succeeded by President Ronald Reagan who restored economic growth, created over 20 million new jobs, reduced and simplified the federal tax rates and made Americans proud of their country once again.

all of it here:
America’s RINO Economy: Recovery in name only


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 3, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



WELL I thought I read it all!!!

In one sentence you wrote two opposing statements!
"Year over year"   then "4 of the 8 years".... WOW!  Please don't show your inability to have at least ONE cogent statement in one sentence!

A) YEAR over YEAR???
 Year    Federal revenue(billions)    increase/ decrease     Change     Reason
2000    $1,211        
2001    $1,145    -$  66       -5.47%    -- remember Wall street closed, no flights 3 days destructions!
 2002    $1,006    -$139    -12.14%    In spite of dot.com/911 losses tax writes offs..
 2003    $   926    -$  81      -8.04%     dot.com/911 losses tax write offs
 2004    $   998    $  73 up!     7.87% ^    Tax cuts STARTED.. in spite of tax revenues UP!
 2005    $1,206    $207 up!    20.76%^    Again tax cuts in play.. REVENUES UP!!!
 2006    $1,398     $192 UP!    15.95%^    AGAIN tax cuts but REVENUES UP!!!
 2007    $1,534    $136 UP!      9.72%^    Again tax cuts BUT revenues UP!!!
 2008    $1,450     -$  84        - 5.45%    $500 billion pulled out of MMF on 9/18/08 in 2 hours!
 And then we had more jobs created in spite of the above events that cost jobs...

3 years of down REVENUES after 
1) Recession...
2) Dot.com bust remember $5 trillion in market losses MEANT tax deductions which meant LoWER REVENUE DUMMY!
3) Little event like 9/11occurred! 3 days no flights;10 days no wall street! 18,000 businesses loss
Event like that cost 400,000 jobs that PAID TAXES you dummy!!!

4) $*1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.*
The worst Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

AND YOU evidently forgot about those events and the direct loss of tax payer jobs.  Of tax paying businesses destroyed in 9/11 and worst hurricanes!
AND then you bitch about 3 years of lower tax revenue???
ARE YOU that f...king ignorant of history?  Where were you during those times in Cuba???


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 3, 2015)

GHook93 said:


> Big big difference btw Reagan and Obama's U.R. calculation method. Slick Willie's administration revised the calculation method and removed essentially the long term unemployed or as they call them the people who stop looking!


Typical wing-nut BS and lies!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/revisions1994.pdf

Highlights of findings 
The following are highlights of the study comparing data from the parallel survey (using the revised questionnaire and automated collection) with the CPS (using the former questionnaire and procedures) for 1993. • *The national unemployment rate as estimated by the parallel survey was higher* than the rate obtained by the CPS. This difference averaged 0.5 percentage point (table 1). As shown in table 2, the measured effect was relatively larger for women than for men. The parallel survey also measured more unemployment among teenagers and older workers (65 years and over). • *The overall proportion of the population that was working-the employment-population ratio-was essentially the same in the parallel survey and the CPS.* However, there were marked differences by gender. For men, the ratio was lower in the parallel survey than in the CPSj for women the ratio based on the parallel survey was higher.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> [
> 
> WELL I thought I read it all!!!
> 
> ...



So now you want to say that the tax cuts didn't affect revenues?

lol


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


This is how fucking retarded you are. First, you posted bullshit GDP numbers from some website you found, then you lie and say I don't cite my sources but then quote my source since I actually do cite them; but even worse for your mental instability, *here's the definition of a recession YOU posted* _(red text is my comment)...

 DEFINITION of 'Recession'

A significant decline in activity across the economy, *lasting longer than a few months* (i.e., less than two quarters). It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); *although the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession.*​
_


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Kerry Won Ohio2 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Is it your intention to be sooo retarded,  people feel guilty for correcting you?

At the same time you insist the recession started under Clinton, you post this _(from your USA Today article)_...

_*The 2001 recession began in March that year*, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn._​


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Now why are men out shooting up things? Obamanomics right in our face
> Another good chart in the comment section with this article.
> 
> SNIP:
> ...


88 million of them *don't want to work.* Now where does that leave your talking point?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Kerry Won Ohio2 said:
> ...




Look it is not me that can't grasp the reality that RECESSIONS are not like a electric switch.  You turn a light on and turn off.  Recessions aren't like that OK???
They are more like a Oil tanker that takes several miles to turn...i.e a recession didn't start on 3/1/2001 YOU retard!
It started under Clinton! 
The biased MSM and NBER were the ones that erroneously said the recession started March 2001.
The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP).
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) does not necessarily need to see this occur to call a recession. 
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a *peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001*
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001

But of course idiots like you translate that into saying The recession started 3/1/2001!  How extremely NAIVE!!!
FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:    BEA National Economic Accounts 
Now being a mindless idiot here let me explain to you the below table....I Know I know it is very complicated for you!

In the year 2000 (and for that matter all the years...) there were 4 periods known as "quarters".  Each quarter is made up of 3 months.

2000q1 4.3% Months Jan through March.  
2000q2 10.2% Months April through June
2000q3 3.1% Months July through September
2000q4 4.5%  Months October through December.
Make sense???

*Bush years..*
2001q1 1.4%  (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q2 5.1    (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q3 0.0    (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2001q4 2.3    (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q1 5.1   (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
2002q2 3.8  (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)

NOW note the first quarter of Bush's first year was January through March 2001.
Do you see any period where the growth rate was slower then the previous quarters??? RIGHT!!!
2001q1 1.4%  January through March 2001 was less then the December... oh and look 2000 July through September was less the April through June!!!

So explain to me how a Recession could start 3/1/2001 if:
A) the Definition of a recession The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product (GDP); 

SHOW ME WHERE THERE WERE TWO QUARTERS of Negative economic growth in the above tables!


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You're a fucking imbecile.... from YOUR OWN link...

_*The 2001 recession began in March that year*_​


healthmyths said:


> FROM the Bureau of Economic Analysis Department of Commerce:    BEA National Economic Accounts
> Now being a mindless idiot here let me explain to you the below table....I Know I know it is very complicated for you!
> 
> In the year 2000 (and for that matter all the years...) there were 4 periods known as "quarters".  Each quarter is made up of 3 months.
> ...


Now compare those numbers to the ones you posted earlier...

_Sep 30, 2000 6.64%
Mar 31, 2000 6.18%
Jun 30, 2000 7.55%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%_​
... do you see now why people think you're insane?



healthmyths said:


> *Bush years..*
> 2001q1 1.4%  (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
> 2001q2 5.1    (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
> 2001q3 0.0    (See any negative growth, i.e. RECESSION???)
> ...


You're a fucking imbecile.

*Again*... you're posting nominal figures when it's real figures which determine if the economy's in recession.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2015)

President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 3, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...



Decided to peek at your ignored post.....

Why was I not surprised to find you posted nothing of value.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 3, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> The US middle class lost half ther assets thanks to Bush, and he wrecked the rest of the world too, unlike the .com crash. Obama's policies? LOL, the pubs have blocked all real jobs bills, and everything else, since 2/2010, as well as costing 1% growth by the debt limit crisis and now the sequester...ALWAYS a disaster, dupe.



The middle class has no affect upon it's destiny.

Got it.

You are a victim.


----------



## Faun (Oct 3, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.


They're already tied at 7.9%. You have to go to 100ths of one percent to see Reagan holds a very slim margin over Obama. A margin Obama will hold by the end of this year. At which point, you will never hear another rightard mention this idiotic metric.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama is very close to passing Reagan for UE numbers, if he hasn't already.
> ...



Its not clear yet whether Obama will pass Reagan or not. Obama's current average as President is still the worst since World War II. Provided he stays in office the remaining 15 months and unemployment continues to drop, he has a shot. Unemployment could go up though in the remaining months, especially if the Labor Force Participation rate were to improve.

If the labor force participation rate were still at 66%, unemployment would still be at 10%. Obama's unemployment figures have improved largely because the workforce has shrunk as a percentage of the population.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The current monthly unemployment rate is low, but this is because the labor force participation rate has dramatically declined from 66% under Bush to now just 62.4% under Obama. At least half of this is do to the Baby Boom retirement but* there are also people who have left the work force because they were unable to find work.* If the labor force participation rate were to rise back to 66% under Bush, the unemployment rate would balloon to over 10% because the current economy is not generating enough jobs to handle a labor force participation rate that high.
> ...



On average though, the Bush years featured some of the highest labor force participation rates in history. Yes, it declined a little from a record high, but it was still high when he left office. Obama Labor force Participation rate is at nearly a 40 year low. Now that has had a serious impact on Obama's unemployment numbers. The reasons for it don't matter, as the fact remains that Obama's economy could not support a labor force participation rate of 66% without a huge rise in unemployment.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



It only declined slightly under Bush and even at its lowest point, was still a relatively record high historically. There is what is predicted for the next 10 years and then what actually happens. Finally, it does not matter why it went down, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience. It masked the true strength of the economy. Its much easier to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 62% than it is to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 66%.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Obama will surpass Reagan in the next month or two. Currently, Obama is about 4/100ths of a point behind Reagan which is essentially a tie anyway.

As far as your nonsense about the labor force participation rate,  you cannot prove your claim. It's based on 100% of the folks inclusive in the drop not finding work which is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It's sad you have to lie like that. When Bush left office,  the rate had fallen to 65.7% -- *a nearly 21 year low. * And that was without much impact of baby boomer retirement, whose numbers increased dramatically in 2009.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bush had solid unemployment levels for most of the time he was President, averaging 5.27%. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and people had jobs. That's the record, and its a good one! Most people had jobs or could find one while Bush was President on average. The Unemployment rate was still below 5% at the start of his last year with a labor force participation rate of 66%! That has not been the case while Obama has been sitting in the oval office.

As for creating new jobs, that's easier to do when the economy has bottomed out and your throwing Billions of dollars at the economy to create new ones. You don't need to create many new jobs when the economy is at or near full employment and is staying at the level month after month as the population grows. For the vast majority of Bush's 96 months in office, unemployment was below 6%. No other President in history has as many months of unemployment BELOW 6% as George W. Bush does!


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



            Sorry, but that is the impact that the labor force participation rate has on the unemployment numbers. Economist have been repeatedly mentioning this in nearly every monthly unemployment report since Obama has been in office as reported by the AP. Getting testy and insulting others won't change that fact.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Bush created a total of about 1.2 million jobs in 8 years. And even that nominal gain was thanks to growth in the public sector as the private sector lost jobs under his watch. He actually has the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover gave us the Great Depression, which is why averaging out the UR is completely meaningless. The reason it was as low as it was early on is because Clinton handed him an UR of 4.2%. The two best presidents when it came to job growth were Reagan and Clinton. According to your idiocy, Bush was almost as good as Clinton and far better than Reagan.

Keep in mind, Reagan added about 16 million jobs, Clinton added about 23 million jobs, Bush added about 1 million jobs (all public sector).

That you cling to the idiocy that averaging out the UR only reflects desperation to make Obama look bad, when in reality, Obama will be surpassing Reagan in a month or two.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Well then prove it. Prove 100% of the drop in the LFPR is of people who would not have a job if they were still looking for work today....


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




          The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing. Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.

           You obviously don't find this meaningless, otherwise your heavy participation in this thread would not exist.

           Also, calling other people names does not strengthen your opinions at all and makes you look rather desperate.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've given multiple examples in this thread of the impact of the Labor Force Participation rate on the unemployment rate. Economist every month report on its impact. If I'm wrong, and the economist are wrong, feel free to prove us wrong.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Huh? What name did I call you?

And I've demonstrated how meaningless it is.

Carter .......... 10 million jobs
Reagan ........ 16 million jobs
GHWBUSH .... 3 million jobs
Clinton ......... 23 million jobs
Bush ............... 1 million jobs
Obama ........... 8 million jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That you think Bush is among the best in terms of unemployment reveals how ridiculous your metric is.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Your claim is bullshit and can't be proven. That's why you deflect and insist I need to prove you wrong because you're incapable of proving yourself right.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



And NO other President had these events occur during that period.  Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged.  Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work!  These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives.  Events that costs millions of jobs!  Trillions of dollars!  Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes! 
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for  3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days 
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost.  Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And for people like you to totally totally IGNORE this shows how biased you guys are against GWB!
And NO other President had these events occur during that period.  Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President
has ever had to keep the country encouraged.  Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work!  These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives.  Events that costs millions of jobs!  Trillions of dollars!  Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes! 
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for  3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days 
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost.  Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 4, 2015)

Obama has set us up for the BIG FALL. WE haven't seen anything yet. Its not going to be pretty either.

way to go all you who voted for him


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And people like YOU totally ignore these events that neither Reagan, Obama nor any other President had to deal with! 
Events that really shook the USA and the world.
Events NO other President has ever had to keep the country encouraged.
Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work!  These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives.  Events that costs millions of jobs!  Trillions of dollars!  Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for  3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost.  Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

And NOT ONE of you detractors EVER admit these events had a direct affect on unemployment!


----------



## pinqy (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Finally, it does not matter why it went down, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience.


How so? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford all had lower LFPR than Obama.



> It masked the true strength of the economy. Its much easier to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 62% than it is to have 5% unemployment when the labor force participation rate is 66%.


I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Let's say the Labor Force is 100,000,000. 5 million is still 5 million regardless of whether the population is 161,290,000 or 151,515,000. Why do you think it makes a difference?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> It only declined slightly under Bush and even at its lowest point, was still a relatively record high historically. There is what is predicted for the next 10 years and then what actually happens. Finally,* it does not matter why it went down*


Actually it does matter!
Bush's LPR was declining even though Boomers were not retiring yet until his wars removed the activated military from the LPR equation. Once Obama ended Bush's wars and the Boomers retired the LPR dropped from Bush's artificial levels. The difference between Bush's LPR and Obama's is due entirely to demographics and not to the economic conditions.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> *The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing.* Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.


That is pure hogwash!

Bush's average is low only because of the super strong economy Clinton handed him and it took a long time for Bush to destroy such a strong economy. Clinton averaged 4% UE for the entire year before Bush came to power. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate and did double the number of unemployed from 6 million to 12 million and skyrocketing when he left! Obama has more people working today than ever in the history of this great country and has reduced the number of unemployed to under 8 million from Bush's 12+ million. 

That is why you must ride Clinton's economic coattails and use averages to polish Bush's economic turd because he took the economy in the wrong DIRECTION and Obama has turned the economy back in the direction of growth again.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And had Bush tried something ... anything ... maybe he could have prevented 9.11 and saved those 3,000 lives and 2.5 million jobs. Thanks for pointing out what a monumental failure Bush was.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

pinqy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, it does not matter why it went down, only that it benefits Obama's unemployment numbers in a way that other Presidents on the list did not experience.
> ...



        Typically, the trend during Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford was that of a RISING Labor Force participation rate, especially as more women entered the workforce. So the economy had to produce more jobs to meet the influx of people into the workforce.

         The decline of the labor force participation rate since Obama has been President is the MOST RAPID and consistent rate of decline for the labor force participation rate since World War II!

Here is why the labor force participation rate makes a difference. Say the labor force has 100 people with 10% unemployed. That means 90 people have jobs and 10 are looking waiting for a job to open up, for 10% unemployment. If 9 people leave, your left with a labor force of 91 people of which only 1 is unemployed. So the unemployment rate is now only 1.1% instead of 10% thanks to the labor force shrinking.

Everyone knows when the number of applicants gets smaller relative to the number of job openings, everyone has a better chance of landing a job. Its easier to make sure everyone is set up with a job when the number of people looking for a job is smaller. You'll have a harder time making sure everyone gets a job when the number of job seekers increase relative to the number of jobs.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The American people looked at his response to 9/11 and re-elected him as President of the United States with the first majority in the popular vote since 1988, 16 years!


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Obviously you ignored this :
Gorelick Memo that created the wall between FBI & CIA thus no knowledge of the 9/11 bombers shared with the FBI!!! 
looks especially imprudent 10 years later.
1995 memo she wrote, stated explicitly that they would “go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.” GORELICK WALL!
Here read what NOT my words but other sources:
Jamie Gorelick’s wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, already in custody on an immigration violation shortly before 9/11.

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a prophetic memo to headquarters about the wall
Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems…..especially since the biggest threat to us UBL [Usama bin Laden], is getting the most protection.
So, a year before the 9/11 attacks, a special unit in the U.S. military was aware of the presence of an al-Queda cell in Brooklyn, New York, and sought to share its information with the FBI but was stopped cold.Why?Because (as described in the April 16, 2004 Washington Times piece) “on March 4, 1995, [Jamie Gorelick, the then number 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department, sent a 4-page directive] to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that ‘go beyond what is legally required,’ in order to avoid ‘any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance’ that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”

Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented? The Gorelick Memo and What We Knew


Then of course YOU totally ignored the Dot.com bust and the Anthrax attacks And the worst hurricane seasons!  All again
Bush's fault???


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > *The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing.* Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.
> ...




Totally IGNORED these FACTS!!!
And NO other President had these events occur during that period.  Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President has ever had to keep the country encouraged.  Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work!  These were terrible events.
Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives.  Events that costs millions of jobs!  Trillions of dollars!  Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes!
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for  3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost.  Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > *The average unemployment rate per month is the best measure when it comes to quality of life that Americans are experiencing.* Sorry, but BUSH will always crush Obama and Reagan when it comes to unemployment figures and what it was like for the average man on the street, month after month, to either keep his job or get a new one. Its easy to create new jobs when the economy has bottomed out. You don't need to create as many new jobs when your at full employment, the challenge then is staying at that level. Bush did a great job of doing that which is why the average level of unemployment under Bush is one of the lowest in U.S. history.
> ...



Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. 8 years, 96 months is a long time. A lot of things happen. What you seem to be ignorant of is that within 2 years of Bush getting into office, there was a recession and a rise in unemployment to 6.3%. But that level was brought back down to 4.4%, a very low rate and stayed below 5% for a consistent solid two years. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that.

The record is the record and the fact remains that George W. Bush's average unemployment rate of 5.27% is superior to Obama's current average of 7.92% which is the worst average unemployment rate of any President since World War II!


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
And for those of you that TRULY were asleep at the wheel blaming Bush for LYING about Iraq's WMDs..... PLEASE review what
THESE Democrats were calling for BEFORE BUSH was President!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." 
  President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.  

 



"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path." 
  Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998  



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
  Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.  



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." 
  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.  



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
  Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.  



"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.  



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
  Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



And Obama told us he was going to make Businesses pay which in turn bankrupts businesses, which in turn makes unemployed people!

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”
He proudly proclaims he wants to put 1,400 companies out of business. He wants 450,000 people unemployed.  He wants $100 billion in tax revenue to disappear.  He said that when he said: "I prefer single payer health system."  So what does he think will happen to those companies?
He 
1)told Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be their best customer?
            "backed by USA funds lending $2 billion to the Soros'  22% ownership of  Brazil's Petrobras!
              Petrobras wants to  drill (32,810 feet) of ocean and sub-sea rock in Carioca, an offshore field with 
33 billion barrels.  "
- Bloomberg
2) Encourage foreign drilling OFF Florida by Cuba
3) Encourage Canada to sell almost 1 million barrels per day to China?
4) Obama signed almost 50% fewer oil finding leases on Federal lands.
This is the ONLY real executive action any President can have on INCREASING production which would INCREASE supplies and Obama .... 
     a) In 6 years new leases under Obama..........9,922 new leases..  
     b) In 8 years new leases under Bush...........23,569 new leases!
Oil and Gas Statistics
And so in doing all these anti-business statements and efforts... we do have more people out of work.

*How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down*
*Obama said he would help small businesses out, but it hasn't happened yet.*
As for new regulations that are crushing small businesses, the evidence is everywhere. A recent survey of small banks conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason found that "many respondents expressed frustration at how the rules would affect their ability to continue offering customers products that had worked well for both the bank and the customers.” These small banks talk of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010 as a “maddening pace of illogical and unnecessary regulation” that would not have prevented the 2008 financial collapse.
How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


In your example, 5 of those 9 people to leave the work force are retiring baby boomers, two more going on disability,  and another is a student choosing school over work.

You then claim had all 9 looked for work, not one of them can find a job -- *a claim challenged that you've failed to prove. *


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Where did I say anything about his response? I was talking about his actions before the attack, not after. Cute how you switched that up.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Look there is nothing "cute" about 9/11.  About hurricanes.  About dot.com bust.
All of those above events WERE NOT foreseen nor preventable by Bush ...maybe the Messiah Obama but  not by mortal beings.
MY point of reminding people is to understand WHERE the country was heading IF GWB hadn't been the President by say 
our moribund, "blame America" President Obama!

The problem is the majority of people that have this anti-Bush attitude don't seem to realize the role the MSM played in building
this anti-Bush attitude.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Too stupid. The Gorelick wall did not prevent Bush from taking action. Something.  Anything. Maybe some action could have prevented 9.11.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


All those events combined pale in comparison to the Great Recession Bush dumped on Obama.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



YOU ARE diminishing 5,000 people's DEATHS!
YOU ARE DIMINISHING 2.5 million jobs directly related to 9/11!
YOU ARE DIMINISHING the affects of the hurricanes on people's lives!
My goodness YOU are so far up Obama's anus it really really is disgusting!
What is WORSE is Obama WANTS unemployment or WHY else would this ignorant President say and DO such destructive
acts to dismantle American businesses ON PURPOSE!!

Obama said"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”
He proudly proclaims he wants to put 1,400 companies out of business. He wants 450,000 people unemployed. He wants $100 billion in tax revenue to disappear. He said that when he said: "I prefer single payer health system." So what does he think will happen to those companies?
Obama wants foreign oil dependency!
1)told Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be their best customer?
"backed by USA funds lending $2 billion to the Soros' 22% ownership of Brazil's Petrobras!
Petrobras wants to drill (32,810 feet) of ocean and sub-sea rock in Carioca, an offshore field with
33 billion barrels. "
- Bloomberg
2) Encourage foreign drilling OFF Florida by Cuba
3) Encourage Canada to sell almost 1 million barrels per day to China?
4) Obama signed almost 50% fewer oil finding leases on Federal lands.
This is the ONLY real executive action any President can have on INCREASING production which would INCREASE supplies and Obama ....
a) In 6 years new leases under Obama..........9,922 new leases..
b) In 8 years new leases under Bush...........23,569 new leases!
Oil and Gas Statistics
And so in doing all these anti-business statements and efforts... we do have more people out of work.

*How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down
Obama said he would help small businesses out, but it hasn't happened yet.*
As for new regulations that are crushing small businesses, the evidence is everywhere. A recent survey of small banks conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason found that "many respondents expressed frustration at how the rules would affect their ability to continue offering customers products that had worked well for both the bank and the customers.” These small banks talk of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010 as a “maddening pace of illogical and unnecessary regulation” that would not have prevented the 2008 financial collapse.
How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bill Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan in 1998 instead of just firing Cruise Missiles which only ended up redistributing some dirt in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton left the Taliban, Al Quada, and SADDAM for Bush to deal with.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Notice how you can't refute the reality that the Great Recession dwarfs all those events combined.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Clinton kept us safe inside the U.S. when Clinton warned us terrorists would try to attack us here, the right castigated him as an opportunist who was lying about the threat to spend more money and to get the public to forget about his impeachment.

Only it turned out Clinton was right.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



                Does not matter why they leave the work force. The fact is they left, and it makes it easier then to have a lower unemployment rate.

I just used an example to try and explain in simple terms why ECONOMIST consistently say the labor force participation rate can and does impact the unemployment rate we see. Anyone could possibly find a job regardless of conditions. But that's not the point. Were dealing with millions of people here. When people leave the work force, it impacts the unemployment figures and ECONOMIST month after month have mentioned that as being a factor in unemployment rate dropping over the past several years.

A lower labor force participation rate can make finding a job easier for those that are still in the labor force. That is exactly what is happening.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Clinton failed to properly deal with the Taliban, Al Qauda and SADDAM. Bush did far better on these threats than Clinton did.

Oh and the world trade center was bombed in February 1993 by foreign terrorist. Clinton did not prevent that and he failed to properly deal with the issue of terrorism during his entire 8 years in office. Bush's response to terrorism was vastly superior to Clintons!

       If the February bombing in 1993 had succeeded in bringing down the trade towers, the loss of life would have greatly exceeded the loss of life on 9/11. Both towers would have been destroyed from the bottom up at a time when both buildings were filled with more people. Only the bombers incompetence on the size of the bomb used prevented that from happening.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Of course it matters. If people are leaving because they don't want to work, then it stands to reason they could work if they want to. Meanwhile, you're counting them as though they can't get a job.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


According to rightie logic, an attack only 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency is the fault of GHW Bush. Not to mention, what warning did Clinton have?


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why should Clinton get a pass if Bush doesn't?


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its not about their ability to work. Its about the impact of them not working or looking for work has on the unemployment rate! Understand? Its easier to have a lower unemployment rate if an unusually large number of people start leaving the labor force, regardless of the reason!


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The Misery index was worse in the early 1980s than it ever was under Obama. Inflation and unemployment combined was a double wammy.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Because there is no comparison to 6 killed versus 3000, no comparison to 5 weeks versus 8 months, no comparison to a blown up garage versus the obliteration of the WTC, no comparison to no warnings versus warnings.

Next stupid question...?


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


The misery index doesn't accurately measure the economy. Example... is a misery index of 3.9 indicate the economy is good or bad?


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The point is that it could have been 30,000 or 40,000 killed if the bomb had been larger as wells as better placed in the garage. Clinton got lucky, but now he knows better and must deal with this potential threat on this scale. He had 8 years. He did a lot of good. Bush was better though at combating the Taliban, Al Quada and Saddam than Clinton was.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



High inflation, plus high unemployment is why the early 80s recession was worse than the 2008/2009. Its rare that you get high inflation and high unemployment together. Unemployment under Reagan peaked at 10.8% in November 1982. Inflation was starting to come down at that point but was still relatively high. That beats any period of unemployment + inflation under Obama.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Following the 1993 attack, about 50 Americans were killed by Islamists. Following the 2001 attack, about 5,000 Americans were killed by Islamists.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Again, the Misery index is a poor indicator of the economy. Using it to claim Reagan's recession was worse than Bush's, *while ignoring GDP*, which actually is an excellent indicator of the economy, is ridiculous. 

Even you know this which is why you wouldn't answer the question ... does a misery index of 3.9 indicate the economy is good or bad?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> What you seem to be ignorant of is that *within 2 years of Bush getting into office, there was a recession* and a rise in unemployment to 6.3%. But that level was brought back down to 4.4%, a very low rate and stayed below 5% for a consistent solid two years. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that.


Actually it was within 2 MONTHS for the First Bush Recession. That recession was long over when UE hit 6.3% 2 years later. After a drop to 4.4% thanks to Bush's wars, he managed to jack that 4.4% up to 7.8% and skyrocketing when he left his economic mess to Obama to fix.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan in 1998 instead of just firing Cruise Missiles which only ended up redistributing some dirt in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton left the Taliban, Al Quada, and SADDAM for Bush to deal with.
> ...


"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time.  Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration." 

- Tom Delay, 1999


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



YOU got to be kidding!
TELL the 5,000 people that died!  
MY god nothing, NOTHING has happened of that magnitude since Obama's been in office!
Trillions of dollars in lost assets, buildings, destroyed! Businesses destroyed!  
And YOU equate a few people's jobs being lost?
By the way you are also ignoring totally the TARP program has MADE a profit for the government!
And THAT was a direct benefit of the phony "great recession"!
The aggressive policies of the Federal Reserve and other central banks - though not without criticism - are widely credited with preventing even greater damage to the global economy. For example, the Fed lowered a key interest rate to nearly zero in order to promote liquidity and – in an unprecedented move – provided banks with a staggering $7.7 trillion of emergency loans.

The Great Recession Definition | Investopedia


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > What you seem to be ignorant of is that *within 2 years of Bush getting into office, there was a recession* and a rise in unemployment to 6.3%. But that level was brought back down to 4.4%, a very low rate and stayed below 5% for a consistent solid two years. Clinton had nothing to do with any of that.
> ...



AND what else had happened during Bush's administration?
ANY of these events ring a bell???

And NO other President had these events occur during that period.  
Events that really shook the USA and the world. Events NO other President has ever had to keep the country encouraged.  Keep the country enthused about getting up and going to work!  These were terrible events.

Events that cost nearly 5,000 lives.  Events that costs millions of jobs!  Trillions of dollars!  Trillions in lost payroll and income taxes! 
Think what it must have been like to been one of these people that suffered through 9/11.
a) 3,000 dead, thousands of lives changed forever.
b) No airline traffic for  3 days no flights;
c) No Wall street for 10 days 
d) 18,000 businesses loss...businesses that had to either start over or gave up!
e) 2,500,000 job lost.  Ongoing uncertainty about the war on terror has contributed to the loss of more than 2.5 million jobs in the 18 months following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, said John A. Challenger, CEO of Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Job losses since 9/11 attacks top 2.5 million

And what about these events... NONE have occurred with such magnitude in just 8 years!
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history!  The worst!  No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. 
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. 
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The Misery index was worse in the early 1980s than it ever was under Obama. Inflation and unemployment combined was a double wammy.


Inflation was a result of Nixon manipulating the money supply to get reelected and UE was 7.5% and stable when Carter left, whereas UE was 7.8% and skyrocketing when Bush left.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> High inflation, plus high unemployment is why the early 80s recession was worse than the 2008/2009. Its rare that you get high inflation and high unemployment together. *Unemployment under Reagan peaked at 10.8% in November 1982*.


Yeah up from the stable 7.5% UE rate Carter passed off to St Ronnie. Reagan jacked UE up to 10.8% all on his own as a result of the policies he put in place in 1981.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

I really don't understand why you people hate BUSH so much to such a degree you totally ignore the realities of the events that caused many problems !
5,000 people died between 9/11 and hurricanes!
$8 trillion in lost businesses, market values , homes destroyed and yet none of these events you people recognize as having
ANY effect on the economy!
Why is this so?  The truth is when history is written about Bush's presidency historians will say that IN spite of these events..
the country moved forward!  For that Bush will be considered one of the great presidents!

I really don't understand why a political ideology trumps reality!
Yes Bush was a Republican!  But 9/11/Hurricanes/recessions know no party ideology!
So why are you people such haters of GWB when all he could do was respond to the events as they occurred!
The answer is that you Bush bashers have been totally brainwashed by the MSM's bias.
You get your distorted information from the biased MSM that donated 85% to Democrats!
The TV anchors all presented more negative stories about Bush then they have done with Obama!
Yet none of you people that bash Bush seem to have the objectivity to comprehend this manipulation of your perceptions!
Time will prove me right folks because I know the above events occurred.  Can't change that!
When these events occurred lives were lost as well as trillions of dollars and that had an affect on millions of Americans!


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You're completely deranged. 

We're talking about the financial costs, ya moron. 

And everything you list combined pales in comparison to the Great Recession Bush dumped on Obama. 


Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 
_Our bottom-line estimate of the cost of the crisis, assuming output eventually returns to its precrisis trend path, is an output loss of $6 trillion to $14 trillion. _


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


_ Clinton predicted on January 22 that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist group will attack on American soil within the next few years. *He is using this risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team* headed by a military "commander in chief," with a $2.8 billion budget. *We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial.*_

Clinton s Post-Impeachment Push for Power -- March 1999 Phyllis Schlafly Report


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you are USING a "_Our bottom-line estimate of the cost of the crisis,"_ ESTIMATED number!!!!
Where are your facts?

Plus ya moron... There were some other minor events here say 
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history!  The worst!  No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. 
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. 
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

Finally what is the price tag on the 5,000+ lives that were lost?  There is an economic impact with them. 
AND NOTHING Obama has contended with EQUALS that!

You are laughable when you are trying to defend Obama's total hatred for Americans, his distaste for capitalism and
definitely his anti-business attitude as manifested by all his efforts to continue to destroy American jobs!
He will be shown as one of the most destructive presidents within several years.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


I like how you put a price tag on each hurricane which adds up to about $250 Billion, but in a desperate attempt to keep up with the estimated $6-$14 trillion cost of Bush's Great Recession, resort to fuzzy math to get $250 Billion magically become $1 trillion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> cost of Bush's Great Recession,



Since Bush and Hoover were very liberal does that make you a conservative? Given the Obama, another liberal, has prolonged the recession 7 years so far does that encourage you to be more conservative still??


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > cost of Bush's Great Recession,
> ...


No, it makes you crazy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Since Bush and Hoover were very liberal does that make you a conservative? Given that Obama, another liberal, has prolonged the recession 7 years so far does that encourage you to be more conservative still??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> all his efforts to continue to destroy American jobs!
> He will be shown as one of the most destructive presidents within several years.


I agree. Here's how he destroys jobs:
1) highest corporate taxes in world
2) support for unions
3) support for deficits that allow Chinese to buy our deficits rather than our products
4) continuing war on our schools and families
5) inviting in 20 million illegals to take our jobs, just to get their votes


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The housing bust  WAS NOT Bush's fault!
Read what these Democrats did when Bush administration tried to correct the problem!

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. 
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at* least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. *

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. 
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
*"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,*
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."... 
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

*  * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
            called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.* Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis


BUT idiots like you  seem to forget ALL the other issues confronting Bush and concentrate on this issue.
Will you idiots it was YOUR doings that created the problem!
*Federal Mandates and Subsidies Increased Risky Mortgages*
In 2001, the share of existing mortgages classified as nonprime (subprime or the intermediate category "Alt-A") was below 10 percent. 
That share began rising rapidly. 
*The nonprime share of all new mortgage originations rose close to 34 percent by 2006,* bringing the nonprime share of existing mortgages to 23 percent. Meanwhile the quality of loans within the nonprime category declined, because a smaller share of nonprime borrowers made 20 percent down payments on their purchases.5

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was an imprudence fostered by the federal government. As elaborated in the paragraphs to follow, there were several ways that Congress and the executive branch encouraged the expansion. The first way was loosening down-payment standards on mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. The second was strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act. The third was pressure on lenders by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The fourth and most important way was subsidizing, through implicit taxpayer guarantees, the dramatic expansion of the government-sponsored mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; pointedly refusing to moderate the moral hazard problem of implicit guarantees or otherwise rein in the hyperexpansion of Fannie and Freddie; and increasingly pushing Fannie and Freddie to promote affordable housing through expanded purchases of nonprime loans to low-income applicant.
Housing Finance and the 2008 Financial Crisis


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Asked and answered, Crazy Eddie.


----------



## Faun (Oct 4, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


_"*Thanks to OUR POLICIES, * home ownership in America is at an all-time high!" - George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech  _


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You know the distinction between you and me is that I can admit that you are right.  But you will never admit the events that occurred at the same time the housing
bubble was about to break occurred.  You will never admit that those EVENTS had an affect on the credit availability.  But I do agree during Bush administration
he took the blame for the actions not taken by the Democrat controlled Congress.
NOTE Bush said that in 2004!  But it wasn't till after the other EVENTS had diminished in their consequences, that :
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. 
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. 

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. 
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
             "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."... 
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
            called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis


----------



## Eaglewings (Oct 5, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



 Too funny how they keep trying to put the Bush /Cheney dysfunction and corruption onto Obama.
It took 8 years to bring the US down, we have been doing well now for 2 years ( at least in the cities).


----------



## Faun (Oct 5, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Who do you think controlled the Congress in 2004?? 

What bills did Barney Frank block??


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. 
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
             "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."... 
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
            called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)


----------



## Faun (Oct 5, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


So your answers to my questions were ... 'Republicans' and 'none'.


----------



## Faun (Oct 5, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


.... not to mention, your post is bullshit. Pure unadulterated nonsensical bullshit.

You said...

_*"Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs."*_​
... only that's not true. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, *Barney Frank sponsored **H.R.1427 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007*. Even worse for you -- *most Republicans voted against his GSE reform bill.

*


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




FACTS have a funny way of showing up your guesses!
I've course he sponsored a bill that was PASSED by the House.........


Introduced:Mar 9, 2007  110th Congress, 2007–2009

Status: This bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress and was passed by the House on May 22, 2007 but was never passed by the Senate.
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 (2007 - H.R. 1427)

The *One Hundred Tenth United States Congress* was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of PresidentGeorge W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.
110th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AGAIN Bush wanted but Democrats controlled as you can read above...not my guesses but FACTS.


----------



## Faun (Oct 5, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You are painfully retarded. You said, _"Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs,"_ and I showed you the GSE reform bill Barney Frank sponsored.

That establishes you're a liar AND an imbecile. 

And as far as Democrats not passing GSE reform until 2008 ... remind me again when Bush first asked Congress for such a bill...?


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Looks like healthmyths finally understood he was beaten and slinked away.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




*I said NOTHING about Frank "opposing"!   I used FRANK's OWN words where HE SAID HE OPPOSED it!!!*

Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " *I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing*"?

Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, 
*"we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"?
*
Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans 
and *opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. *
That bill, which* the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. *
The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.
*Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
*
Many prominent Democrats,including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
*"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...*
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman *Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash,* 
"Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

So again NOT MY words you idiot!


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You fuckin' liar. You said...

_"Many prominent Democrats, including *House Finance Chairman* Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs."_​
... Barney Frank didn't chair that committee until 2007, at which time, he sponsored a GSE reform bill you claim he was "opposed to." To support your lies, you then quote him from *years earlier * where he said he wanted to, _"roll the dice a bit more, _ but then falsely claim he said he was opposed to GSE reform.

And ..... you *still* haven't answered my question.... when did Bush first ask Congress for GSE reform?


----------



## usmg85 (Oct 6, 2015)

*The President with the worst average approval rating since the 70's is?*

*Barack** Obama:  47%*
* 
Obama 47.0%
Bush (G.W.) 49.4%
Clinton 55.1%
Bush (G.H.W.) 60.9%
Reagan 52.8%
*


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Starting in 2001... See below from this LINK! 
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

By the way you could increase your creditability by providing LINKS to your guesses!

*2001
April:* The Administration's *FY02 budget* declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
*2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) *calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) 
*2003
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow* testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

*September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)* strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," _The New York Times_, 9/11/03) 

*October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)* refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

*November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw*explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03) 
*2004*

*February: The President's FY05 Budget* again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
*February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw* cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," _Financial Times_, 2/24/04) 
*April: Rep. Frank* ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," _American Banker_, 4/21/04) 
*June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman *spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." *(Samuel Bodman, *House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
*2005*

*April: Then-Secretary Snow* repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
*July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid* rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," _United Press International_, 7/28/05)
*2007*

*August: President Bush* emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
*August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd* ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," _The New York Times_, 8/11/07) 
*December: President Bush* again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07) 
*2008*

*February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason* reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08) 
*March: President Bush* calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08) 
*April: President Bush* urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08) 
*May: President Bush* issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) 



"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)



"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

*June:* As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, *the President* once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
*July:* Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
*September:* Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as *Senator Dodd* questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," _Bloomberg_, 9/9/08)


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Earlier, you said Bush asked *17 times* in 2008, but now you show only 7. Typo?

At any rate, what the fuck is wrong with you? You show Bush asking since *2001* but you blame Democrats who didn't take over Congress until *2007*.

Thanks for highlighting why Republicans get the blame for the meltdown.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



UNLIKE you I quote the people.  I don't make up the numbers!

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. *President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.*

Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.

Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.

Bush's first budget, written in 2001 —* seven years ago —* called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."

*In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."* Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.

"_I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del._
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings - The Gateway Pundit

In the Wall Street Journal, Senior Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove explained:

_Sen. Charles Schumer of New York dismissed Mr. Bush’s “safety and soundness concerns” as “a straw man.” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” was the helpful advice of both Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware and Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, “I am just pissed off” at the administration for raising the issue…_

The more the president [Bush] pushed for reform, the more [mortgages] they bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and “liar loans,” almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. This bulk-up in risky paper made it possible for banks to lend imprudently on a massive scale.
FANNY & FREDDIE: What Really Happened in 2008?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Oct 7, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


It makes Obama look bad, thats why. If instead we looked at changes in unemployment since taking office, Obama would be high up there and most Democrats would he higher than most Republicans...so we dont look at that. We are trying to stay fair and balanced


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


I'm using *your * numbers. 

You said it was 17 times but you showed only 7.

And again, you said Bush started asking for reform in 2001 but didn't get it until 2008 .... remind me again ... which party controlled Congress for most of those years?


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> I'm using *your * numbers.
> 
> You said it was 17 times but you showed only 7.
> 
> And again, you said Bush started asking for reform in 2001 but didn't get it until 2008 .... remind me again ... which party controlled Congress for most of those years?


 

you were given proof that Republicans asked for reform long before the economy tanked. YOu were shown it was Democrats OBSTRUCTING reform. you are the same losers who cry that the Democrat MAJORITY for all of Bush's last two years was helpless to do anything about the economy. You are the same losers who cry that the Democrat MAJORITY FOR ALL OF OBAMA'S FIRST TWO YEARS was "obstructed" by Republicans.


now you're here implying that the Republican majority could have gotten the reform that was needed

it is just so typical of you


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using *your * numbers.
> ...


Maybe you can answer the question... Which party controlled Congress for most of those years between 2001 and 2008? After that challenge, answer the question what GSE reform bills did Barney Frank block?

Thanks for playing.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



GEEZ... are you that stupid???

I never SAID...You said it was 17 times but you showed only 7.
The statement is clearly made by others that :

"_Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. 
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted._ 

The above quote:  "publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone"!
There were 17 times in public speeches, press conferences ANYWHERE the President spoke or wrote when he asked in 2008 17 times for GSE reform!
YOU idiot....
The material that you count "7" had NOTHING to do with Bush's 17 times in 2008 alone where he spoke/wrote regarding GSE reform!

DO YOU a poster person for the density of skull thickness of FFOs... DO YOU comprehend the difference????
BUSH publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008!
NOW do you comprehend with your limited mental acuity the distinction????  
GEEZ please, PLEASE continue to show the rest of the forum your truly inability to comprehend very simple concepts.
Bush "publicly called 17 times for GSE reforms"  and this is in addition to the quotes of others from 2001 to 2008 for GSE reforms that
Barney and the Democrats refused to pass... primarily because after Barney left Congress he went to work for one !

Volcker Rule Will Benefit These Firms," was a 2013 headline at The Street, a financial publication, which explained, "implementation of consumer banking laws in through the Dodd-Frank bank reform legislation has been cumbersome for the large banks, but has allowed lenders such as Discover Financial Services and Signature Bank to gain market share." Investor's Business Daily reported that Dodd-Frank was helping Signature lure talented bankers away from the big banks.

There are many ways, big and small, in which Frank's interventionism has been good for banks.

Signature, in its announcement of Frank's hire, pointed out his central role in the 2008 bailout. The announcement called Frank, "instrumental in crafting the short-term $550 billion rescue plan in response to the nation's financial crisis." (Signature, to its credit, was one of the first banks to return its bailout money.
Barney Frank joins a bank


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 

i dont need to play; cuz i know you're a coward. but since we're on the subject; what corporate subsidies did Democrats even TRY to end in their 4 years as a majority of BOTH chambers of Congress?

by the way from DAY ONE in 2007 the Democrat majority was BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD; and even DID have that FILIBUSTER-PROOF for 13 weeks. which is 13 weeks longer than Bush had.

thanks for playing though.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...




Notice how bedwetter doesn't want to answer my questions but does want to deflect.

How come?

Who controlled the Congress for most of those years and what Bill did Barney Frank block?


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

the policies that led to the housing bubble bursting, endorsed by both Parties under Clinton and Bush, are still being endorsed by the Left, setting us up for another disaster.


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
how am i deflecting idiot? i'm using YOUR logic

thanks for playing.........


----------



## Rustic (Oct 7, 2015)

Of course, no brainier, socialism has failed EVERY time it has been tried in history... You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results, INSANITY.

EMBRACE THE SUCK OF STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> the policies that led to the housing bubble bursting, endorsed by both Parties under Clinton and Bush, are still being endorsed by the Left, setting us up for another disaster.


Bush to Republicans... _"Thanks to *our* policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high."_


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


The answers to my questions were .... 

1. Republican 
2. None

Again, thanks for playin'!


----------



## Rustic (Oct 7, 2015)

If anyone has to depend on the federal government for their wellbeing... I feel sorry for them, I really do.
A rotten ball and chain to deal with....


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > the policies that led to the housing bubble bursting, endorsed by both Parties under Clinton and Bush, are still being endorsed by the Left, setting us up for another disaster.
> ...


 

name one instance Democrats didnt endorse those "Bush" policies with a majority of Democrat Party votes in Congress



thanks for playing................


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 

one more time, for the pathetic loser here.

this is why you're a joke (and everybody here knows what i'm about to say is true and has seen it themselves on these message boards);........................................when you say "controlled Congress" you are the very same kind of loser that INSISTS Democrats never "controlled Congress" on THEIR 4-YEAR SPAN AS MAJORITY OF BOTH CHAMBERS; on account they didnt have that filibuster or veto-proof majority; EVEN THOUGH FROM *DAY ONE  in January of 2007* the Democrat majority of both chambers WAS BIGGER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUSH HAD FOR THE TIME FRAME YOU KEEP MENTIONING.

why is it you expect Republican majorities that ARE SMALLER than Democrat majorities can accomplish what the LARGER Democrat majorities cant?????


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



BARNEY FRANK? MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP HOUSE 1995-JAN 2007? WHAT SUPPER POWERS DID HE HAVE AGAIN???









Oh right, we forget about the *OUT OF CONTEXT 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS WHEN DEMS SAID F/F WERE OK*


WHAT HAPPENED?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From *Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008*

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets *clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”*




*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 

*
June 17, 2004*


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a *Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people,* a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *


* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis*



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
*Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (*2004*)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (*2004*)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (*2004*)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (*2004*)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (*2004-2007*)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (*2003*)


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*




* FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*









*There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs.* Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, *GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.* The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that *the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else. *

Consider Fannie Mae's historical loan performance, reported each year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in its Annual Report to Congress. Over a span of 37 years, from 1971 through 2007, Fannie's average annual loss rate on its mortgage book was about four basis points. Losses were disproportionately worse during the crisis years, 2008 through 2011, when Fannie's average annual loss rate was 52 basis points. Freddie Mac's results are comparable.

By way of contrast, during the 1991–2007 period, commercial banks' average annual loss rate on single family mortgages was about 15 basis points. During the 2008-2011 period, annual losses were 184 basis points. 

Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio.* In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better.* *On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better. *

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that *private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.*

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that? The only plausible answer is that people are besotted by social stereotypes. *Words like "government" and "affordable housing goals" make them jump to the unsupported conclusion that underwriting standards were compromised.*


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

YEP, DUBYA HOSED F/F HOWEVER AS REGULATOR

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

*The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program.*In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with *blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment*.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled, "Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing Needs"). 

* The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Fredde to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.*




DUBYA:

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. 

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people *Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.*

(From White House Speech archives – "President calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeowners" at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia).



Then, the following press release was sent out:

Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership. 
* * * 
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint for the American Dream document released by HUD today. 

The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is the *response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in June to increase minority homeownership*," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the* President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade*." 

In his February State of the Union address President Bush called for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities." 


In June, President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. 

Fannie Mae responded by committing *$700 billion *in home financing to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This *increases by 66 percent *the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420 billion for three million minority families.

(quotes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Business Wire "President Bush’s Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership" – October 15, 2002).


The Administration and Republican Congress also passed the "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 to allow low income and minorities with blemished credit and no ability to come up with a downpayment to have the government cover their downpayment and closing costs. The Act gave 161.5 million dollars in taxpayer money to cover the downpayment and closing costs of minorities and low income individuals that would not be able to afford a downpayment and/or had "blemished credit." 



On December 16, 2003, *President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs*, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.

(From White House Press Release "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

* Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.*

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership * 

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. 
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would *eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment *for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

*"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," *said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. * "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal." *

Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone. 
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low income and minorities.

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES*

*40,000 More Families (A YEAR) Expected To Benefit From New Offerings *


WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs, during which time the interest rate would be fixed. "By offering additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more homeownership opportunities," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in a speech to America’s Community Bankers. "We estimate that as many as 40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages as their way of financing their home purchase."

(HUD Press Release).

* Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including closing costs).*


EVEN WITH HOW DUBYA HOSED F/F


*Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...





Oh right, we forget about the *OUT OF CONTEXT 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS WHEN DEMS SAID F/F WERE OK*


WHAT HAPPENED?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From *Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008*

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets *clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”*




*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 

*
June 17, 2004*


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a *Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people,* a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. *But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. *


* Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis*



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
*Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs*
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (*2004*)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (*2004*)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (*2004*)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (*2004*)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (*2004-2007*)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (*2003*)


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*




* FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*









*There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs.* Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, *GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.* The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that *the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else. *

Consider Fannie Mae's historical loan performance, reported each year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in its Annual Report to Congress. Over a span of 37 years, from 1971 through 2007, Fannie's average annual loss rate on its mortgage book was about four basis points. Losses were disproportionately worse during the crisis years, 2008 through 2011, when Fannie's average annual loss rate was 52 basis points. Freddie Mac's results are comparable.

By way of contrast, during the 1991–2007 period, commercial banks' average annual loss rate on single family mortgages was about 15 basis points. During the 2008-2011 period, annual losses were 184 basis points. 

Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio.* In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better.* *On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better. *

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that *private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.*

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that? The only plausible answer is that people are besotted by social stereotypes. *Words like "government" and "affordable housing goals" make them jump to the unsupported conclusion that underwriting standards were compromised.*


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

YEP, DUBYA HOSED F/F HOWEVER AS REGULATOR

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

*The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program.*In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with *blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment*.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled, "Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing Needs"). 

* The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Fredde to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.*




DUBYA:

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. 

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people *Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.*

(From White House Speech archives – "President calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeowners" at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia).



Then, the following press release was sent out:

Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership. 
* * * 
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint for the American Dream document released by HUD today. 

The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is the *response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in June to increase minority homeownership*," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the* President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade*." 

In his February State of the Union address President Bush called for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities." 


In June, President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. 

Fannie Mae responded by committing *$700 billion *in home financing to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This *increases by 66 percent *the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420 billion for three million minority families.

(quotes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Business Wire "President Bush’s Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership" – October 15, 2002).


The Administration and Republican Congress also passed the "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 to allow low income and minorities with blemished credit and no ability to come up with a downpayment to have the government cover their downpayment and closing costs. The Act gave 161.5 million dollars in taxpayer money to cover the downpayment and closing costs of minorities and low income individuals that would not be able to afford a downpayment and/or had "blemished credit." 



On December 16, 2003, *President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs*, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.

(From White House Press Release "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

* Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.*

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership * 

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. 
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would *eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment *for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

*"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," *said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. * "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal." *

Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone. 
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low income and minorities.

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES*

*40,000 More Families (A YEAR) Expected To Benefit From New Offerings *


WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs, during which time the interest rate would be fixed. "By offering additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more homeownership opportunities," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in a speech to America’s Community Bankers. "We estimate that as many as 40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages as their way of financing their home purchase."

(HUD Press Release).

* Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including closing costs).*


EVEN WITH HOW DUBYA HOSED F/F


*Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


You haven't named which Republican policies Bush was refreshing
Oh, and thanks for letting me know I struck a nerve when I said, _thanks for playing, _ before.  It apparently stung so bad, you've used it back at me repeatedly. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



17 TIMES HUH? WHY DIDN'T THE GOP CONGRESS LISTEN??

*There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs.* Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, *GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market.* The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that *the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else. *

Consider Fannie Mae's historical loan performance, reported each year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in its Annual Report to Congress. Over a span of 37 years, from 1971 through 2007, Fannie's average annual loss rate on its mortgage book was about four basis points. Losses were disproportionately worse during the crisis years, 2008 through 2011, when Fannie's average annual loss rate was 52 basis points. Freddie Mac's results are comparable.

By way of contrast, during the 1991–2007 period, commercial banks' average annual loss rate on single family mortgages was about 15 basis points. During the 2008-2011 period, annual losses were 184 basis points. 

Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio.* In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better.* *On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better. *

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that *private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.*

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that? The only plausible answer is that people are besotted by social stereotypes. *Words like "government" and "affordable housing goals" make them jump to the unsupported conclusion that underwriting standards were compromised.*


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

YEP, DUBYA HOSED F/F HOWEVER AS REGULATOR

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

*The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program.*In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with *blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment*.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled, "Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing Needs"). 

* The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Fredde to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.*




DUBYA:

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. 

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people *Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.*

(From White House Speech archives – "President calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeowners" at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia).



Then, the following press release was sent out:

Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership. 
* * * 
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint for the American Dream document released by HUD today. 

The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is the *response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in June to increase minority homeownership*," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the* President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade*." 

In his February State of the Union address President Bush called for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities." 


In June, President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. 

Fannie Mae responded by committing *$700 billion *in home financing to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This *increases by 66 percent *the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420 billion for three million minority families.

(quotes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Business Wire "President Bush’s Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership" – October 15, 2002).


The Administration and Republican Congress also passed the "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 to allow low income and minorities with blemished credit and no ability to come up with a downpayment to have the government cover their downpayment and closing costs. The Act gave 161.5 million dollars in taxpayer money to cover the downpayment and closing costs of minorities and low income individuals that would not be able to afford a downpayment and/or had "blemished credit." 



On December 16, 2003, *President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs*, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.

(From White House Press Release "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

* Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.*

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership * 

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. 
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would *eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment *for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

*"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," *said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. * "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal." *

Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone. 
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low income and minorities.

*BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES*

*40,000 More Families (A YEAR) Expected To Benefit From New Offerings *


WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs, during which time the interest rate would be fixed. "By offering additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more homeownership opportunities," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in a speech to America’s Community Bankers. "We estimate that as many as 40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages as their way of financing their home purchase."

(HUD Press Release).

* Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including closing costs).*


EVEN WITH HOW DUBYA HOSED F/F


 *Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis *


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Where are your links?  I don't put anything up unless there is substantiation that anyone can go a verify.
YOU???? YOU wrote all this didn't you??? Except this link:http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Hey, everybody  take a look at how fucking retarded bedwetter is ....

He says Democrats had a larger majority in 2007 than Republicans had in Bush's earlier years.

Is that true or is bedwetter just another rightarded imbecile? Let's check it out, shall we....?

*Senate majority:*
2001: Republican: 49/50; Democrat: 50 (control switched several times)
2003: Republican: *51*
2005: Republican: *55*
2007: Democrat: 49 (+2 Independents who caucused with Democrats)

Bedwetter was wrong about the Senate.

*House majority:*
2001: Republican: 220
2003: Republican: 229
2005: Republican: *233*
2007: Democrat: 233

And bedwetter was wrong about the House.

Reaffirming that bedwetter is a flaming moron who knows nothing about that of which he speaks.


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Where are your links?  I don't put anything up unless there is substantiation that anyone can go a verify.
> YOU???? YOU wrote all this didn't you??? Except this link:http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html



which links you want dumbass? you denying any of it? lmaorog


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

THAT LINK?

WANT THE $440 BILLION F/F LINK? DUBYA CHANGING CLINTON'S RULE (AS F/F REGULATOR!!!) IN 2004 TO ALLOW SUBPRIMES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE NEW GOALS OF 56% FROM 50%? LOL

PLEASE tell me what links you want!

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Where are your links?  I don't put anything up unless there is substantiation that anyone can go a verify.
> ...



Any links where you are NOT stating YOUR opinion because who the f...k are YOU???


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Now that you've been shown how Republicans gave us the policies which led to the collapse and Republicans were in charge of Congress during the critical years when Bush was asking them for GSE reform ... do you blame Republicans yet?


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No I don't blame ALL the Republicans...Just those Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) that stupidly voted with Dems which DIDN'T allow the majority to work!

See unlike Democrats NOT all Republicans are mindless robots.  Not all Republicans are also true conservatives.  So when idiots like you Blame GOP you 
ignorantly forget  some idiot Republicans trying to appease the MSM vote with Democrats...remember that phrase "bipartisan"... ONLY works with GOP.  Seldom
do you find the VAST MAJORITY of Democrats participating in "bipartisan" effort!

But these are my observations.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Oh? Which "Conservatives" voted for GSE reform?


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




MY OPINIONS DUMBASS?


*Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again*

Testimony from Dubya's s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation& of the GSE's 2003

*September 10, 2003*

*Mr. (BARNEY) Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?*

*Secretary Snow.* No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. *We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it*


THE *TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF  GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES  (DUBYA'S EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUBBA)*

*September 10, 2003*


Treasury Dept. Views on the regulation of government sponsored enterprises.


*June 17, 2004*


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a *Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people*, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the *American Dream Downpayment Initiative*, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year"


This legislation complemented the President's "aggressive housing agenda" announced in a speech he gave at the Department of Housing and Urban Development on June 18, 2002. In this speech the President outlined the partnerships needed to make homeownership a reality for millions more Americans by the end of the decade.

American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*S. 811 (108th): American Dream Downpayment Act*

*Sponsor:*

* *


*Wayne Allard*
*Republican (Co)*



9 cosponsors (9R)

Sessions, Jefferson “Jeff” [R-AL]
(joined Apr 8, 2003)
Crapo, Michael [R-ID]
(joined Apr 9, 2003)
Brownback, Samuel “Sam” [R-KS]
(joined Apr 28, 2003)
Burns, Conrad [R-MT]
(joined May 13, 2003)
Hagel, Charles “Chuck” [R-NE]
(joined May 14, 2003)
Santorum, Richard “Rick” [R-PA]
(joined Jun 5, 2003)
Campbell, Ben [R-CO]
(joined Jun 25, 2003)
Enzi, Michael [R-WY]
(joined Oct 14, 2003)
Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
(joined Nov 20, 2003)
American Dream Downpayment Act (2003 - S. 811)

*In 2000,(CLINTON) * as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular.* Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.*


*(2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie*, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.

*

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans. *

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.

But by *2004 (BUSH) *, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.
*

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent.* John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."


*"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said.*

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


*October 26, 2005*

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

* Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers", that was the only bill to pass either house of Congress 2001-2008 dummy*



*2004-* *HUD (that would be dubya who was regulator, f/f were under HUD dummy)  *increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from *50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans*

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis




*WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT BUBBA? NAME IT!*


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



ALL the GOP voted on was to privatize F/F completely


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



AS USUAL, YOUR "OBSERVATIONS" ARE BASED ON RIGHT WING BULLSHIT. 

Dubya:


Dubya cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble, taking 1,800+ agents out of the white collar crime division AFTER the FBI warned of an "EPIDEMIC OF MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT COULD RIVAL THE S&L CRISIS" IN *2003*!   

Fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to regulate the subprime lenders, in *2003 *used the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T TO SAY STATES CAN'T REGULATE PREDATORY LENDERS ON NATIONAL BANKS (all 50 states sued and won, too late in 2009)


Forced F/F to go from 50% to 56% of their loans to be "affordable housing goals" (*2004*)

Got rid of Clinton's 2000 rule restricting subprimes in "affordable housing goals" (*2004*)

Allowed the five investment Banksters to go from a 12-1 leverage rule to 35-1 which FLOODED the market with money (*2004*)

*WEIRD HOW HARDING/COOLIDGE CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS IN THE 1920'S, RONNIE IGNORED ED GRAY'S WARNINGS IN 1984 WHO HAD WARNED HIM OF THE FRAUD THAT WOULD'VE STOPPED 90%+ OF HIS S&L CRISIS (LARGEST IN 50+ YEARS), THEN DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE, CAN YOU SAY "LET THE MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BUBBA???*




*WHAT ELSE YOU NEED BUBBA?*


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 7, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I NEED LINKS!  YOU saying it doesn't make it so!
Provide substantiation to your OPINIONS!
I generally provide the links because I don't want my amateur opinions be the statement.
I would think you should be honest enough to put your links where THOSE STATEMENTS were made instead of making them up!


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




Don't understand i gave you links dummy? lol


PLEASE IF YOU THINK I'M LYING, TELL ME WHICH "QUOTE" I'LL GET YOU DOZENS OF LINKS YOU POS!!



Bush aggressively pushed the private lending industry to make over $1.1 trillion in low income and minority lows and to "create more creative" loan products to do it. He pushed them to "loosen credit standards" and pushed them to make the most risky loan products available to the riskiest buyers. *Then, he turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and threatened to rewrite their regulatory charters. *

DUBYA:

"The government-sponsored corporations created to increase the liquidity of mortgage markets, so more capital would be available for mortgage loans, *are supposed to lead the market in reaching underserved populations*. While these corporations have increased their commitments to these efforts,* they lag behind private lenders in this regard,* according to government studies. The *Administration will revisit the regulatory goals *for these corporations’ purchases of affordable housing loans, *which are set to expire in 2003*. The federal government should demand more and *should hold such publicly-chartered corporations accountable for better performance*."


Homeownership Policy Book - Background (Text Only)




*The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Freddie to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans. *



"That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. 
And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people *Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts."*

*President Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership


PLEASE YOU POS WHAT LINKS DO YOU WANT? LOL*


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Speaking of proof with links ...I'm still waiting .... which Conservatives voted for GSE reform ... ?


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 7, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




IGNORED THIS POST HUH DUMBFUKKK?


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is? | Page 213 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

MORE LINKS HERE

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NAME ANY POSIT OF MINE YOU WANT A LINK ON YOU DUMB MOTHERFKKKR!!


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 8, 2015)

Dad2three said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So you ignorant selective editing LEFT OUT these MAJOR CLINTON contributors to the housing bubble crash!
NOT my words but see below!
HEY did you know YOUR link HUD Scandals
Shows this:

*The Cisneros Years, 1993–1997*
In the Clinton administration, a primary mission of HUD was to increase home ownership rates, especially among minorities and low-income families. 
That mission was carried out through HUD subsidy programs and through the two government-connected mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1992, HUD was given regulatory authority over these government-sponsored enterprises, and it began pushing the two firms into the subprime lending business. 
*We now know that these political decisions on housing that were made in the 1990s helped fuel the housing bubble and subsequent crash in the early 21st century, so it is worth looking into the leadership of HUD during those years.*
Henry Cisneros served as President Bill Clinton's HUD secretary from 1993 to 1997, when he resigned to deal with allegations that he lied to the FBI about payments he made to a former mistress. Cisneros plead guilty in 1999 and was fined $10,000, avoiding a possible prison sentence. 
A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank's CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities.28 As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, "The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks."29 - 

*The Cuomo Years, 1997-2001*
During the Cuomo years, mortgage industry officials and housing advocates _*wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase higher volumes of riskier loans that were offered to less credit-worthy borrowers.*_ 
Cuomo's HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase the portion of their portfolios consisting of loans to moderate-income borrowers. 
Cuomo applied pressure by *having HUD publicly "investigate" whether Fannie and Freddie were sufficiently in compliance with government fair-lending standards designed to prevent discrimination.*
Cuomo also supported efforts to have home sellers funnel money to nonprofit groups to help pay for buyers' down payments and closing costs. These "down payment assistance" loans ended up having default rates twice that of standard FHA-insured mortgages.51 Cuomo portrayed his efforts as helping to increase homeownership rates for minorities, but he also had an interest in not upsetting mortgage industry officials who would later help finance his gubernatorial campaign. 
*He also worked hard to receive support from leftist housing advocate groups, such as ACORN.*

*We know now that Fannie and Freddie's expansion into low-quality mortgages was a huge mistake.* A decade ago, numerous financial analysts saw the problems coming, but policymakers ignored their concerns and did not change their policy course. Here is a prescient observation by a _New York Times_ reporter in 1999:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.54

Unfortunately, the housing and financial debacles of 2008 and 2009 were far larger than the savings and loan mess. But with Cuomo, fiscally prudent policies took a backseat to his political aspirations.
See more at: HUD Scandals

Where in your "HONEST" sharing was discussion about this????


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 8, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




GOT IT, YOU ARE NOT ONLY A DISHONEST POS, YOU DON'T HAVE READING COMPREHENSION. Shocking



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets *clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. *This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

NOTE ANYTHING HERE DUMBFUKKKK







In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. *HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders. *


*In 2000 (CLINTON),* as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular.* Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications. *

* HUD (2000, CLINTON) restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans. *

* That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number. *

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.

* But by 2004 (NOW WHAT HAD CHANGED DUMBASS), when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising. *


*How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis



BUT ALTHOUGH DUBYA'S POLICIES HOSED FANNIE/FREDDIE, THEY DIDN'T CAUSE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE DUMBFUKKK

NOW GROW A BRAIN AND GET OFF RIGHT WINGS LONG DEBUNKED TALKING POINTS DUMMY*

*


Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
*


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 8, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




*EVERYTHING DOCUMENTED IN MY LINK DUMBBASS*

*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


*Bush'S documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (*2004*)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (*2004*)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (*2001*)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (*2003*)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (*2004-2007*)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments *PER YEAR 2004-2007*
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (*2007*)


* But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


CUOMO/CLINTON HUH?? LOL


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART DUMMY?





*


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 8, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




YOO HOO BUBBA?  NOTHING ON YOUR DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS ON CUOMO/CLINTON??/ LOL


*Bush's HUD Secretary Finally Gets Some Press*


Republicans have never liked HUD very much. GOP presidents tend to turn it into a political backwater, a neglected place where they repay campaign favors rather than orchestrate major policy initiatives. As a result, the agency has been the source of a considerable number of GOP scandals. Jackson's announcement brought back memories of Samuel Pierce, Ronald Reagan's longtime HUD secretary who was plagued by allegations that many of his close associates had engaged in cronyism, mismanagement, and in some cases, outright theft at the agency, all of which occurred as Reagan dismantled the nation's low-income housing infrastructure. *At least six major Reagan administration officials ended up convicted of crimes stemming from HUD corruption.

*
...Jackson carried on this legacy when he took over at HUD in 2004. He might have remained below the radar had he not given a speech in Dallas in *2006 saying that he'd canceled the contract a HUD contractor who admitted to disliking President Bush. The comments sparked an FBI and federal grand jury investigation that have dogged Jackson the past few years and led to questions about whether HUD improperly awarded a controversial $127 million contract to Jackson's former employe*r, which still owes him at least $250,000

*Bush's HUD Secretary Finally Gets Some Press*


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 8, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




YOO HOO BUBBA, RUNNING AWAY WHEN YOUR MEMES ARE DEBUNKED? lol


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Oct 10, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



That dodge won't work, because the same measurement is applied to ALL those presidents. Each of those president's UE average includes the first 3 or 6 months.

When we consider the real unemployment rate, the U-6 rate, Obama looks ever worse. Ditto for median family income, the national debt, and labor force participation--oh, and let's not forget federal revenue as a percentage of GDP (Obama is the worst in several decades, at least).

You see, that's what happens when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a myriad of higher taxes and then pile on a ton of new senseless costly regulations as well.

And, Dad2Three, how can you not know that Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to stop Freddie and Fannie from securing so many high-risk home loans? Bush even warned about the potential disaster in one of his State of the Union addresses. The Republican attempts to rein in Freddie and Fannie, and the Democrats' demagoguery in response, are documented on YouTube for all the world to see, for crying out loud. 

Finally, the liberal denials about the role of the CRA in causing the financial crisis have been debunked by conservative scholars. For example:

Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 10, 2015)

mikegriffith1 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...




REALLY? LET ME GUESS, Dubya "warned" the GOP Congress SEVENTEEN TIMES ON GSE REFORMS? Could get TWO UNFUNDED TAX CUTS, TWO UNFUNDED WARS, UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION A BILL TO GET BETWEEN A HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE, BUT COULDN'T GET GSE REFORM THROUGH A GOP CONGRESS? LMAOROG

HINT the ONLY GSE reform that passed EITHER House (WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT) of Congress was HR1461 in 2005, DUBYA OPPOSED IT.

Yep, youtube DOES have OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS OF DEMS TALKING ABOUT HE 2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDALS. AND?

IGNORE THAT DUBYA ACTUALLY WAS F/F REGULATOR, HE CHOSE TO UP F/F "GOALS" FROM 50% TO 56% IN 2004, CHOSE TO CHANGE CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT FORBID using "subprimes" in those goals, or that Dubya "encouraged" (with a threat at them about their upcoming charter) , to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's to meet Dubya's goals

But let me guess, Barney Frank, minority member of the GOP majority House 1995- Jan 2007, was responsible even though he could run nekkid through the halls and not stop a single GOP bill (see wars, tax cuts, Medicare expansion, etc)..


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 10, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...





YOOHOO BUBBA? Nothing? lol


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Oct 10, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*



*Say it ain't so! Not FDR Jr!*


----------



## Dad2three (Oct 10, 2015)

mikegriffith1 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...




"Finally, the liberal denials about the role of the CRA in causing the financial crisis have been debunked by conservative scholars. For example:"


CRA AROUND SINCE 1977 CAUSED THIS:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly *was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. *This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf








*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*

*The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


_The housing boom and bust was global — _Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

These questions show why proximity and statistical validity are so important. Let’s get more specific.T*he Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause*.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

*For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse.* Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

>



* CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages —  Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill*
>

What occurred was the exact opposite: *The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. * The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

>



_Suburbs and Exurbs were where the boom & bust occurred — and not the CRA regions_ — Source: Washington Post
>


*The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977.* As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

*•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. *



*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.* Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

>
*Subprime Lenders were (Primarily) Private*





*Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy*


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Oct 10, 2015)

Lakhota said:


>



That's no way to talk about your infiltrators....

Or actually, it is.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

mikegriffith1 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


No president except for FDR inherited an unemployment rate from his predecessor as high as the one Obama inherited.

And no Republican-led Congress ever put a GSE reform bill on the president's desk.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



GEEZ why don't you check the REAL numbers before you put out stupid comment
" _No president except for FDR inherited an unemployment rate from his predecessor as high as the one Obama inherited."
_
THE FACTS:
WHAT year do you show has the highest average??? 1982!  What President was then?  Reagan!
So you are a liar!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 12, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> " _No president except for FDR *inherited* an unemployment rate from his predecessor as high as the one Obama inherited."
> _
> THE FACTS:
> WHAT year do you show has the highest average??? *1982! What President was then? Reagan!*
> So you are a liar!


And you are a STUPID 

St Ronnie had already been president for a year in 1982. Reagan "inherited" that UE rate from his 1981 tax cuts for the "job creators" policy.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > " _No president except for FDR *inherited* an unemployment rate from his predecessor as high as the one Obama inherited."
> ...


You are right.  I was too quick to look at the highest unemployment rate and not the key word "inherited".
Unlike you though I will admit I was wrong.  Of course being Perfect as you are WHY are you even on this forum and not running the world?

I'd just like the same honesty as I exhibited from people like you who have yet to 
answer why you voted for Obama EVEN though he told you he would be lying to you!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 12, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Unlike you, I don't turn an admission of an error into an attack!


----------



## Mustang (Oct 12, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Does anyone (or everyone) remember what happened right before the 2008 election?


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So you think my asking the simple honest question that being perfect as you are you are wasting your time on this forum is an attack?
MY..my...my...a little inferiority complex showing...just saying.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...


No, I'm not a liar and I didn't lie.

The problem here is that you are a fucking retard.

I said, _"no president except for FDR *inherited* an unemployment rate from his predecessor as high as the one Obama inherited."_ee

Key word there, which I highlighted for your benefit, was, _*"inherited."*_

Reagan did not inherit the economy in 1982. Seriously -- what the fuck is wrong you??


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 12, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Now you are just lying!


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 12, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wow.  So now you are a lie detector?  You accuse me of lying BUT you support a KNOWN LIAR who told you he was going to use "tricks" and "tactics" and that he hires people that counted on the "stupidity of the American voter... yet you call me a LIAR???
See this is now where you have gone off the deep end.  You can't recognize reality.  Please continue showing people how FFOs respond to the truth.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 13, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Now you are desperately trying to deflect from your lying.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 6, 2015)

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 7.88%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.88%

646.4/81 = 7.8829 = 7.88%*

There are 14 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate stayed the same in October at 62.4%, the lowest ever since September 1977 when it was at 62.3%, 38 years ago


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 6, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


This crapola is just as stupid now as when you first posted it.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 6, 2015)

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months.
> ...




Its a list o f the average monthly unemployment figures for each President since World War II. Its not crap or stupid, but factual data from the bureau of labor statistics!


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 7, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> 5% unemployment
> 
> Lower than Reagan ever saw



Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 5% unemployment
> ...


Reagan did not have to deal with four million baby boomers retiring every year. He also still had women entering the workforce. 

Average depends a lot on what you started out with. Bush started at 4.2% and left with almost 8%......but had a good "average"


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It is stupid and a way to mislead with statistics, but you knew that already. Bush was handed a strong stable economy and he turned it into a disaster passing it to Obama in mid descent. So Bush's average takes advantage of Clinton's economy and Obama's average is crippled by Bush's cluster fuck.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 5% unemployment
> ...


The LPR is even more useless in evaluating economic health than your average crap. The LPR is affected by demographics and if the demographic effects are not filtered out, which BLS does NOT do, then it is completely worthless as an economic barometer.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 7, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No shit Sherlock

You think Obama went from 10% to 5% in one month?
But there is a big difference starting your Presidency with an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month. You don't turn that around overnight


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The economy broke down because of deregulation policies and the biggest one was the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was done by Clinton and not Bush. Bush did very well with the economy for most of the time he was in office and the American people voted to re-elect him!


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Economist discuss the LPR and its impact every month on unemployment because it is very RELEVANT to what is happening!


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 7, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, only Right-wing "economists" discuss the LPR without filtering out the influence of demographics because they are paid to find some fault with Obama's economy no matter how meaningless and IRRELEVANT because they know their suckers will mindlessly swallow it whole without ever questioning the effects of demographics on the LPR.

Of course, if ever a Republican is elected you will never hear the LPR discussed by the Right without a discussion of the need to filter out the effect of demographics on the LPR.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



By his methodology, a president who starts at 10% and ends at 5% has the same "average" as a president who starts at 5% and ends at 10%


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 7, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Exactly, but that logic will elude him.

It is obviously more important to know the condition of the economy when a president started and the condition it was in when he passed it on to the next president than to know the average.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


Now I see why so many righties refer to Obama as "messiah."

After 81 months in office, *both Obama and Reagan are tied* at 7.88. Since the unemployment rate is now 5.0% while it was 6.0% at this same point during Reagan's presidency, Obama passes Reagan next month. And since so many righties think of Reagan as some sort of demigod, Shirley they think that of Obama too since Obama will have a better record than Reagan when it comes to unemployment.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for October 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 82nd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.92% in September 2015 at 81 months to the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months.
> ...


 
Reagan never saw 5% unemployment
Reagan also had a blank check to increase military spending and government employment


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 9, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Reagan never saw 5% unemployment
> Reagan also had a blank check to increase military spending and government employment


That's right! Obama has brought UE down to 5% through the private sector hiring not by growing the government like St Ronnie.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 10, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 10, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Its not right or left, just economist describing what is happening to the economy to the public and business's so they can plan for the future. Reuters and the AP always have articles and discussions with economist every month about Unemployment figures. Its in these discussions that the labor force participation rate is often mentioned and its impact on the unemployment rate explained.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 10, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


As has been shown, the average is almost as worthless as the LPR in determining the health of the economy.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 10, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Reuters and AP both have Right-wing "economists" who are nothing more than GOP shills selling the BS that the economy can never acknowledged as improving when a Democrat is president.

If ever a Republican is elected president those same "economists" will insist the the LPR must be adjusted for demographics to measure "REAL" economic health.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, it's not. As another poster pointed out, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% at the same rate another president takes it from 11% to 4%, looks like they've performed exactly the same according to your idiocy. And it's precisely because averaging out the unemployment rate hides what a president inherits compared to what they leave for their successor which is why you do it. To hide the reality that Bush inherited a good economy but dumped one of the worst economies on Obama.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 10, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So explain an average that started at 5% and ended at 10% vs an average that started at 10% and ended at 5%

They are the same to you right?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


With November's figures released ... after 82 months in office ...

Reagan ..... 7.86
Obama ...... 7.85

Now what??


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 
Do we need any more evidence that Obama is a better President than Reagan?

And Obama still has another year of sub 7.86 employment figures


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Yup. By the time Obama leaves office, Ford and Reagan will own the two worst records for that and we will never hear about the average unemployment rate again; just as we never did before Obama became president.


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 4, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Nice little trick the Republicans have. They are masters of slight of hand.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2015)

MarcATL said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 
That is why this stupid "unemployment average" has never been used before and will never be used again

But, what the hell.......it is a good way to evaluate the Kenyan, at least until he starts delivering sub 5% unemployment rates


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yep, this thing is going to bite these radical rightwing shills in the buttocks. The unemployment rate is great to continue dropping under Obama, or even if it stays the same, the average rate will drop. At that point this thread will be forever abandoned and those that created it and promoted it will act as if it never existed. 

They will then come up with a new way to make the economy appear bad under President Barack Obama.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Explain to us how simply looking at January 2001 and December 2008 is an accurate way to asses what happened over a 96 month period? How would you like it if your perfo


U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 5% unemployment
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 
Its like a poker game.......It only matters what you started out at and what you left the table with. How much you were up or down at any point is irrelevant

Try explaining to your wife....I may have lost $1000, but my average during the game was pretty good


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 8, 2015)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 7.85%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%*

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


 
You still have not provided a source for your numbers

You also haven't explained how you consider and "average" unemployment that starts at 5% and ends at 10% is the same thing as an average that starts at 10% and ends at 5%?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 8, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.
> ...



All the numbers that I have used come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can get it all here Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. They have every monthly unemployment rate from January 1948 to the present. They also have every monthly labor force participation rate from January 1948 to the present. I've posted this many times.

As for your other question, there are 96 months in a two term Presidency. Having a starting month of 5% or 10% and an ending month of 5% or 10% can't ever be said to be the same thing because in either case, there is 94 months of missing data. YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A PRESIDENT SIMPLY BY HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE AND HIS LAST MONTH IN OFFICE, JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A STUDENT BY THE GRADES OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN CLASS AND THE LAST MONTH IN CLASS. Your leaving out over 90% of what happened when you do that.

Unemployment rates often will go up and down multiple times during a Presidency. Rarely is there a perfect consistent trend of up or down and even if there was, the average is still the most accurate way of assessing what conditions are like, simply because for example, just looking at January 2001 and December 2008 leaves out far to much data.

Would you evaluate whether you were happy during the years 2001 to 2008, simply by looking out how you felt in January 2001 and December 2008 without looking at any of the other 94 months?

*Should we evaluate what happened in World War II by simply looking at September 1939 and August 1945? Would simply looking at those two months come anywhere close to describing what happened in World War II?

Could one determine if the 1920s were a good decade or not by simply looking at January 1920 and December 1929?*


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 
You are still ducking the obvious

Nobody is saying take the first and last months...If someone starts at 10% (think Obama) and unemployment steadily drops to 5%, do you claim it is the same thing as starting at 5% (think Bush) and steadily rising to 10%?

How can that worthless statistic be a valid indicator of economic performance?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

Lakhota said:


>



If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.


----------



## rdean (Dec 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Never in the history of the United States has a political party been so anti education.  This is why business wants immigrants.  An ignorant GOP raises unemployment.  Try to figure out why.


----------



## rdean (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Republicans controlled both branches and the presidency under Bush for nearly 5 years.  They used reconciliation three times.  Do you remember for what?


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


After 82 months in office, Reagan averaged *7.86% *


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 *due to toxic loans written years earlier. * You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 8, 2015)

I don't have the ambition to do the math, but I'm pretty sure we are very close to the point where the Obama presidency does not have the worst UE rate.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...





The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were  signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.



> *Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending
> 
> COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader*
> 
> ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

*



			September 1999.
		
Click to expand...

*


> With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.
> 
> With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Great, even more deflection. 

Again ... here's what you said ...

_If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008._​
Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA


Total racist hogwash. Racists always blame the CRA because it ended "Red Lining" by banks and as a result QUALIFIED minorities were able to suddenly get mortgages in previously bank protected WHITE neighborhoods.


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA
> ...


Don't fall for his deflection. He said ...

_If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008._​
... either he can prove that or he proves he's just another imbecile.

And so far, he's proving the latter.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.


Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

*Expanding Home Ownership*
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

*The Accomplishments*

*Increasing Homeownership*


The US _homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent_ in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
The President set a goal to _increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade_. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
President Bush _signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act_ which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
The Administration proposed the _Zero-Downpayment Initiative_ to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to _increase the supply of affordable homes_.
The President has proposed to _more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program _(SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now that I know how uneducated you are. I just showed you how Democrats were obstructionists in PREVENTING government oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Do you not know hat purpose Fannie and Freddie have? Can you tell me what CRA is? Yet you know so much about the economy, it's quite evident in your responses


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.
> ...



I'm sure you can explain away why democrats felt they did not need any oversight into Fannie and Freddie.  Let me know when you can figure that out.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


As you WELL know, the powerless Democratic MINORITY Party could not obstruct anything. The GOP controlled House killed EVERY reform bill in committee where they had the majority except for one bill which the GOP Senate MAJORITY leader refused to bring to the floor for a vote.


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Again ... this is what you said .....

_If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008._​
Nothing you've posted indicates the Democrat-led Congress in 2008 had anything at all to do with it.

Are you as insane as you appear?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate, it's public knowledge based on what was said. Such as ...


 p. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

*Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."*
*
*
What do you suppose Rep Frank meant when he said concerns about the two were* "overblown"? 


*
Here is the republican concern again and the democrat response

p. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. *Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve*."


Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): *"Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."*

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California):* "Under the OUTSTANDING leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."*
*

*
Does it sound like to you Democrats found Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac anything but sound, right up to the crash? Where do you any of see their economic concern through their statements?


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Why are you talking about Barney Frank and Maxine Waters from the mid-2000's when you said it was the fault of Pelosi and Reed (sic) in 2008...

_If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008._​
Do you realize how retarded you look?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, the timeline I provided showed democrats were against and opposed government regulated oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error, *that further enohasized a need for government oversight. There wasn't anything to show Democrats in Congress had any concern for the economy. 

Can you provide otherwise? 


I mean If you already can't tell me what role Fannie and Freddie had on the economy, 

if you can't tell me what CRA is. 

 I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who can't follow a conversation enough to engage in an intelligent dialogue. You just dont know how to provide anything beyond just a few simple sentences. Read a book, browse the web maybe you might be able to retain something more on the subject.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate


It doesn't matter what they SAID, as the MINORITY Party they were POWERLESS. The GOP controlled ALL the committees and the GOP killed the reform bills in committee. All the GOP had to do was vote along Party lines in committee and every reform bill would have come to the floor. But they didn't. Bush owns the housing crash, lock stock and barrel.


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Why would I believe anything you say when you said it was the fault of Pelosi and Reid in 2008; but you've spent every post since then proving yourself wrong about that?

You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Again ... back this up or prove you're the imbecile I say you are ...

_If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008._​


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 9, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Perfect analogy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 9, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Republican slight of hand.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.
> ...


Once Obama raises above Saint Reagan, you will never see or hear of this "statistic" again.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's the Republican way!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcATL (Dec 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.
> ...


Yep he owns it.

See what I did there?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate
> ...





edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate
> ...



*July 2003*

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *The bill was blocked by Democrats.*


Oh those poor minority Democrats looked pretty powerless I'm sure.  Oh but President Bush owns the housing crisis, just as President Obama owns his inability to get any jobs bill signed and put into action  ... lock, stock, and barrel.

You really do know a lot about the legislative process I can see.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> *July 2003*
> 
> Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *The bill was blocked by Democrats.*
> 
> ...


LIAR!

The bill died in COMMITTEE and the GOP as the MAJORITY Party controlled the committee, it is impossible for the Dems as the minority party to block anything in committee.

S. 1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE). 
Bill Summary & Status  -  108th Congress (2003 - 2004)  - S.1508 - All Congressional Actions - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Dec 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > *July 2003*
> ...




That's public historical account of what happened in Congress. Are you suggesting the legislative branch falsifies information of all bills introduced and blocked?  Try again there buddy.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


Yeah, the public record I linked to says the bill never got passed the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs which the GOP held the majority of the seats. There is no filibuster in a committee, it is simple majority vote.


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


As Ed points out, that bill died in committee...

_ Latest Major Action: 4/1/2004 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. _​
... Republicans ran that committee .... how is it Democrats' fault that Republicans didn't report the amendment(s) on the bill?


----------



## Care4all (Dec 9, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


the bill did make it out of committee, and it made it to the Republican Leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote.

but the Republican leadership never brought Hagel's bill to the Floor....the reason why, is because they did not have Republican support for it.

They did have enough republicans to pass the Hagel bill initially, 

BUT, Freddie Mack spent a couple of million dollars on LOBBYISTS to Lobby the Republican Senators to DROP their support for it, and Freddie Mac Managed to get enough Republicans to go against Hagel's bill, that the bill would no longer pass.

so the Republican leadership did not want to bring this bill to the floor with so many republicans voting against it now and let the public see this....
Freddie Mac paid Republican firm to kill legislation against Fannie Mae (Smear alert)
_*Freddie Mac paid Republican firm to kill legislation against Fannie Mae (Smear alert)
Springfield (OH) News-Sun ^ | 10/20/2008 

Posted on 10/20/2008, 1:28:52 PM by markomalley


Washington — Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse. 

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. 

DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September. 

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after a Senate committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. 

All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it. 

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote. 

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prophetic. 

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. 

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. 
*_
also this to read 
How Freddie Mac Splashed Cash to Halt Regulation


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2015)

Care4all said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That's yet another bill which died in the hands of Republicans. That was S.190 (2005). ShaklesOfBigGov referenced S.1508 (2003).


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


The GOP Senate also killed another reform bill introduced by Sen. Corzine D NJ.

S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ). 
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes. 
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


As is H.R.2575 (2003)

... and H.R.1461 (2005), which actually passed in the House, but like every other GSE reform bill, died in the GOP-led Senate.

It wasn't until 2008, when we had a Democrat-led Senate, that a GSE reform bill finally made it to the president's desk. And even that bill is criticized by the retarded right who couldn't pass a bill for all the years they ran the Congress.

Shakles is just another poor, hapless, rightarded imbecile who doesn't have a clue about any of this. That was proven beyond any shadow of doubt when he started this by declaring Pelosi and Reed (sic) were responsible in 2008; for the financial collapse. A position sooo fucking retarded, even he wouldn't try to defend it, despite my numerous attempts to get him to do so.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2016)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 84th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months to the average of 7.81% in December 2015 at 84 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Barrack Obama: 7.81%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.81%

656.4/84 = 7.8142 = 7.81%*

There are 12 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in December to 62.6%, from the 62.5% it was at in November.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 8, 2016)

Meaning President Obama has added more than 9.3 million jobs since taking office

Both Bush's combined added 4.0 million jobs meaning Obama has over twice the jobs of the Bush's combined


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Meaning President Obama has added more than 9.3 million jobs since taking office
> 
> Both Bush's combined added 4.0 million jobs meaning Obama has over twice the jobs of the Bush's combined



When you lose a shit load of jobs under your watch, you need to add a lot more to make up for it. Obama will never be able to match the much lower unemployment averages the Bush's had while they were in office.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 8, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning President Obama has added more than 9.3 million jobs since taking office
> ...



Yup

Obama was also unable to double the unemployment rate like Bush did


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 8, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning President Obama has added more than 9.3 million jobs since taking office
> ...


Bush doubled the number of unemployed from 6 million to 12 million, and to you that was great.
Obama has reduced the number of unemployed from 12 million to 7.9 million and you say that is bad because of some stupid meaningless average that hides the damage that Bush did to the economy.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Generally, the economy was very good while Bush was in office. For most of those 96 months that he was in office, more people had jobs and an easier time finding jobs than they did while Obama was in office. In February 2008, only 11 months before Bush left office, the unemployment rate was at 4.9% and the labor force participation rate was near 60%. The numbers only turned bad in Bush's last few months in office caused by the financial crises due to excessive deregulation from years ago, most of which happened prior to Bush entering office in 2001. Bill Clintons repeal of Glass-Steagall act had far more impact in creating the financial crises of 2008 than anything Bush did. In general, Bush did well with the economy although he did not undue the damage done by Clinton and others through deregulation which unfortunately led to the collapse and recession in late 2008.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Hence the difficulties with your ridiculous "average" claims

Bush was handed a strong economy, 4.1% unemployment, no deficit, no wars to pay for...took a while for him to screw it up
But screw it up he did........and left it for Obama to fix


----------



## charwin95 (Jan 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Exactly.......
And Bill Clinton left with surplus then screwed by Bush. 

Clinton Projects $1.9 Trillion Budget Surplus


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 10, 2016)

charwin95 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Bush took that surplus and used it as a justification to cut taxes.  Only added to the deficit. We still haven't recovered from the loss in revenue due to Bush decisions


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So Bill Clinton was responsible for the low unemployment during the Bush Regime, since you are claiming that Clinton policies that Bush didn't change were the controlling influence on the economy.

But no, you want it both ways, you want to credit Bush for the low unemployment he inherited from Clinton and blame Clinton for the horrible unemployment Bush passed on.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 84th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months to the average of 7.81% in December 2015 at 84 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


After 83 months in office ....

Obama ..... 7.81%
Reagan .... 7.83%


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning President Obama has added more than 9.3 million jobs since taking office
> ...


That's because unlike Bush, his predecessor didn't hand him an unemployment rate of 4.2%. Instead, Obama inherited the highest unemployment rate that any president started with since Hoover passed along double digit unemployment to FDR.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Thanks to the housing bubble which fueled the economy until it burst and took the economy down with it.


----------



## 80zephyr (Jan 10, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.


Possible. However, if we keep increasing our debt, we know for CERTAINTY that some day we will face a much worse fate.

Which do you prefer?

Mark


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 10, 2016)

80zephyr said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.
> ...


Debt is now going down as % of GDP, what matters.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 10, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



Know who is hiring in my area?  Fast food restaurants and Amazon.  Full time and long term employers hiring?  Nope.

My brother has worked for the same temp service as a forklift driver for two years, yet no one will hire him because it is cheaper to pay the temp service than it is to pay him and provide benefits.  Yes, he is on Obamacare, but he makes enough money that it costs him out the ass for no real coverage.  He needs to buy a car, but even his own credit union will not give him a loan because he is a temp worker.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 10, 2016)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...


Tell the GOP to get the feq out of the way then...Just the best anywhere, I didn't say great. The GOP should be thanked for wrecking the nonrich for 30 years, and the corrupt depression, AGAIN.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 10, 2016)

Too bad, maybe 30 years ago he might have been in a union. What happened I wonder...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 10, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



The reason they will not hire him permanently is Obamacare!  The GOP had a lot to do with that disaster!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 10, 2016)

I wonder,

January job loss: Worst in 34 years - Feb. 6, 2009

was Obama charged for all the UE during his first year in office, operating on the policies of his predecessor?

What say you OP?


----------



## Faun (Feb 5, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


With the latest job numbers come the latest averages.

After 84 months in office....

Reagan .....7.81%
Obama ..... 7.78%



Look at that! When we average out the unemployment rate, Obama is doing a better job than Reagan, the conservatives' god of economics.


----------



## hangover (Feb 5, 2016)

*Unemployment falls to 4.9%, lowest in 8 years*
Unemployment falls to 4.9%, lowest in 8 years


----------



## Arizona Willie (Feb 5, 2016)

Lakhota said:


>


===========
Was that not SEDITION?


----------



## Faun (Mar 5, 2016)

Here we go again .... just as we do every month following the first Friday of the month....

After 85 months in office...

Reagan ..... 7.78
Obama ...... 7.75

Making Reagan the worst after serving 85 months in office.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 6, 2016)

Showing why Reagan was the worst president of all time


----------



## Faun (Mar 6, 2016)

Funny how the OP has abandoned his own thread, huh? 

That's ok. I'll be back here next month with the 86th month update even if the OP doesn't wanna show his face around here anymore.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Republicans want to pretend they didn't cause a global recession. You ignore a lot of facts


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Showing why Reagan was the worst president of all time


He was the beginning of the end. Which party and when do you think initiated NAFTA, breaking unions, letting illegals in for more than migrant work, trickle down. 

Reagan seemed good but it turns out he was a big suck


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 6, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Showing why Reagan was the worst president of all time
> ...


Reagan had the worst average unemployment rate ever

Destroyed our economy


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And if he didn't he caused the worst average unemployment rate that followed.


----------



## Faun (Apr 1, 2016)

It's that time again folks....

*The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*

After 86 months in office...

Reagan ......... 7.76
Obama .......... 7.71

Funny how folks on the right don't average out the unemployment rate anymore.... hmmm .... why is that?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2016)

Looks like Reagan has locked up the worst average in 70 years

What a disaster the Reagan years were


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Reagan has locked up the worst average in 70 years
> 
> What a disaster the Reagan years were


And like Bush, Reagan's policies continue to hurt us to this day.  

Reagan seemed like a good President at the time.  Even Ford Union workers liked him.  Little did they know he laid the ground work to destroy the middle class.  

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

Hi, folks. It's that time of the month again when the BLS releases their latest jobs figures. And with an unemployment rate of just 5.0% in April, the president with the worst average unemployment rate after 87 months in office is.......

*Ronald Reagan ..... 7.73%*







I wonder if this is why the OP, U2Edge, stopped posting here?


----------



## boilermaker55 (May 6, 2016)

Also let's remind them of....IRAN/Contra!




Faun said:


> Hi, folks. It's that time of the month again when the BLS releases their latest jobs figures. And with an unemployment rate of just 5.0% in April, the president with the worst average unemployment rate after 87 months in office is.......
> 
> *Ronald Reagan ..... 7.73%*
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Here we go again .... just as we do every month following the first Friday of the month....
> 
> After 85 months in office...
> 
> ...


_It's actually 9.7 in you include the underemployed...

Also 30 hrs. a week is considered full time nowadays not the previous 40 hrs. a week...

In other words, your comparison is basically crap.._


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2016)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Also* 30 hrs. a week is considered full time nowadays not the previous 40 hrs. a week...*
> 
> In other words, your comparison is basically crap..


BLS always considered 35 hours full time and STILL does now

IOW, you LIE like a typical CON$ervative!


----------



## bripat9643 (May 6, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Also* 30 hrs. a week is considered full time nowadays not the previous 40 hrs. a week...*
> ...



The ACA, the law, considers 30 hours a week to be full time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


The ACA does NOT calculate the UE rate, BLS does that and BLS has not changed it from 35 hours.
Lumpy's lie is still a lie no matter how ignorant you pretend to be.


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not a lie, but the ACA is a bit misleading, like damned nearly everything that Obama has done.

"If an employee works an average of 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month or more it is considered full-time and large employers must provide health insurance. To be considered part-time, the employee must work more than 120 days in a year.

Many employers will keep the employee at 27 hours a week as a "safe harbor". This avoids the employee accidentally going over due to overtime."

Is Less Than 30 Hours Part-Time Under ObamaCare? - Obamacare Facts


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 7, 2016)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again .... just as we do every month following the first Friday of the month....
> ...



It was actually 14% when Obama took office.


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wrong! 

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses data from the National Compensation Survey (NCS) to calculate access rates for a variety of employee benefits. Estimates are produced across a broad range of job characteristics, including industry, occupation, and establishment size. Statistics are also reported by full-time and part-time status.

*The full-time or part-time status published by the NCS is based on whether the responding establishment reports a job as full time or part time,rather than on a definition that specifies weekly work hours.*"


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 7, 2016)

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"
Unknown

“A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.” 
― William Blake, Auguries of Innocence


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LIAR!

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

*Full- or part-time status*
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Again, the ACA/Obamacare has nothing to do with unemployment rate calculations. No matter how many hours are considered PT by the ACA, BLS defined PT as 34 hours or less.


----------



## U2Edge (May 7, 2016)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 88th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.81% in December 2016 at 84 months to the average of 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*
Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.68%*
12. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*
676.2/88 = 7.6840 = 7.68%*

There are 8 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went down in April to 62.8%, from the 63% it was at in March..


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That's the National Compensation Survey (NCS), which produces the Employment Compensation Index, and data on wages and benefits and total compensation. 

But data on full time and part time workers comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS) which is the source of the unemployment rate and labor force statistics. 

No one cites the NCS for data on number of full or part time wirkers


----------



## Camp (May 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 88th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.81% in December 2016 at 84 months to the average of 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


Where do those numbers come from?


----------



## U2Edge (May 7, 2016)

Camp said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 88th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.81% in December 2016 at 84 months to the average of 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months.
> ...



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics  The Bureau Of Labor Statistics

Go to data tools and then "labor force statistics".
From the list select "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate" and "Unemployment Rate". 
Change 2006 to 1948 in order to get every monthly labor force participation rate and unemployment rate from January 1948 to April 2016.
The average unemployment rate is found by adding up all the monthly unemployment rate numbers while x President was in office and then dividing that number by the number of months x President was in office.


----------



## Camp (May 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


What does "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate" mean? Does that exclude government workers or military?


----------



## Fenton Lum (May 7, 2016)

I'm not at all sure I'd trust the system's numbers on unemployment, especially these days.  But if one is a "conservative" railing against the govt all day everyday, wouldn't you feel just a tad "liberal" citing the "data" the system hands you?

The entire economic system and political system (which is really the same beast) has been rerigged over the past 5-6 decades under the reign of "both" parties.  All else is mass distraction, divide and conquer, diversion.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Also* 30 hrs. a week is considered full time nowadays not the previous 40 hrs. a week...*
> ...



Don't you ever get sick of licking up Obama's crap and making excuses, have you no pride?


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

Camp said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


It excludes those under age 16, this in the military, those in prison, and those in an institution such as nursing home or mental institute.


----------



## Camp (May 7, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So, persons in hight school over 16 and colleges are being counted as "unemployed" under that particular method of calculating unemployment rates.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2016)

Camp said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


No, they are counted as part of the 94 million "not in the labor force."


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

Camp said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


It depends. If they're working they're classified as employed, if they're not working but looking for work (a d could start immediately), they're unemployed, and if they're not looking or only looking for a job after graduation, then they're Not in the Labor Force.

Categories like "student," or "retired" don't mean anything... The classifications are based solely on activity


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Only if they fit the definition.


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



I  believe you have that backwards.

From the CPS:

*What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?*

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are _employed_.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are _unemployed_.

The _labor force_ is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are _not in the labor force_.

From the NCS:

*The full-time or part-time status published by the NCS is based on whether the responding establishment reports a job as full time or part time,rather than on a definition that specifies weekly work hours.*"


----------



## easyt65 (May 7, 2016)

The very 1st post after the initial, from a Democrat:

"Who cares?"

That's all you need to know about libs / Obama supporters....'nuff said.


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


How do you think that means I have it backwards??? From the BLS Glossary
Full-time employees (National Compensation Survey)
Employees are classified as full time or part time as defined by their employer.

Full-time workers (Current Population Survey and American Time Use Survey)
Persons who work 35 hours or more per week.
*The CPS is the survey used for the official labor force statistics*


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2016)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again .... just as we do every month following the first Friday of the month....
> ...


That would be based on the U-6 rate; which of course, was higher than the U-3 rate under Reagan as well.

Still, no matter how you shake it, the president with the highest average unemployment rate according to BLS statistics remains....

*Ronald Reagan*


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You know we're talking about BLS statistics, not the ACA, right?


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 88th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.81% in December 2016 at 84 months to the average of 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


I like how you give Reagan the benefit if factoring in additional months, but comparing apples to apples ....at this same point in Reagan's presidency, the average unemployment rate was higher when Reagan was president.


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



I did not see where the CPS survey made a determination on full or part time, only on employed or unemployed.


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The U-6 before 1994 was unemployed looking for full time work plus half the unemployed looking for part time plus half those working part time for economic reasons divided by the labor force minus half the part time labor force. 

Since marginally attached was not a classification before 1994, and because both part time for economic reasons were heavily redefined in 1994, we can't even guess what we now call the U-6 would have been.


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Table A-9.  Selected employment indicators
The selected characteristics are age, sex, full or part time status, multiple job holders, and self employed.


----------



## TooTall (May 7, 2016)

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



That is from the BLS.


----------



## pinqy (May 7, 2016)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Right. BLS publishes the CPS and the NCS and many other surveys.


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2016)

Fenton Lum said:


> I'm not at all sure I'd trust the system's numbers on unemployment, especially these days.  But if one is a "conservative" railing against the govt all day everyday, wouldn't you feel just a tad "liberal" citing the "data" the system hands you?
> 
> The entire economic system and political system (which is really the same beast) has been rerigged over the past 5-6 decades under the reign of "both" parties.  All else is mass distraction, divide and conquer, diversion.



I'm a big government Republican!


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It was Obama, it is now Gerald Ford. Gerald Fords figure is 7.77% for the months he was President. That is now the highest average given that Obama's has dropped to 7.68%. Reagan is at 7.54% for his time in office.


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 88th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.81% in December 2016 at 84 months to the average of 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months.
> ...



I started this three years ago and have been consistent from the first post to the latest. I looked at every Presidents time in office, all the data that is provided, and averaged it. That is the comparison that is done here. I'm comparing all the Presidents for which there is data for. This is the only complete and accurate way to do it.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

It's that time again .... the president with the worst average unemployment rate after 88 months in office is...........

*Ronald Reagan ..... 7.71%*
*
*


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

*The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*

Is still Reagan at this same point (91 months) in his presidency:

Reagan (R) .... 7.63
Obama (D) .... 7.56


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> Is still Reagan at this same point (91 months) in his presidency:
> 
> ...



So you're saying that even though Obama didn't inherit the oil shortage issue that Reagan did and Obama didn't have to deal with the Cold War and the necessary subsequent military spending that Reagan did, obama's unemployment numbers are still virtually as bad as Reagan's?
Truth is, your obama number is skewed because it is not weighed against a diminished work force number.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> Is still Reagan at this same point (91 months) in his presidency:
> 
> ...


Here's some reality for you...

food stamp recipients by the decade - Google Search


----------



## pinqy (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...


What do you think the relationship between unemployment and food stamps is?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

pinqy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I would suspect they go hand-in-hand.
The graph's projection turned out to be wrong as the number has increased beyond 2012.


----------



## Fang (Sep 2, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Funny how according to Liberals President Bush owned gas prices, unemployment rate and Katrina. But Obama doesn't own anything.


----------



## Fang (Sep 2, 2016)

Obama called President Bush "un-Patriotic" for adding 4 trillion to the debt. But let me guess, according to Liberals Obama doesn't own the *10 trillion* he added? If President Bush is "un-Patriotic", then Obama committed an act of treason.


----------



## pinqy (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


The unemployment rate and other labor force statistics are based on the adult civilian non-institutional population and exclude children under the age of 16, active duty military, prisoners, and people in institutions (mental health care, nursing homes, etc).  The Unemployed are those who are able to work and who are actively looking for work.

SNAP includes people in the military (which is a national disgrace imo) and children and people unable or unwilling to work. So while there's a general correlation in that they'll both go up in bad economic times and down in good, there's no actual relationship between the two and they can easily move in opposite directions.


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...


Your off-topic deflection is noted and discarded. Thanks for tryin' anyway.


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

Fang said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Funny how folks on the right don't wanna discuss the thread topic.

And it was started by a rightie.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> Is still Reagan at this same point (91 months) in his presidency:
> 
> ...



Coming in second WORST is hardly a brag factor.


----------



## Rustic (Sep 2, 2016)

Most of the unemployed have quit altogether looking for work under Barry... That's what Socialism does. 
Lol


----------



## pinqy (Sep 2, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Most of the unemployed have quit altogether looking for work under Barry... That's what Socialism does.
> Lol


Oh?  Discouraged workers are those who are not working but who want a job, could start work if offered a job, and who have looked for work at least once in the last year but not at all in the last month and who stopped looking because they believed there was no point:





So how are you getting that "most" of the employed have quit looking?


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...



He inherited the greatest economic downturn since the great depression.  Now the Repub Party says "Give us another chance, but with a lunatic."

Naw


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 2, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Odd, you guys blamed Bush for 9/11.. he was barely 8 months in and didn't even have a full cabinet in place, thanks to Dems obstructionism.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 2, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



8 years in, it's no better.   Epic fail this Obama.


----------



## Rustic (Sep 2, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the unemployed have quit altogether looking for work under Barry... That's what Socialism does.
> ...



This is what socialism does... Lol

Where Are All the Workers?


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...


It is when you beat the Republican god.


----------



## pinqy (Sep 2, 2016)

Rustic said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


That article does not support your claim that most unemployed have quit looking.


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...


WTF does military spending have to do with unemployment figures?? 

What DOES have a lot to do with unemployment figures is the massive recession Obama inherited where some 7 million jobs were lost.

Try subtracting 7 million jobs from Reagan's terms and see what his numbers look like. And try subtracting the 1.4 million public sector jobs added while Reagan was president to match the 366K decrease in public jobs we've seen disappear under Obama.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Reagan defeated Communism.  Obama is trying to get it back.


----------



## Faun (Sep 2, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


More deflection noted. Obama still beats the Republican god in average unemployment.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

pinqy said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Time to remove the clothes from the washer.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So you believe unemployment and economic hardship are unrelated.
Time to remove the clothes from the washer.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


The president who took us into the worst recession since WWII?

I don't even need to look anything up.  We all know it was Bush.  And look at the two just before Obama.  They didn't even have the worst recession since WWII to deal with.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He inherited a blip and turned it into perpetuation with his global warming scam energy policy.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You'll make yourself dizzy with all of that spin.
Obama energy policy has kept us in an economic hole. We have yet to recover and that is born out in a reduced work force and increased food stamp subsidies. Duh.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Sep 2, 2016)

Fang said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


 
Yeah, that's the wat partisanshit works.  The "other side" just flips the blame.  Pretty damn stupid, but hey, just how we roll in america.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


 
Reckon you WOULD know about that.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 2, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Most of the unemployed have quit altogether looking for work


LIAR!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 2, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Reagan defeated Communism.


BULLSHIT!


----------



## Care4all (Sep 2, 2016)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Republicans blamed World trade Center's first attack in 1993 on Clinton and he was in office for only around 30 days before it happened.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Obama energy policy?  Cheap oil, cheap natural gas bad?


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 2, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Reagan defeated Communism. Obama is trying to get it back.



Seems like maybe he did a pretty crappy job considering the whining you people do about communism around here on a daily basis.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 2, 2016)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Do you are an economic idiot also?


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You call the "worst economic downturn since the great depression" a blip?  W screwed the economy and left town.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan defeated Communism.
> ...



Perhaps you would tell me where the USSR is on a world map.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 2, 2016)

Mr Clean said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan defeated Communism. Obama is trying to get it back.
> ...



Eight years of Obama and that is what we get


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 2, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Reagan had nothing to do with that, Gorbachev and Yeltsin did all the heavy lifting and all St Ronnie did was try to steal the credit even though he was out of office when the wall came down.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



If you had a brain you would take it out an play with it.  You still didn't tell me where the USSR is.


----------



## Rustic (Sep 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the unemployed have quit altogether looking for work
> ...


Socialist society's don't make jobs or create them, they just take other peoples money


----------



## whitehall (Sep 2, 2016)

When you factor in the very real possibility that Hussein's labor department tweaked the numbers (just like his IRS harassed political enemies), you probably get real unemployment numbers in the double digits.


----------



## rdean (Sep 2, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Which is why the cost of gasoline is so enormously high.  And as far as the 4.9 unemployment rate and the 5.8 million unfilled jobs, it's Obama's fault.  He refuses to support education.  The way the GOP does.

If Obama supported education the way the GOP does, we would be living in caves.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 2, 2016)

whitehall said:


> When you factor in the very real possibility that Hussein's labor department tweaked the numbers (just like his IRS harassed political enemies), you probably get real unemployment numbers in the double digits.


Nobody tweaked the employment numbers more than Reagan. His "real" UE numbers were never less than double what he reported and as much as triple what he reported.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 2, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Bush was also handed an economy headed into a recession.



No it wasn't. It was so good that Bush decided to give a $200 rebate back to taxpayers.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 2, 2016)

The Gallup numbers, showing improving self-assessments of blacks' quality of life, reflect this. They also show that, contrary to some perceptions that white Americans have been losing out, Obama-era gains aren't limited to just one racial or ethnic group.* Gallup notes that Obama's second term "shows an improvement in whites' life evaluations -- particularly those of white Republicans." In a previous 2013-2015 Gallup survey, about 55 percent of white Republicans were thriving, up from 51 percent in the 2011-2012 survey.*

Life got better for pretty much everyone under Obama, Gallup poll finds

Ungrateful curs.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 2, 2016)

"And they're fixated on my having the worst employment record since WWII"


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 2, 2016)

"And then went and nominated Donald Trump."


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 2, 2016)

_"Q_- Bob, how much credit should Americans give President Obama for today’s improved equity values?

_BBBB_ – Our research reviewed American economic performance since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board Chairman – Republican Marriner Eccles.  We observed that even though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And relatively quickly.

Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.)  But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance.

Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should.   Because the President deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership.

The auto rescue plan has worked.  American car manufacturers are still dominant and employing millions directly and in supplier companies.  Wall Street reform has been painful but it has re-instated faith amongst investors.  The markets are far more predictable than they were four years ago, as VIX numbers demonstrate greater faith and less risk.

*Even for small investors, such as those limited to their 401(k) or IRA investments, the average annual compound return on stocks under President Obama has been more than 24% since the lows of March, 2009.  This is a better result than either Clinton, Reagan or FDR – who were the prior winners in our book."

Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?
*
But his employment record since WWII really really sucks. Worst president... eeeever.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 2, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No, overpriced oil and closed coal mines, subsequent increased consumer goods prices and increased unemployment.
Obama energy policy.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 3, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Yea, like you'll be saying that when President Trump is in office.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...



If Obama had expanded the federal government as much as Reagan did, federal spending today would be $2 trillion more per year than it is.  On top of that, state governments have been cutting back at the same time.  There's A Huge Difference In Public Sector Jobs Under Obama Vs. The Presidents Who Came Before Him


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 3, 2016)

auditor0007 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And you conveniently overlook the impact of the Cold War and its warranting of military spending.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



We've been spending quite a bit in the Middle East as it is.  $2 trillion per year is a massive number.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 3, 2016)

auditor0007 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


Not like Reagan's arms and military buildup.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

Obejoekenobe said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Bush was also handed an economy headed into a recession.
> ...



Wrong.  the tech bubble collapsed before the recount was even done.  The media douche bags kept trying to blame Bush for the collapse of the stock market when he wasn't even in office yet.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Federal spending as a percentage of GDP went down under Reagan, dumbass.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


I didn't say anything about GDP. I only counted spending, dumberass.


----------



## owebo (Sep 3, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.


In the short term of firing millions of .gov workers, some areas will suffer badly....the rest of America will boom....


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 3, 2016)

owebo said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pub austerity would have given us a true depression, with millions homeless. Waiting for a war again. Idiocy.
> ...


Obama has cut gov't far more than your lying, incompetent heroes.


----------



## owebo (Sep 3, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not wrong. 

When Bush became president unemployment was at 2.4%. He inherited a budget surplus 127.3 billion dollars and the national debt was at 5.7 trillion dollars. 

Bush was running around campaigning that the surplus should be given back as rebates. Remember him using 4 dollar bills as a political prop saying one of those dollars should go back to the taxpayers? 

Of course this added another 1.35 trillion to our national debt and so by the time Bush left office unemployment was at 7% and rocketing higher. He left a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion and the national debt had doubled to 10.6 trillion. 

If Bush had entered office... AND DONE NOTHING... not a single thing to improve the economy? He would've have left the economy in better shape than he did enacting conservative economic policies. 

Bush and conservative trickle down economic policies are an empirically proven failure. 

Just look at Kansas.


----------



## owebo (Sep 3, 2016)

Obejoekenobe said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obejoekenobe said:
> ...


Wow....did you notice Obama?


----------



## jillian (Sep 3, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



only if you start with the over 800,000 jobs we were bleeding a month after baby bush turned over the keys to the white house.

i hope that helps you

obama deranged wingnuts are so funny


----------



## owebo (Sep 3, 2016)

jillian said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


You Obama fascists are even funnier...


----------



## 320 Years of History (Sep 3, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



And your post shows precisely how one can disingenuously present statistics.  I know sure as I wrote that you and some others will have not the first idea of what's dissembling about your presentation of the average rates of unemployment.  That's fine.  I haven't the time right now to explain, and quite frankly, I suspect that were I to do so, most folks here wouldn't read it anyway.


----------



## owebo (Sep 3, 2016)

320 Years of History said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


You can't explain.....and we know, you know, we know.....


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Food stamps are not necessarily about hardship, so your point is DOA. Trying to establish a connection between unemployment and SNAP benefits is retarded. I know of 3 people on SNAP. They all *work* at the same company as my mother-in-law. They all have bank accounts in familiy members' names and they lie about their resources to qualify. One of them even drives a Mercedes but keeps it in her mother's name. I know about them because they brag about it to my mother-in-law, who they give tips to in order to encourage her to register for SNAP benifits.

States are doing little to crack down on cases like these, that's why the number of food stamp recipients is near an all time high. Not because of the economy.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


What the fuck is a "blip?" Obama inherited one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. Employment fell by 1.2 million jobs in January, 2009, alone. WTF is wrong with you people that you think you can rewrite history?


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You're all over the place. Now you're talking about energy. What happened to your idiocy about military spending?

You didn't answer the question... *WTF does military spending have to do with unemployment?*


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan defeated Communism.
> ...


According to TooTall... Russia, China, et.al. are all defeated.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



According to ignorant Hillarybots the USSR is still alive and flourishing.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


There was no recession when Bush became president. Stop trying to rewrite history. And the shallow recession which began in March, 2001, wouldn't have even been a recession had 9.11 not happened. The collape of the dotcom bubble alone was not enough to send the economy into recession.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No one is claiming the U.S.S.R. is still around. What the fuck is wrong with you? Meanwhile, despite your lunacy that Reagan defeated communism, communism is still very much alive in countries like Russia, China, and many more. That's why you look like such an idiot giving Reagan props for defeating it.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

320 Years of History said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Yes, it's been explained to him many times in this thread. You'll note, even the OP has abandoned this thread. Only the most moronic of the rightards can still be baited in here.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

Obejoekenobe said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obejoekenobe said:
> ...




That's all smoke designed to obscure the central fact that the tech bubble collapsed before Clinton left office.  The tech bubble was responsible for Clinton's surpluses when it was increasing, and that disappeared.  Plus, tech companies began laying people off when they could no longer get investment money.  Clinton is the one who made the so-called "surplus" disappear, not Bush


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The collapse of the tech bubble alone did not cause the recession and the recession didn't start until after Bush became president.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obejoekenobe said:
> ...


Apparently you believe that failing to get the point is a winning debate tactic.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


And you apparently think you can establish a point by rewriting history.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obejoekenobe said:
> ...



If not the dot com collapse, what do you think caused the recession?
The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999–2001. Some companies, such as pets.com and Webvan, failed completely. Others – such as Cisco, whose stock declined by 86% – lost a large portion of their market capitalization but remained stable and profitable.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm rewriting history?  Did the collapse of the tech bubble begin under Clinton or not?  Did the revenue from capital gains provide most of the revenue that erased the deficit or not?  Did that revenue disappear when the tech bubble collapsed or not?   Did companies start laying off STEM workers after the tech bubble collapsed or not?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The collapse of the tech bubble doesn't fit the leftwing narrative that Bush caused the recession, so they can't grok it.  They need some pinko professor to dispense some new rationalization for them.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Thd dotcom collapse certainly contributed to it, but it was the economic hit we took as a result of 9.11 which made it a recession. 

_Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

- NBER_​


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"As a nation that covered more square miles than any other in the world, the former Soviet Union encompassed many smaller republics populated with various ethnic groups. These ethnic groups were not always able to find a way to coexist peacefully, which eventually gave way to a constant state of political unrest* that was further agitated by the widespread economic struggles caused by the expenditure of large amounts of money on military and weapons in a competition with the United States to be the world's most powerful nation. *The lack of prosperity made it more difficult to convince citizens to invest fully in the idea of communism. In 1987, the republics began breaking away and demanding to form their own nations. The final straw came after a failed coup in 1991 that involved the kidnapping of Gorbachev himself. The group that kidnapped Gorbachev tried to take control of the military, but the members of the military rebelled, which led to a period of widespread civil unrest. *Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union collapsed."*

Reagan outspent them and the straw that broke the Camels back was the Star Wars program you lefty asshole mocked.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The dotcom collapse occurred under Clinton but that was not your claim. Your claim was that the economy was heading into recession and that's a bald-faced lie. It wasn't. In fact, the economy was growing for the 5 months leading up to March, 2001; and it was 9.11 which was the determining factor.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Sadly, you're too mentally disabled to sustain  a conversation. You keep pointing out how the Soviet Union collapsed *even though* it's been pointed out to you that no one has said the Soviet Union is still around. 

Meanwhile, your idiotc claim that Reagan defeated communism remains as retarded now as it was when you first said it since communism is still alive and thriving throughout many parts of the globe.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> *The final straw came after a failed coup in 1991* that involved the kidnapping of Gorbachev himself. The group that kidnapped Gorbachev tried to take control of the military, but the members of the military rebelled, which led to a period of widespread civil unrest. *Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union collapsed."*
> 
> Reagan outspent them and the straw that broke the Camels back was the Star Wars program you lefty asshole mocked.


Reagan was long retired in 1991. Star Wars was a crony capitalism boondoggle at its finest, and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > *The final straw came after a failed coup in 1991* that involved the kidnapping of Gorbachev himself. The group that kidnapped Gorbachev tried to take control of the military, but the members of the military rebelled, which led to a period of widespread civil unrest. *Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union collapsed."*
> ...



Why don't you tell that to the Israelis.  LMFAO


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps in Cuba now that Obama has rescued them.  Have you checked the economic health of China and Russia lately?  I don't really care about you commie loving bastards, and your attempted rewrite of history is pathetic.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


The Iron Dome is not Reagan's failed Star Wars boondoggle. The Iron Dome is being funded since 2011 by OBAMA and was NEVER funded by Reagan.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 3, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The Iron Dome is a much improved version of the Patriot Missile System that was deployed in Israel and Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war.  The Patriot Missile was the original Star Wars program.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You talkin' about Patriot missiles? That was first designed in the 60's, first tested in the 70's, and put into use in the early 80's before Reagan rolled out his Star Wars defense system.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Spits the moron who keeps arguing with himself how the Soviet Union is no more.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Now they want to hand the country over to the King of Bankrupsies.  REALLY?


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Public assistance abuse has existed since its inception. Inevitable but has nothing to do with increase in people qualifying. That is a direct result of a bad economy. Your hack has made this happen.


----------



## Faun (Sep 3, 2016)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Nope, no matter how many times you repeat your idiocy, it will remain idiotic. There is still no distinct connection between SNAP and unemployment as many employed folks are on SNAP and many unemployed people are not. You also fail to recognize a big portion of SNAP recipients are elderly folks who qualify because Social Security benefits often don't pay out enough to disqualify them. And we are increasing at about 10,000 seniors every day due to aging baby boomers. Many of whom are becoming SNAP recipients. That too is not indicative of the economy.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 3, 2016)

owebo said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...


Gov't grew more under Reagan and W than anyone duh, dupe.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 3, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!
The Patriot, was an Army initiative that got no financial aid whatsoever from Star Wars. In fact, there are many who say the SDI held back the development of the Patriot!

"We would have been farther along without S.D.I.," said Senator Malcolm Wallop, a Wyoming Republican who has long championed anti-missile weaponry. "The whole program was designed to study forever and build never. It hurt more than it helped."


----------



## TooTall (Sep 4, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Q. What does the Patriot system do? 
 A. It shoots down incoming rockets and missiles in flight.
Q. What does the SDI system do?
A. It shoots down incoming rockets and missiles in flight.

End of story.


----------



## pinqy (Sep 4, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


The patriot system is an ANTI-AIRCRAFT middle system. It is meant to shoot down aircraft.
It has been used against SCUD middles, though not as effectively as was claimed (middle bodies shot down after the warhead separated were counted as hits)
And Scuds are medium range, not the ICBMs SDIO was meant to defend against.


----------



## TooTall (Sep 4, 2016)

pinqy said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The Patriot was the forerunner to SDI and it did successfully shoot down some Scud Missiles.  You might note what it's primary function is now.

"The *MIM-104 Patriot* is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, the primary of its kind used by the United States Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. The AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the "Phased array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target" or the bacronym PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Army's primary High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and replaced the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Army's medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these roles,* Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. Army's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now Patriot's primary mission*. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040."

On edit:

*"The Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) program was part of SDI's Theater Missile Defense Program *and was an extension of the Flexible Lightweight Agile Guided Experiment (FLAGE), which included developing hit-to-kill technology and demonstrating the guidance accuracy of a small, agile, radar-homing vehicle.

FLAGE scored a direct hit against a MGM-52 Lance missile in flight, at White Sands Missile Range in 1987. ERINT was a prototype missile similar to the FLAGE, but it used a new solid-propellant rocket motor that allowed it to fly faster and higher than FLAGE.

*Under BMDO, ERINT was later chosen as the MIM-104 Patriot(Patriot Advanced Capability-3,PAC-3) missile."*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> Is still Reagan at this same point (91 months) in his presidency:
> 
> ...



utterly 100% worthless and stupid liberal statistic. Does that mean that both socialism and capitalism don't work? Does the goof liberal have any idea what it means?


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> ...


I agree it's a completely worthless statistic. You're a brain-dead moron for thinking it's a "Liberal statistic."


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

TooTall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Too fucking rightarded.

What does a Lamborghini do? It's a vehicle to transport people.

What does a Smart car do? It's a vehicle to transport people.

Employing your rightarded logic, a Smart car is a Lamborghini.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> I agree it's a completely worthless statistic. ."


good so why not tell us a "reason" for being liberal rather than presenting worthless stats??????


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

TooTall said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Spot the disconnect....

_*"The Patriot was the forerunner to SDI..."

"The Patriot Missile was the original Star Wars program."*_

Imbecile... how could the Patriot missile be the "original Star Wars program" if it already existed when the "original Star Wars program" started?


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I agree it's a completely worthless statistic. ."
> ...


Sorry Crazy Eddie, you first need to explain why crazy Conservatives first came up with this nonsensical Conservative statistic.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



so the liberal wants to debate about why some conservatives somewhere came up a statistic, rather than why liberalism is better than conservatism?? Doesn't that tell us that, as a typical liberal, you know you lack the IQ for substantive debate?


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Conservatism is crazy. You're a perfect example of that. That's why Liberalism is superior to Conservatism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> Conservatism is crazy.



If Aristotle Jesus Okum Luther Locke Jefferson and Friedman were crazy please give us your best reason or admit to being totally illliterate and liberal.


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatism is crazy.
> ...


Since conservatism is crazy, if they believed in it, they were crazy for believing in it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



can the ililterate liberal say what about conservatism is crazy?? or do you prefer to get back to trivia to hide your ignorance and illiteracy??


----------



## TooTall (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I am glad you see that you know what an analogy is.

"The *MIM-104 Patriot* is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, the primary of its kind used by the United States Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. The AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the "Phased array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target" or the bacronym PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Army's primary High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and replaced the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Army's medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these roles,* Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. Army's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now Patriot's primary mission*. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040."


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


I have. You're a prime example.

Like you calling the statistic offered in the OP a "Liberal statistic." The only folks I see claiming it is a valid statistic are conservatives. It's Liberals who are dismissing it as meaningless.


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


And the Patriot missile was not the "original Star Wars program." As you've been shown, it started prior to Reagan even being in office.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



so the conservatism of Aristotle Jesus Okum Luther Locke Jefferson and Friedman is stupid because you see some conservatives on USMB claiming a statistic presented on USMB is valid when you feel it is not??

See why we are positive that liberaism is based in pure ignorance. Do you understand?


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


That's your response after being shown how crazy you are for calling a statistic being promoted by conservatives as a "Liberal statistic?"

That's just another symptom of how crazy you are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



do you know why you want to debate with me about a statistic rather than address the wisdom of Aristotle Jesus Okum Luther Locke Jefferson and Friedman?
 See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Faun (Sep 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Why do you think you're not a prime example of how crazy conservatives are. Aristotle said Liberalism was a beloved virtue. Why would I argue that when I can simply show how crazy you are for calling a statistic championed as relevant by conservatives as a "Liberal statistic?"


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 4, 2016)

TooTall said:


> Q. What does the SDI system do?
> A. It shoots down incoming rockets and missiles in flight.


BULLSHIT!!!

All the SDI ever did was funnel taxpayer money into the hands of GOP donors. Even as late as 2010 when given the missiles precise dimensions, expected trajectory and speed and based on that data estimated the route the interceptor's heat-seeking "kill vehicle" would have to follow to destroy the target, the kill vehicle missed as often as it hit the target. SDI was always a complete failure and still is.

End of story.


----------



## Faun (Sep 30, 2016)

In keeping with this thread's theme ....

*The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*

After 92 months in office, Ronald Reagan .

*Reagan ... 7.61
Obama .... 7.53*


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> In keeping with this thread's theme ....
> 
> *The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*
> 
> ...



Never realized Reagan was so bad


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 7, 2016)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 93rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months to the average of 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*10. Barack Obama: 7.53%*
11. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
12. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*
700.6/93 = 7.5333 = 7.53%*

There are 3 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in September to 62.9%, from the 62.8% it was at in August..


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 7, 2016)

Average unemployment is still a ridiculous statistic for measuring unemployment performance

Almost as bad as the labor force participation rate


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 93rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months to the average of 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


According to those numbers, the average unemployment rate by party comes to:

Democrat ..... 5.6%
Republican ... 6.1%

... vote Democrat to keep unemployment lower.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 7, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Average unemployment is still a ridiculous statistic for measuring unemployment performance
> 
> Almost as bad as the labor force participation rate



Anything that takes a look at all the data is far from being ridiculous. It is in fact, the only way to accurately measure how things were and what things were like. Its why schools average your grades to determine your GPA. Its not your grades in the first month of school vs the last month in school. That would be a ridiculous way to measure grade performance just as it is with unemployment performance.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2016 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 93rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.68% in April 2016 at 88 months to the average of 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months.
> ...


Well, I am voting democrat this year since there is no way I can vote for Trump.


----------



## kaz (Oct 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Not voting for Trump and voting for Johnson or writing someone in is integrity.  Voting for Hillary destroys any message you think you are sending.  It just says you are a socialist and government isn't doing enough for you.  You're voting for Stalin because you hate Hitler.  That isn't integrity


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 7, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It says you're a douche bag.  Everyone who supports Hillary is a douche.


----------



## kaz (Oct 7, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yes.  Obviously we disagree on whether it's worth voting for Trump, but actually voting for Hillary for someone who thinks they are not a socialist, I completely don't comprehend.  Frankly I think they're just kidding themselves.  Voting for Hillary says you are a socialist, that's all it says


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 7, 2016)

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



That's why I have a problem with Onyx.  He claims to be an anarcho-capitalist, but he constantly attacks Trump and defends Hillary.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No it says that I care about having a strong United States presence around the world that protect our vital interest like every President has done since World War II. I believe NATO is vital to U.S. National Security and that it is vital to defend NATO members like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland from potential Russian aggression. Trump does not believe in those things. Trump is an isolationist who wants to abandon Europe and NATO. Trump is in love with Putin, the current leader of Russia.Trump also does not care about Nuclear proliferation and would be just find with abandoning U.S. defense commitments in Japan and South Korea.  Hillary is very anti-Russian aggression and anti-Putin and his dictator style of running things. Trump has many qualities that are Stalin like. Hillary has virtually none. Hillary is closer to Franklin Roosevelt. Trump is more like Stalin, Hitler and especially Benito Mussolini. In fact, Trumps business relationships and treatment of women make him a lot like Benito Mussolini.


----------



## owebo (Oct 12, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > In keeping with this thread's theme ....
> ...


Carter was horrible.....

But look at the bright side, Obama will easily replace him as the worst POTUS ever....


----------



## owebo (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Wow, another clueless fascist democrat clueless that they are fascist....shocking....


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

owebo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



1. I'm a Republican and have never voted for a Democrat. November 8 will be the first time that I have ever voted for a Democrat. I'll still be voting Republican when it comes to other offices besides the Presidency this year. 

2. If you think I'm a fascist, you must also think every President of the United States since World War II is a fascist as well. All those Presidents while being from different political parties at least agree on several core national security issues for the United States, unlike Trump.


----------



## owebo (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, we know clearly where you stand child....sadly....



 

Go click your jackboots somewhere else where the ignorant liberals will enjoy you're hatred of America.....


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 12, 2016)

owebo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...



Talk about ignorance on display

Communism and Fascism are on opposite sides of the political spectrum regardless of what your rightwing propaganda chart shows


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yeah, sure you are.  That's what everyone who attacks Trump says.  

Every President of the United States since the great Depression has been a fascist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You'r "political spectrum" is bullshit propaganda invented by commie liberal arts professors.  The more accurate diagram of political ideologies is below:


----------



## owebo (Oct 12, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...


The whole four square scheme is propaganda created by liberals to hide the fact it is they who are fascist....


----------



## owebo (Oct 12, 2016)

People like right winger are fascist....their calling card is propaganda....


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Voting for Hillary says:

1)  You don't care at all in any way about integrity

2)  You believe anything you're told and shouldn't ever take a telemarketing call

3)  You're a dependency whore who wants free shit

And that's all it says


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Most US Presidents since WWII have been fascists


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Not voting for Trump I get.  I'm not voting for Trump either.

Voting for Hillary makes you a complete joke to say that you care about any conservative values at all.  Don't vote, vote for Johnson (my plan) or someone else.  But vote for Hillary?  There is no honor in that unless you're a socialist sleezeball


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...



I care about American values, American security, and keeping America the greatest country in the world. I'm an American first, and a Republican somewhere down the list. Unlike many here, I don't bow down to any political party. I vote for and support things that are right. In voting for the President, U.S. Defense Policy and U.S. Foreign Policy are the most important issues to look at as the President has the most impact on those issues. Donald Trump and Gary Johnson are both ignorant about U.S. Defense Policy and U.S. Foreign Policy and hold views that are alien to those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan on those issues. Both Donald Trump and Gary Johnson are unfit and too ignorant to be President before even getting to their insane policies on defense and foreign policy. *I also would NEVER vote for Libertarian candidate. The Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 primarily to oppose U.S. policy in Vietnam. Its a drug using, anti-military, hippie protest party and will NEVER be fit to occupy the White House. *

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton is far closer to Reagan and Bush than Trump or Johnson, which is why she is an easy choice for the next President at this point.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...



So why do you continue to live in the United States? If your so unhappy with the leadership and their policies over the past several decades why not move to a country more of your liking?


----------



## Crixus (Oct 12, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?





NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?




Easy thing to say if your employed. Or is someone else pays your bills.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So let me get this straight:

You believe that 

1. Most Americans don't care at all in any way about integrity.

2. Most Americans believe everything their told.

3. Most Americans are dependency whores who want free shit. 


Is that really how you feel about America and Americans?


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > owebo said:
> ...



So why do you still live in the United States if its such a fascist country as you claim?


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



This has nothing to do with party.  Hillary is a fundamentally amoral liar who literally let people die because it was politically unsavory to save them.  Voting for her says you're a greedy, self absorbed socialist.  It sends no other message.

As for the Libertarian party

- We don't support drugs, stop being a dumb ass.   We just think it's not the job of the government to stop people from being stupid.  So seriously, you think the government should decide everything we can do that's stupid and pass laws making it illegal?  Now that's stupid.

- You're very misinformed on the military.  We are very pro-military.  We just don't think it should be used for non-defensive wars like Iraq and nation building in Afghanistan

- If you think Hillary is an "easy choice" much less any choice at all, you stand for nothing but self centered greed because that's what you're voting for.  Enjoy the free government cheese

- And I don't know any "hippies" in the party, drama queen


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...





So you think the reason I live in this ... or any country ... is the politics? Seriously?  That's why you live here?


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



That's true of most people in every country.  I see where you addressed "Americans."  What did you or I say about "America?"  That part was pretty much out of the blue.  They are entirely different things.  America used to be a place where I had the right to live my life regardless of how greedy other "Americans" are.  Unfortunately that choice is going away, and you're helping it go away


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



All Western countries adopted fascism before WW II.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Again you're confusing the country and it's citizens.  Seriously, you don't know the difference?  I suppose that's how you excuse tyranny of the majority in your mind. America used to protect us from fascists like you.  Look guy, if you're a Democrat, at least own it.

Repeat after me.   OK, I admit I want the free government cheese ...


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Sure, the political situation shapes everything from the laws you must obey too taxes, etc. It impacts every aspect of your life, especially if you believe your living in a fascist country.  You've described the United States as Fascist state ala Hitler or Benito Mussolini.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You don't know what fascist actually means, do you?  You just know the definition government schools made up.

Fascism is socialism light, it's one step from socialism where industry is technically owned by a private citizen.  However, all decisions and strategies must be approved by government and adhere to central planning.  Central planning can only be done by government because government has the guns.

When Hitler did things like killing Jews, that really had nothing to do with fascism.  Government schools started saying that later.  So think about this country, that's exactly what Democrats are doing with healthcare, financial services, energy directly and everyone else indirectly with fascist programs like Obamacare.

Did you know that Nazi is German for the National Socialist Workers Party?


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Libertarians don't know anything about the military, foreign policy, or other countries for that matter. 

Remember, your leader Gary Johnson when asked about Aleppo had this to say:

Gary Johnson: *"WHAT IS ALEPPO"?*


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yea, whatever, if this country is so bad, if the political leadership passes laws, makes you pay taxes for things you don't support, why do you continue to live here? I mean honestly, if already described yourself as being so distant from Presidents and Parties that have governed this country for nearly a century, yet you choose to continue to live here. Its a bit of a contradiction.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I'm not big on Johnson.  I didn't vote for him 4 years ago and I wouldn't this time if both major parties hadn't gone off the deep end.

But you're planning to vote for ... Hillary Clinton.  Try looking yourself in the face after that vote.  The woman's a liar, con, criminal and murdered four people.  Voting for her says you're a greedy, selfish, socialist who wants free government cheese because that's what you're voting for.  Lots of people are voting for Johnson only because both parties went so far off the deep end


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Oh go fuck yourself.  It's a stupid question and you're only asking it to be an ass.

I do find it hilarious from the guy who's going to vote for Hillary Clinton


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You have any idea how fucking retarded you sound criticizing others for voting for Hillary when you're throwing your vote away on a third party candidate?

Any idea at all??


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 13, 2016)

kaz said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Well, it appears you and Donald Trump like to use similar language and have similar ideas about polite conversation and debate.


----------



## mgh80 (Oct 13, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> 
> No country is doing better than us NOW and they're waiting for us to pull them out of this gigantic Pub mess, if the Pubs would allow it, TOTAL DUPE of gloom and doom a-holes...We had 2.5% growth last year, with the Pubs and ignorant dupes fekking things up and moaning all the way. PFFFT!!



Obama has been president for 8 years now. Blaming his unemployment rate on Bush was legit for first couple of years. Now it's just pathetic and passing the buck.


----------



## kaz (Oct 13, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yes, "polite conversation" where you keep saying if you don't like the government, leave the country.  And keep repeating it.  You're being a dick ... again ...  It's the height of snarky, stupid conversation.

Fuck you and the fart that blew you in


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 13, 2016)

mgh80 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...


The rest of the world is still not out of the Booosh word depression. You think that has no effect on us? And of course GOP continuing obstruction of usual solutions...


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2016)

October numbers are out and after 93 months in office ..*Reagan* still holds the record for the highest average unemployment rate:

*Reagan ... 7.58
Obama .... 7.51*


----------



## Faun (Dec 2, 2016)

With only 2 months remaining ..*Reagan* still holds the record for the highest average unemployment rate for 94 months in office:

*Reagan ... 7.56
Obama .... 7.47*

What a fail of a thread for the OP , huh?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2016)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2016 was 4.6%. This is Obama's 95th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months to the average of 7.48% in November 2016 at 95 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*10. Barack Obama: 7.48%*
11. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
12. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
*
710.1/95 = 7.4747 = 7.48%*

There is one month left in the Obama Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went down from September at 62.9%, to 62.7% in November.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2016 was 4.6%. This is Obama's 95th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months to the average of 7.48% in November 2016 at 95 months.
> 
> Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:
> 
> ...


The president with the lowest labor force participation rate was Republican Dwight D Eisenhower, at 58.1%. That surely must mean the economy sucked at that time, huh?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2016 was 4.6%. This is Obama's 95th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months to the average of 7.48% in November 2016 at 95 months.
> ...



I think Trump will get down close to that rate


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


That's when we'll hear the right bitch, but...but...but you said the LFPR doesn't matter!?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Labor Participation Rate is THE most important economic measurement

What will we do when over 100 million Americans are out of the workforce under Trump?


----------



## BlueGin (Dec 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


In other words Liberals will start caring in January after 8 years of sucking Obama's dick and ignoring those out of work during his administration.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 6, 2016)

BlueGin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I am very concerned about what our new President will do to increase the Labor Participation Rate. He thrashed Obama because the rate kept dropping. I intend to keep track to see how well he does


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2016 was 4.6%. This is Obama's 95th month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.53% in September 2016 at 93 months to the average of 7.48% in November 2016 at 95 months.
> ...



         The poverty rate when Eisenhower was in office was over 20% which is higher than any President since that time. 

            In the 1950s, a much higher percentage of women were stay at home mothers, taking care of the house and the children. Most households back then had children and there were little to no childcare services like there are today. So things were structured differently. 

             Today the low labor force participation rate is due heavily to the retirement of the baby boomers, but it is important to mention that Obama's current average economic growth for the country would not be able to support a labor force participation rate of 66% or 67.3%, its peak. If the labor force participation rate was currently 66% or 67%, you would be seeing unemployment levels closer to 10% thanks to very sluggish GDP growth. But since there are large demographic changes going on with the babyboom generation going into retirement, the job market for those entering the work force for the first time is good. 

             Obama's unemployment numbers were rescued by demographic changes more so than economic improvement. The question now is can the country get back to sustained and consistent quarterly real GDP growth of 4% or higher, year after year. If it can, immigration will have to increase to supply all the extra workers that will be needed.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Maybe it had something to do with inheriting a godam crash next to the worst one in the nation's history. Have you conveniently forgotten Bush and the absolute crash he had a few weeks before he left office in January?


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


GDP was 8% when the labor force participation rate was at it's lowest. It's mostly impacted by demographics and doesn't indicate the health of the job market.

The unemployment rate is 4.6% because we have a healthy job market.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 6, 2016)

Campbell said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Another debunked far left drone post using far left religious dogma not supported in reality!





http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

Campbell said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


That's an amazing graph.


----------



## BlueGin (Dec 6, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Make an agreement with Japan that will bring 50k jobs to the US?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2016)

Campbell said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Well, any President can blame all their problems on the previous President. Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office. Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office which means on average he was close to full employment nearly every month of his time in office and also with an average above 66% in the labor force participation rate. On average it was much easier to get a job or hold job while Bush was in office then it was while Obama was in office. Obama averaged 7.48% Unemployment throughout his time in office(one month left so the figure is not complete).


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



          Higher GDP growth is easier when the economy is less developed which is why third world countries often have the highest GDP growth rates. You have to balance what GDP growth means for the structure of the examined economy. 

 The Unemployment rate is 4.6% thanks to the fact that the labor force participation rate has rapidly dropped over the past 8 years due to the retiring baby boom population. The Job market is healthy because so many people are retiring allowing for plenty of openings for new workers. Without the large unique retirement of the baby boom population, you would not have unemployment figures of 4.6%. This economy could not support a 4.6% unemployment rate with 66% labor force participation rate. You would have to have higher GDP growth than where it currently is to do that and for much longer sustained periods of time. 

              The lower unemployment rate is largely due to the demographic shift of the babyboom from the workforce, not because Obama has produced a strong economy with high sustained GDP growth relative to our developed industrialized economy. The economic growth has certainly had some impact, but a lot of the job growth is a given after so many jobs were temporarily lost due to the sudden severe recession. 8 years on, real GDP growth is not where it needs to be and could not support a 66% labor force participation rate and remain near full employment.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And the average unemployment rate is so meaningless, that Obama's average is lower than Reagan's; and many on the right consider Reagan a deity when it comes to creating jobs. Even worse, by averaging out the unemployment rate, you can't tell the difference between one president who starts with an unemployment rate of 12% and lowers it 1 point every year and leaves office 8 years later with an unemployment rate of 4% -- with a president who starts with an unemployment rate of 4% and leaves office 4 years later with an unemployment rate of 12%, increasing it by 2 points every year.

Statistically, they would have identical unemployment rate averages; only the former would be considered a jobs czar while the latter would be thrown out of office after 1 term.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 6, 2016)

Campbell said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


It wasn't nearly the worst "crash" in the history of the nation, but it was the 2nd worst recovery in the history of the nation.


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 6, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



The Average means nothing... What did he get at and where was it going and what did he give it back at and where is it going....

Obama started at the bottom and got to the top... Just compare to say Bush who started at the top and ended up at the bottom...

This is a joke statistic...


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2016)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


It's a complete joke. It even has a punchline ... Obama's average is lower than Reagan's.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 7, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'm here in east Tennessee and everybody has a job who wants one. Obama took an absolute mess made by Bush and completely turned it around.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Was it Hoover's fault that the entire economy collapsed in 1930-32 or have the history books got it wrong? They don't call that shit the great depression for nothing. Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a thriving economy and a balanced budget. The first thing the wannabe cowboy did was cut taxes on rich people, not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. That's all the modern Republican party is good for, tax cuts for the rich, a huge national debt and an occasional war.


----------



## owebo (Dec 7, 2016)

Campbell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


Flipology?


----------



## Campbell (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.


----------



## rdean (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


George W. Bush and the GOP left Obama with the worst recession.  Someone forgot to mention that.  Current unemployment?  4.6%.

America has 5.8 million job openings, matches all-time high

That many jobs availible?  Wow, Republicans must be working overtime to fill those jobs.

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

BlueGin said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



Trump did a good job...lets see more

But 50k jobs will not make a dent in LPR with 330,000 baby boomers retiring every month

What is Trump going to do about it?  This is a catastrophe!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You are close....it was not the worst crash in history
The Great Depression was....and that took 11 years to recover

You are correct, recovery was second worse to the depression. Recovery would have been faster without idiot Republicans screaming for austerity at a time we needed to pump money into the economy


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2016)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



   No it is a statistic that takes into account EVERY monthly unemployment figure during a Presidents time in office. Do you evaluate a worker or a student by only their first month and their last month in that position? What sense would it make to simply evaluate a President by the first month in office and the last month when there are 94 other months to look at. 8 years is a long time. Would you liked to be judge on simply just two months on the past 8 years of your life. Just last November and that month of December from nearly 8 years ago? Why do you think students have their grades averaged? Why would you just look at a students grades from his first 30 days in class and the last 30 days in class. Does that really tell you how competent the student was, or show how much they learned. Obviously not. To say that only 2 months out of a Presidents 96 months in office matter is just plain absurd!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It is a laughable statistic that treats a President who went from 5% unemployment up to 10% the same as a President who went from 10% unemployment down to 5%

That is why nobody but partisan nutjobs who thought they could use it against Obama use this statistic to measure employment

A better measure is total jobs created or lost


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Campbell said:
> ...



             8 years is a long time during which unemployment will rise and fall many times. Its a mistake to cherry pick two points in time so far away from each other and declare success or failure just based on that. Are the only important months of your life over the last 96 months, last November and that December from 8 years ago. Are you saying that your success's or failures in anything from 2015 don't matter?

            No one cherry picks a students grades his first month in High School and his last month in High School to evaluate how they did. Every month in school or on the job matters and only fool would completely ignore 94 months out of a 96 month Presidency. A 96 month Presidency is enough time for both many economic success's and failures which heavily impact peoples lives but could totally be left out if you only look at month one and month 96. 

            Would you evaluate Lincolns performance as Commander and Chief or that of his Generals simply by the first month of the war and the last. You would actually completely ignore a battle like Gettysburg. Not a single mention of it, not even a footnote. I suppose World War II should be just about Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan. The fact that the United States fought and defeated Germany in between those two points is not relevant right?

           The fact is, if you want to accurately look and evaluate anything, you have to consider ALL THE DATA. Simply looking at the first month of an administration and the last month of an administration does not do that!


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



96 months is a long time and its not straight path from month one to month 96. For most of the time Bush was in office unemployment was very low and near full employment. That is the condition that most of main street experience while he was in office. What were conditions like for the MAJORITY OF THE TIME the person was in office. You don't evaluate a persons time on just one or two months but every month they served. The only way you get that is if you look at every month and take the average. *YOU WON'T SEE HOW MOST PEOPLE LIVED UNDER A CERTAIN PRESIDENT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT JANUARY WHEN THEY START AND THAT MONTH 96 MONTHS LATER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD JUDGE TRUMP SIMPLY ON JANUARY 2017 and DECEMBER 2020. *


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



I better not see you commenting on how Trump is doing after February 20, 2017. You'll need to wait until December 20, 2020 before you can say anything of if he gets re-elected you'll have to wait until December 20, 2024. According to you, only the first month and the last month matter, period. So I'll be looking at your postings in the coming months to see if you really believe that.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


For Obama it was straight path downward from 10 percent to 4.6 percent. There were no up or down fluctuations 
Conservatives could only denegrate this by claiming he had a bad "average"
You even made a thread on it


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I will acknowledge monthly jobs added or lost and compare to Obamas. 

I don't give a shit about average


----------



## easyt65 (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



You are SUCH a 'Racist'!  Why is Barak Obama the only black man on that list - you tell me why!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

easyt65 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


We will soon have an orange man on the list


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> *Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office.* Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office


Well, one could make that same argument about Bush's average UE rate. Was it due to Clinton's steady 4% UE rate that he passed on to Bush who skyrocketed it to 7.4% and rising when he left?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 7, 2016)

Campbell said:


> The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.


Bush also doubled the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2016)

Obama might not be winning this dubious distinction anymore.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 7, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Obama might not be winning this dubious distinction anymore.



Considering that he was the only President on the list who started with an economy that was losing 770,000 jobs a month....he did damned well


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, it's not a mistake. As has been brought to your attention numerous times, a president starting with a high unemployment rate and ending with a low unemployment rate has done a better job than one doing the reverse, going from a low unemployment rate to a high unemployment rate. Even though thet could have the same average.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush's average  unemployment rate is due to him starting at a low 4.2% and the housing bubble (which led to the collapse). Bush never got the unemployment rate lower than what he was given.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush created 1 million (and they were all government jobs); yet Bush's average is only slightly higher than Clinton's.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Reagan created 16 million jobs. Obama created 11 million (15 million since the recovery). Bush created 1 million. Yet Bush's average is significantly lower than both Reagan and Obama.

Averaging it out conceals that.

Bush has the second worst record on job growth recorded in our country's history. He's only the second president (Hoover is the first) recorded to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

Averaging it out conceals that.

So yeah, if your goal is to make Bush's record appear better than it actually was by concealing all of the above since his policies did nothing but hurt the economy, then yes, I can see why it's so important to you to average out the unemployment rate.

Averaging it out conceals that.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 7, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Show a reliable source which negates one line!


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 7, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


OK... then with GWB we had a recession that officially began 3/1/01... let's blame Clinton if that's how you want to play it!


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?




Dancing on the head of a pin .... trying to avoid getting pricked.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



So you're now blaming Bush for the 2001 recession, or are you admitting you have a double standard?


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The difference is ... when an employee's performance is measured, they are not judged by the performance of others. If your company sets a goal for you, you are judged solely on your own performance of getting that job done.

Whereas Bush benefited from being handed a low unemployment rate from his predecessor -- which is the reason his average is as low as it is.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


That was a mild recession which started after Clinton left office and was only a recession because of 9/11.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 7, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> OK... then with GWB we had a recession that officially began 3/1/01... let's blame Clinton if that's how you want to play it!


You've never stopped blaming Clinton for the March 2001 First Bush Recession to start blaming him now, and you have been blaming Carter and Clinton for the Great Bush Recession that began Dec, 2007. Nothing that happened while Bush was president was his fault, apparently!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



My point was that this thread began in 2013.  Since then we've had over 3 years of monthly UE reports that were fairly low.

Maybe a recalculation would show that Obama's overall UE record is no longer the highest.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You seriously believe that an employee's performance is not judged by the performance of others? Good thing you didn't work for me. If your performance is significantly lower than your equally paid counterpart, guess who goes first? Guess who gets promoted first.

Your fantasy obviously is tainted by being a low level worker who is measured by count, rather than by quality. Just keep flippin' dem burgers.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


My performance was based on me meeting my goals. Nothing more, nothing less. It had nothing to do with me assuming someone else's goals.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Meeting "your" goals won't keep you employed if your counterpart is outperforming you.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


LOLOL

And you say you have a business??

I meet my goals and I not only get to keep my job but I get 100% of my share of my bonus based on personal accomplishment.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Own my business?

Actually, I own three businesses ... and have built 4 others. Meet YOUR goals, and you might be employed next week ....meet my goals and you might actually get somewhere.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Thanks anyway,but I'm doin' ok.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Just keep flippin' dem burgers.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


LOL

Thanks again, but I write the software that flips the burgers.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That explains it ... I own the engineering and manufacturing firm that tells you what to do. BTW - I've got about 135 code writers, too ... but they're expendable.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 7, 2016)

Campbell said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Campbell said:
> ...



The BLS is a government source and reliable.

Silly far left drone!


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2016)

Spare_change said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Everybody is. My company got bought out last year and they're closing our office next week. They announced it in October. All I did was post my resume online and the very next day I was getting calls from recruiters. Within a week, I got a call from one which panned out and after 2 more weeks of interviews & background checks, they made me an offer. More money, potentially bigger bonus, close to home, a win all the way around. The best part is my current company gave me 6 months severance plus 5 weeks of unused vacation time. I'll be taking in double salary for the next 7 months.

So yeah, we're expendable ... but good Java developers are in big demand. Getting laid off was the best thing to happen for my career this year.

Again, thanks for your generous offer to flip burgers. I'll get back to ya. LOL


----------



## Campbell (Dec 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Like ol' McSweeny said, "You've Got It Made If You Don't Fuck Up!"


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



But typically over 96 months you would see such fluctuations. Does not matter though. The point is that you can't evaluate 96 months with just two months of data. Oh and Obama did not start at 10%. It was below 8% in early 2009 and Obama even claimed it would not rise above 8%. So even with Obama's 96 months, there actually was not straight path downward. It went from 7.5% all the way up to 10%. It then went down slightly and then leveled off at 9% for a while. *Trust me, the average worker was not happy with the unemployment rate remaining 9% for months on end. *But with the blind mindless Idea of only using two months of data out of 96 months to evaluate things, you would never know any of that!


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



The president who inherited the worst economy since WWII was....





.....Barack Obama.

Your point is?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ah, so you don't care about the monthly unemployment rate eh? I suppose you did not care about your GRADE POINT AVERAGE in school either eh? Do you think schools should do away with that as well?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > *Was it really Bush's fault that the crash happened, or was it deregulation prior to Bush ever coming into office.* Thats another debate. What is beyond dispute though, is what the job market was like for the man on the street while each President was in office. Bush had an average unemployment rate of 5.27% while he was in office
> ...



It initially sky rocketed to 6.3% in 2003, but you would not know that if your another one of these people who don't want to look at the monthly unemployment rate. There are 96 months of unemployment rates from Bush's time in office. The best way to evaluate that entire time is to take the average. If you take that 7.4% rate, your only looking at one month of data from December 2008. That does not tell you anything about April 2008 when it was at 4.9% or the years 2006 through 2007 when for nearly 24 months the unemployment rate remained below 5%. But I guess you would credit the unemployment rate in 2007 with a President that left office in January 2001. Hell, I bet you would credit Clinton if the December 2008 figure was below 5% as well. Very telling indeed!


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > The only things I saw Bush do was cut tax rates for his rich buds twice and start two wars! Oh wait.....I forgot that he doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $12 trillion. That's what the modern Republican party does, borrows from foreign banks to cover it's spending.
> ...



For most of Bush's time in office the monthly unemployment rate was below 5.5%. In fact, the President with the most months of unemployment below 6% is GEORGE W. BUSH. He holds that record. #1.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its easy to create jobs after a sudden economic downturn. Keeping the economy in full employment indefinitely is much more difficult and so far in history has proved impossible. Bush kept the labor market at full employment or near full employment for most of the 8 years he was in office. *You see that with the average that is taken! *Using only two months of data, the first month in office and the last won't tell you that. 

*WHEN YOU USE ONLY THE FIRST MONTH AND THE LAST MONTH OUT OF A 96 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, YOU ARE CONCEALING 98% OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT PERSON WAS PRESIDENT! NINETY EIGHT PERCENT!
*
                   So I crown you the _*KING OF CONCEALMENT*_ since you believe its appropriate to not look at _*NINETY EIGHT PERCENT*_ of a Presidents time in office. The only thing that matters according to you is the first month and the last month. To hell with the other 94 months. 

                   I take you think students should not have their performance in school judged by Grade Point Average either, right?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You are not given a failing grade point average in your Freshman year....Obama was


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Clinton left office on January 20, 2001. Bush's time in office, his work, starts after that. But I guess where you work the person who is no longer there continues to get credit for the work you do for years on end. Hell, I bet if the unemployment rate had been below 5% in December 2008, you would say it was because of Clinton. LOL


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yep, if it was something bad it was Bush's fault. If it was something good, you can thank Clinton for it. All the way up through December 2008! LOL


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 10, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh you can be which is why students have to repeat that grade if its High School or drop out of University if were talking about college. Obama gets to remain all four years no matter how bad he does.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 10, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Campbell said:
> ...


And like every action there is a reaction. He left the joint in a mess and Obama sewed the seeds of recovery. The US unemployment rate at the moment is 4.9 percent. You can thank Obama for that. 

Your analogy is so full of BS it's hard to know where to begin. It's like there's been this massive car accident, and somebody just happens upon it, and you blame them for it.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 11, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So because his predecessor flunked out, he gets to start with his predecessors failing grades


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 11, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Plus not one of GWB critics seem to be aware of these EVENTS that had a DIRECT affect on the economy, taxes and above all JOBS!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency!  
NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!

1) Recession that started with Clinton..
2) Dot.com bust cost $8 Trillion in losses..
3) worst attack on USA  9/11..remember?? 
4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
5) The  9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
    On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market 
    accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. 
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could 
not stem the tide.  We were having an electronic run on the banks. 
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119619-how-the-world-almost-came-to-an-end-on-september-18-2008

IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%  
Obama's??? with NO EVENTS??? 
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth

And Obama FACED none of these events and even profited from TARP payback of all the $621 billion plus $70 billion profit.
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
Yet not one critic acknowledges these FACTS!


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Of course you can look at where a president starts and where they end up. Don't be ridiculous. . If a president comes in with a fairly healthy economy and low unemployment but leaves with a collapsed economy and very high unemployment -- they failed as president.

Conversely, if a president comes in inheriting a broken economy and high unemployment but leaves with a reasonably healthy economy and full employment -- they are a success.

What you're _trying_ to do, is credit Bush for inheriting a good economy while blaming Obama for Bush's Great Recession. Bush's average is as low as they are because unemployment was at a low 4.2% when he started; and after going up, his housing bubble brought it back down until it ultimately collapsed. Obama's average is as high as it was because he started with the worst recession in modern times which drove the unemployment rate up to double digits.

To highlight how retarded averaging out the unemployment rate is -- Reagan is considered one of the best presidents for taking a crappy economy and turning it into a good economy. Yet his average is the second highest on record. He added 16 million jobs in 8 years. Obama added 15 million in the last 6. Clinton added 23 million in 8 years. *Bush added one million in 8 years.* And they were ALL public sector jobs.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Name the person whose GPA was greatly weighted down by the person previously occupying their seat....


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Campbell said:
> ...


Thanks to the 4.2% rate Clinton handed him and the real estate bubble.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


If it were easy to after a sudden downturn, Hoover would have done so instead of turning a market crash into the worst economy in U.S. history.

And as you've been informed but choose to bury your head in the sand instead ....

Clinton has the best record with jobs, creating 23 million, 21 million in the private sector.

Bush has the worst record except for Herbert Hoover, creating just 1 million, negative 400,000 in the private sector.

Clinton to the unemployment rate from 7.3% to 4.2%.

Bush took it in the opposite direction from 4.2% to 7.8%.

You think Bush did just as good a job as Clinton because their respective averages are 5.2% and 5.3%.



Needless to say, Clinton left office with a record high exit approval rating (despite being impeached) while Bush left with his tail tucked firmly betwixt his hind legs. Even worse for Bush, he owns the all-time low job approval rating of 19% (9/2008).


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You would lose that bet; I'm not a conservative. That was conservative logic of crediting Reagan with the great numbers under Clinton.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


7.8% to 4.6% is your idea of how bad he did.

In reality, that 3.2 point drop is the biggest since WWII

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


average annualized job growth...


* Clinton    ** 2,861,000 ** Carter     ** 2,586,000 ** Johnson    ** 2,358,000 ** Reagan     ** 2,016,000 ** Roosevelt  ** 1,819,000 ** Nixon      ** 1,644,000 ** Obama      ** 1,413,830 ** Kennedy    ** 1,261,000 ** Truman     ** 1,123,000 ** Ford       **   861,000 ** GHW Bush   **   659,000 ** Eisenhower **   442,000 ** Bush       **   160,000 *


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I really get so pissed at idiots like YOU!
DON"T you remember THESE EVENTS that NO OTHER President has ever faced?
HERE please tell me these events HAD NO effect on the economy, jobs, PEOPLES lives, taxes you name it!
NOTHING of their magnitude has ever occurred and you idiots don't seem to comprehend what happened!!!

Remember these events that NO OTHER President has EVER EVER FACED in their presidency!  NEVER in 8 years did these events occur!
1) Recession that started with Clinton..2) Dot.com bust cost $8T..3) worst attack on USA  9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes!
IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%  

These events dramatically altered life in the USA!  
Thousands of people died! 
Trillions of dollars lost!  
Millions of jobs gone!
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because  idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"... 
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.  Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm

Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. 

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.  2,215 lives lost
The worst, Katrina  made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage*  $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

THESE events OCCURRED!  
YET in SPITE of:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..

IN SPITE of the above:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The recession started under Bush, not Clinton. That will never change no matter how many times you tell that lie. As far as the hurricanes you mention -- hurricanes are not only a drain on the economy. There is a recovery period, which in some cases, can generate more growth than the loss from the storm.

Can Natural Disasters Help Stimulate the Economy? | Brookings Institution


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Conservative imbecile .... the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The above chart is wrong!
*Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value*, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

"_But Reid's numbers are wildly inaccurate for the Bush administration. 
BLS data show there was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs — not a job loss — from January 2001 to January 2009_.
It's true that roughly *8.75 million jobs were lost from January 2008 to February 2010. *But about half of those losses occurred during Obama's presidency. BLS data show that 4.4 million jobs were lost in Bush's last year in office, and 4.3 million more jobs were lost during Obama's first 13 months.
In the past, some Republicans have blamed Obama for job losses that occurred under Bush, as we have written before. 
This time, it's a Democrat falsely blaming Bush. [AND BIG IDIOTS like The phony "FAUN"!!!]
Reid also falsely blames the Bush administration for the entire $14 trillion national debt.
Reid, Aug. 1: We had a surplus when he took office of $7 trillion over 10 years. We're now — because of the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unpaid taxes and drug programs — we're now [at] $14 trillion.
That's wrong on two counts. The projected surplus wasn't $7 trillion when Bush took office, and $3.7 trillion of the $14 trillion in total debt has been added since he left. On the projected surplus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report in January 2001 — the month Bush took office — that estimated budget surpluses of "$5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period," not $7 trillion as Reid claimed. 
That CBO report said that "much of the current debt will be paid down over the next several years" if the surpluses materialize. Of course, the projected surpluses did not materialize — in part because of the recession that began shortly after Bush took office — something CBO did not anticipate in its projections.
Also, the total public debt stood at $5.7 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, the date of Bush's inauguration. And when he left, the total debt was $10.6 trillion. That's a huge increase, to be sure. But to suggest Bush's policies were to blame for the entire $14.3 trillion debt ignores what happened before and after Bush's presidency.
Reid Wrong on Bush's Economic Record - FactCheck.org

Now as far as the 
What f...k could you or anyone else do with the idiot democrats REFUSING to reign in Fannie/Freddie?

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
           * House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
             "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
              housing."... 
             (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," 
             New York Times, 9/11/03)
          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
             ignored the President's warnings and called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" 
             position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

But Frank and other Democrats still opposed tighter regulation, Frank most notably in his public statements saying there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. He and other House Democrats also sent a letter to President George W. Bush in June 2004, saying the proposed crackdown could “_weaken affordable housing performance . . . by emphasizing only safety and soundness.’’_
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. 
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that *"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." *He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

But idiots like YOU evidently don't know how to research for the truth...covered up by the MSM and other dogma driven dummies!

Of course you won't agree as I do with this statement because you are a partisan irrational person.
_Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue, it doesn’t really work,’_’ said Jonathan Koppell, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. _“Both parties have plenty of responsibility.’’_
Frank haunted by stance on Fannie, Freddie


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 13, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



You forgot to add that over $50 trillion in National wealth was added under Obama.

Far more than any President in history


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


LOL

Do you even read your own articles?

Your CNN article doesn't state only $6 trillion was lost. It's about house prices being down about 32%. It doesn't include all the wealth lost due to foreclosures, the wealth lost in the stock market, the wealth lost to job losses, etc...

All total, roughly $19 trillion. Far worse than all the other disasters occurring under Bush combined. And  blaming Obama because he inherited the worst recession since Hoover's Great Depression is beyond stupid, even for idiot conservatives like you.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 13, 2016)

Update on OP:

President Obama has moved up 2 places on the list.  Now has a better record than

FORD and REAGAN.

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

LOL, OOPS.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And you don't seem to include ANY of the events that occurred that NO other president has ever faced.
I am open to blame Bush partially for the housing bubble because Bush like most people understood America was teetering after 
recession, dot.com bust which account for $8 trillion you dummy...
 which wasn't anything to do with Bush... but again you can't seem to understand
how events like those HURT millions of Americans... and not one of them caused by Bush!  
Did you read my above...
1) Recession that started with Clinton.*.2) Dot.com bust cost $8T.*.3) worst attack on USA  9/11..remember?? 4) worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes! IN Spite of these events : Average annual GDP growth over 8 years 2.9%


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


How nuts are you? Where did I discount those events under Bush?

I included them all. The cost of all of them combined doesn't even come close to the cost of Bush's Great Recession.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Doesn't come close to what????
 You said $19.2 Trillion lost household wealth...
Well here is  $8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust.  GWB's fault???
America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
* leaves $11.2 trillion.*
WTC 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  
18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm
*Leaves $9.2 trillion*!
$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.  2,215 lives lost 
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp
* leaves $8.2 Trillion! *
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, *which dropped $6 trillion*, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions
*Leaves $2.2 Trillion* WAY WAY far from $19.2 Trillion...

NOW HOW MANY of the above that you supposedly accounted for were totally the fault of GWB?
NO WAY this $19.2 trillion figure is ALL GWB's fault!


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 13, 2016)

Idiot faun....

You wrote: _the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag._
What factors dummy created the "$19 trillion" if
A) A recession B) dot.com bust cost: $8 trillion...C) 9/11 costs: $2 trillion...D) Worst hurricane SEASONS...cost $1 trillion...
E) Lost real estate value cost $6 trillion... Add them all up : total $17 trillion...leaving $2 trillion...
So WHERE did you come up with BLAMING Bush for $19 Trillion?
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
           * House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
_  "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,_
_*the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
              housing."... *_
             (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
             New York Times, 9/11/03)
          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman C*hristopher Dodd also
             ignored the President's warnings and called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" *
             position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

AND Frank admitted he was totally wrong.....2 years LATER!!!

And who admitted his ERROR??? Barney FRANK!
*Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts*
By Larry Kudlow  August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch *supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. *
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
_"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,_" he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "i_t was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."_ He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

SO again FAWN... I ask you how can you blame GWB for the housing bubble when the major defender Frank wants Fannie/Freddie abolished?


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


I didn't even include the cost of the market crash in 2008. That's another $10 trillion, taking us to *$29 trillion*



healthmyths said:


> NO WAY this $19.2 trillion figure is ALL GWB's fault!


That's true. He had the help of Republicans...

_"*Thanks to our policies*, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech_​


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Idiot faun....
> 
> You wrote: _the cost of all the disasters you list combined don't equal the cost of Bush's Great Recession, on which is about a $19 trillion price tag._
> What factors dummy created the "$19 trillion" if
> ...


More demented conservative nonsense. 

The problem started under Bush...


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot faun....
> ...



So the $19 trillion problem WASN"T all GWB's fault and you now have to settle for a unsupported argument that it ALL started under GWB???

READ below the efforts and keep in mind what Barney Frank said...after the debacle!!!
_"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,_" he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that _"it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."_ He then added,
_* "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."*_
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

The problem DIDN"T start with GWB!   *GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!*
"O_ver  six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs._

*2001*
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

*2002*
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

*2003*
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03) 
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

*2004*
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

*2005*
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

*2007*
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

*2008*
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


LOL

Everything you posted occurred under Bush's regime.

Great Bush Recession.

But again, he had help... _"Thanks to *OUR* policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high!" ~ George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech_

And blaming Barney Frank is beyond rightarded. 

Though he was wrong on the issue, he was harmless as one member of the minority party in the House. *Republicans were in charge.* Sorry reality sucks for you conservatives.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



YES these EVENTS did occur under GWB.  NO QUESTION.
But only Idiots like you put the entire blame for these events on GWB!

Well here is  *$8 trillion losses due to dot.com bust.*  Was that GWB's fault??? 
America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
 leaves $11.2 trillion.
*WTC 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  How was that GWB's fault?*
18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm
Leaves $9.2 trillion!
*$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.  2,215 lives lost.*
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp
 Unlike idiots like you and most of the MSM who like Evan Thomas EDITOR of NewsWeek who said of Obama:
_"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."_ 

GWB IS NO God and couldn't control the weather... but idiots like you and even Obama who thought himself to be deity when on his nomination he said:
_This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."_
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

 leaves $8.2 Trillion! 
Much of the lost household wealth came from declines in the value of real estate, which dropped $6 trillion, or nearly 30% of its value, from the end of 2006 to the end of last year [2010]. And after posting modest gains in 2009 and the first half of 2010, the value of homes started to fall again in mid-2010.
America's lost trillions

Now  that leaves $2.2 Trillion.  A LONG,LONG way from the $19.2 Trillion idiots like you say was all GWB's fault!

I at least will agree.  $2.2 trillion  of the loss of $19.2 trillion can be attributed to GWB's lack of attention to the housing bubble... EVEN
though he tried to reign in Fannie/Freddie (AS FRANK admits should have been!) 
But dummies like you can't even admit you are off by 90% in that stupid $19 trillion blame on GWB!
Again recession admittedly by the NBER started way earlier then the official 3/1/01 date..
"It is clear that the revised data have made *our original March date for the start of the recession much too late.* We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[5]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
And the $8 trillion in dot.com bust...America Is Its Own Worst Enemy - Trapped In Irrational Exuberance | Zero Hedge
And the $2 trillion in WTC 9/11 that cost 3,000 lives,  $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.  
18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels.  9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/currentevents/tp/Top_Ten_Fin_Events_Decade.htm
And the $1 trillion in hurricanes...http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp

But of course idiots like you that believe Obama is a god...Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."
blame GWB for these events?  Of course you do.  If you believe Obama is a God, then what was GWB if he was to blame for the above events?


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2016)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Still not even close to the $29 trillion Bush's Great Recession cost us.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Again, you are only looking at two months out of 96 months. You can't rate someones performance on only two months, you have to look at all 96 months. Year, after year, the economy faces problems, ups and downs, that the President must deal with. You dismiss all that, when you don't look at all 96 months. Keeping an economy at full employment is just as important as creating new jobs. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy has been in recession, so you are overvaluing that figure grossly. Again, the best and most objective way to look at this information is to look at all of it. You dismiss most of the info by only look at the first month and the last month. You can't rate a student simply by his first month in High School and his last month in High School. The same with any job and yes the same for the President. Your narrow focus on the first month and last month is comforting because it fits something you want to believe. But it does not consider all the information and is far from being objective. My chart considers all the data and is 100% factual. While you dismiss it, you continually come back to this thread which only lends it more significance, and puts doubt in whether you actually believe your own claims.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Bush spent most of his 96 months at or near full employment. Its harder to create new jobs when the economy is at full employment. Its much easier to create new jobs when the economy is poor and unemployment is high. So this only shows once again how great things were for employment while Bush was in office. Most people had jobs or could easily get one if they wanted during most of Bush's 96 months in office. During most of Obama's 96 months in office, people struggled when it came to employment.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


We see what Bush was given and we see what Bush gave back. As far as your meaningless average, Republicans hold the two worst spots.... Ford and Reagan.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


LOLOL

Bush is the only president since Hoover to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well, why do you both to post in this thread if basic factual unemployment averages for the Presidents are so meaningless? The fact that you keep coming back in here time after time shows you think its relevant whether you openly admit it or not.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

Fang said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


So you're saying Obama did a better job regarding employment than Reagan, huh?


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


To dispel your idiocy.


----------



## Camp (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So, which president had the worst unemployment since WWII? Isn't that the question asked in the thread title?


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If its so dumb, you should not need to make any effort to dispel it. Yet, if we count up your post in this thread, you spend a lot of time here. Most informed and intelligent people don't waste their time with things they consider dumb or irrelevant.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Camp said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its now President Ford, as Obama in his last year was able to squeak out of the bottom spot.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

Camp said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It is Ford, Republican.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



er....idiota..... he started with baby bush's crash.

amazing what you wingers putt out of your butts.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



With Reagan, another Republican, a close second

On the bright side......President Obama left office with unemployment at 4.7%


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2017)

regent said:


> Should the president be given the power to control America's economy?



you think the president controls the economy on his own?


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


That would be Obama, who inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression from Bush. Bush and Hoover... gave us the worst economies since the 1800's and were the only two presidents since then to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when they started.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Are you kidding? You're the gift that keeps on giving. Why would I miss out on this? Month after month after month, I got to come on this thread and laugh at your nonsense as Obama's average dropped. I even pointed out early on in this thread that Obama's average would fall below Reagan's. According to you numbnuts, Obama did a better job handling in employment than Reagan did.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

jillian said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Yeah, it doesn't matter to the herd that Bush was handed a 4.2% unemployment rate and turned that into a 7.8% unemployment rate while Obama inherited that 7.8% rate and turned it into a 4.8% rate. Along with the unprecedented streak of job growth extending for 76 months.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.8%. This is the first unemployment report with Trump in office, his first month recorded for this list. This starts the Donald off at #3 on the list for unemployment since World War II. But Trump will have another 47 months in office if he completes his first term, another 95 if he is elected to a second term and completes that. Naturally, depending on how he does during his time in office, his position on this list is likely to change. Obama's final numbers are in and he finishes his Presidency with an average of 7.45% unemployment, the 3rd worst on the list. 


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.80%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 47 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, up from 62.7% in December.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, its up to you how you choose to spend your time. Thanks for spending it in my thread. It only lends credence to how relevant it is.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.8%. This is the first unemployment report with Trump in office, his first month recorded for this list. This starts the Donald off at #3 on the list for unemployment since World War II. But Trump will have another 47 months in office if he completes his first term, another 95 if he is elected to a second term and completes that. Naturally, depending on how he does during his time in office, his position on this list is likely to change. Obama's final numbers are in and he finishes his Presidency with an average of 7.45% unemployment, the 3rd worst on the list.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


LOLOL

You're desperation is showing. We're only 3 days into February, Trump's first full month in office, if he lasts that long. Hiw the fuck does Trump have an "average" unemployment rate with only 2.4 days under his belt??


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Yeah, that's what my presence does.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.8%. This is the first unemployment report with Trump in office, his first month recorded for this list. This starts the Donald off at #3 on the list for unemployment since World War II. But Trump will have another 47 months in office if he completes his first term, another 95 if he is elected to a second term and completes that. Naturally, depending on how he does during his time in office, his position on this list is likely to change. Obama's final numbers are in and he finishes his Presidency with an average of 7.45% unemployment, the 3rd worst on the list.
> ...



Well, I think you would know after coming to this this thread so many times after so many years. Thats how its calculated. Obama's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2009. Bush's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2001. Reagans January 1981. Clintons, January 1993. So yes, Trumps start with January 2017. It wouldn't be accurate to give Obama a 97 month and start Trumps figures with February. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though that your just learning this now.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, its my thread. This is where you choose to spend your time. That tells everyone more than anything you might have to say.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Feb 3, 2017)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....



There is no race-card more powerful than one carried by a black Muslim. They are completely exempt from fault. You think otherwise? YOU DAMN RACIST BIGOT!


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Actually, with every other president, you started counting following their first full month in office. 

And why would you credit Trump, and not Obama, for January's average? Obama was in office 20 if those days compared to Trump's 11. Obama's policies have affected the unemployment rate, not Trump's.

Had Obama left office with a 10% unemployment rate, would that have been Trump's fault? Would it be reasonable to say Trump's average unemployment rate is 10% when it would have been because of Obama?

This is exactly why your posts are nonsensical.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Your posts speak for you. They reveal how retarded you are. Like positing Bush performed better than Reagan in terms of jobs because his average was lower.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Well, I think you would know after coming to this this thread so many times after so many years. Thats how its calculated. Obama's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2009. Bush's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2001. Reagans January 1981. Clintons, January 1993. So yes, Trumps start with January 2017.* It wouldn't be accurate to give Obama a 97 month and start Trumps figures with February.*


Actually it would ONLY be accurate if you started every president with February!!!!


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And moved past Ford AND Reagan.


----------



## Faun (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Ummm... Bush averaged a little over 13 thousand jobs per month. The worst performance on record since Herbert Hoover.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



EXPLAIN to me how you come up with any credibility when you willy-nilly spout out NOTHING with ANY Proof!!!

YOU know any dummy can come up with a figure!  Where in the hell DUMMY did you come up with $29 TRILLION????
Give me links.  Proof that the so-called recession that has been directly linked to the 

Many factors directly and indirectly caused the Great Recession (which started in 2007 with the US subprime mortgage crisis), with experts and economists placing different weights on particular causes.

Major causes of the initial subprime mortgage crisis and following recession include: International trade imbalances and lax lending standards contributing to high levels of developed country household debt and real-estate bubbles that have since burst; U.S. government housing policies; and limited regulation of non-depository financial institutions. Once the recession began, various responses were attempted with different degrees of success. These included fiscal policies of governments; monetary policies of central banks; measures designed to help indebted consumers refinance their mortgage debt; and inconsistent approaches used by nations to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.
Causes of the Great Recession - Wikipedia

HOW does the cause of your phony $29 Trillion fall at the feet of GWB???
NOW dummy where is the proof to counter this statement:
TARP which was part of Bush's deficits was entirely paid back with a profit!

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

DEBT responsibility to GWB $622.5B
DEBT PAID back to Obama $698.3B
Net Profit credited to Obama's budget $75.8B
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
YET Obama even with this additional $698.3 Billion paid back Obama RACKED UP these DEFICITS!
[*]Year    Receipts    Outlays    Surplus or Deficit (–)   
[*]2000    2,025,191    1,788,950       236,241   
[*]2001    1,991,082    1,862,846       128,236    Dot.com Bust,  9/11,  Recession
[*]2002    1,853,136    2,010,894      -157,758     
[*]2003    1,782,314    2,159,899      -377,585    tax cuts took affect worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
[*]2004    1,880,114    2,292,841      -412,727    biggest deficit..,,  worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
[*]2005    2,153,611    2,471,957      -318,346    deficit decline,,worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
[*]2006    2,406,869    2,655,050      -248,181    deficit decline,,worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
[*]2007    2,567,985    2,728,686      -160,701    deficit decline
[*]2008    2,523,991    2,982,544      -458,553    housing bubble
[*]2009    2,104,989    3,517,677    -1,412,688    TARP,Stimulus

[*]2010    2,162,706    3,457,079    -1,294,373    This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
[*]2011    2,303,466    3,603,059    -1,299,593    This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
[*]2012    2,450,164    3,537,127    -1,086,963    This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
[*]2013 2,712,045    3,684,947      -972,902    estimate   
[*]2014 3,033,618    3,777,807      -744,189    estimate   
[*]2015 3,331,685    3,908,157      -576,472    estimate   
[*]2016 3,561,451    4,089,836      -528,385    estimate   
[*]2017 3,760,542    4,247,448      -486,906    estimate   
[*]2018 3,973,974    4,449,240      -475,266    estimate
[/LIST]


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




AND BUSH had these events that NOT ONE of the above Presidents ever faced at the SAME 8 YEARS...
Recessions, wars, BUT NOTHING to equate with THESE EVENTS!

A) Recession started as the NBER said...much earlier then 3/01 so how in the hell could GWB with just 3 months into office be at fault?
B) Dot.com bust... again... starting under Clinton but blamed on Bush??? 
The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999–2001 Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia 
AGAIN GWB entire fault for $8 trillion in market losses?
C) WTC/Pentagon... 9/11  all Bush's fault? So tell me again GWB totally at fault for Gorelick memo which prevented CIA from sharing with FBI 9/11 bombers?  Bush not god for sure!  $2 trillion in losses... 3,000 lives.... again GWB FAULT???
D) Anthrax attack right after 9/11  was this done by GWB???
E) Worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricane... again $1 trillion losses... 2,215 lives and are you faulting GWB for not being like Obama
     as Thomas and you and others declared "like a God"???
F) 9/18/08 Economic terrorist attack with $500 billion taken out of $4 trillion Money market that CAUSED everyone to be concerned 
     about the   WORLD's economy collapsing!

And of course the housing bubble... again... 
With Frank/Dodd chastising GWB for trying over SIX YEARS to control Fannie/Freddie and later this is what Frank later said:...
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts | RealClearPolitics
So again in summary... YOU and your idiot buddies love to blame Bush.... YET the facts and history totally refute your common lemming like 
meme that you and even some dumb GOPs state... "Bush spent like a drunken sailor"!!
NOTE if Bush spent like a drunken sailor why do the FACTS in LIGHT of the ABOVE demands... say otherwise?
YET in spite of these gigantic cataclysmic events Bush had:
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , 
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost  in alone due to 9/11, 
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts... In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property..
 IN SPITE of that:
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later due to dot.com/9-11 losses against revenue.
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased BUT economy coming back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5%  deficit decreasing at rate of 22% again tax cuts at play!
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7%   deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7%   deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED  due TARP loan mostly...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=20
BUT Obama benefited by TARP being totally repaid WITH A PROFIT!!!
Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's rather strange that you fault Bush when it was Jimmy Carter's CRA, clinton's additions to it, and a Democrat controlled Congress that dismissed GOP warnings that the housing market was about to collapse that caused the recession.

Let's look at unemployment:



 

So, do you still want to talk about a couple of months when obama had 8 years to fix a problem and left us with an unemployment average significantly higher tha President Bush's?


----------



## francoHFW (Feb 3, 2017)

OP- Hasn't been true for months, and was always incredibly stupid. Fake news for the chumps.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> It's rather strange that you fault Bush when it was Jimmy Carter's CRA, clinton's additions to it, and a Democrat controlled Congress that dismissed GOP warnings that the housing market was about to collapse that caused the recession.


More strange is the fact that Bush is not responsible for anything bad that happened while he was president, 9/11, the housing crash, etc., let alone the after effects one day after he left office, but Carter is responsible 25 years after he left office and Clinton 10 years after he left office for everything bad that happened during Bush's fiasco!!!!!!!

BTW, it was the GOP controlled congress that blocked and dismissed all legislation related to the GOP's "warnings." Once the Dems took control they passed reform legislation.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > It's rather strange that you fault Bush when it was Jimmy Carter's CRA, clinton's additions to it, and a Democrat controlled Congress that dismissed GOP warnings that the housing market was about to collapse that caused the recession.
> ...


The CRA that started the meltdown was Carter's pet project. bill clinton expanded it and Democrats, most notably Barney Franks, dismissed warnings. Yes I blame it on Carter and clinton. THEIR legislation blew up the economy and Democrats were in control of Congress when the defecation was about to hit the whirling blades.
Nothing strange about it at all except the fact that Democrats continually create catastrophes that they use against the adults across the aisle.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > It's rather strange that you fault Bush when it was Jimmy Carter's CRA, clinton's additions to it, and a Democrat controlled Congress that dismissed GOP warnings that the housing market was about to collapse that caused the recession.
> ...



So Bush was to blame for the recession?  The dot.com bust?  9/11?  the worst hurricane SEASONS in history, the half a trillion withdrawn in 2 hours on 9/18/08 causing a run on banks?  All Bush's fault.  Right?  He caused the recession.  Caused $8 trillion in losses from dot.com bust.  And of course you probably on one of those tin-foils that think he and cheney put C-4 in the WTC and there never were 4 airplane crashes.  And by your admission Bush was at fault for 9/11 then he also was powerful enough to cause the worst hurricanes in history.  Of course he was just as powerful it appears as Obama who told us..
AND remember Obama told ALL you first time voters at his acceptance in 2008..
that as the Messiah.."slowing the rising oceans and healing the planet"
"]


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


CRA had nothing to do with Bush's housing crash, and Frank was a POWERLESS minority congressman when the GOP majority blocked all reform bills in committee except one which the GOP controlled Senate refused to bring up for a vote. Bush and the GOP own the housing crash, lock, stock and barrel.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 3, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


A Gish Gallop of deflections and Straw Men.
Thank you.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.8%. This is the first unemployment report with Trump in office, his first month recorded for this list. This starts the Donald off at #3 on the list for unemployment since World War II. But Trump will have another 47 months in office if he completes his first term, another 95 if he is elected to a second term and completes that. Naturally, depending on how he does during his time in office, his position on this list is likely to change. Obama's final numbers are in and he finishes his Presidency with an average of 7.45% unemployment, the 3rd worst on the list.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



So in your twisted reality......Trump is a hero for inheriting a 4.8% unemployment and Obama is a dog for inheriting an 8.1% unemployment


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wrong again.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 3, 2017)

The GOP knew McCain's bill wouldn't pass the Senate, much less a Democrat House.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 3, 2017)




----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.8%. This is the first unemployment report with Trump in office, his first month recorded for this list. This starts the Donald off at #3 on the list for unemployment since World War II. But Trump will have another 47 months in office if he completes his first term, another 95 if he is elected to a second term and completes that. Naturally, depending on how he does during his time in office, his position on this list is likely to change. Obama's final numbers are in and he finishes his Presidency with an average of 7.45% unemployment, the 3rd worst on the list.
> ...



Did I say that? The first reported unemployment rate while Obama was in office was 7.8% by the way. We have 96 months of Obama in office with an average of 7.45%. Trump's average is 4.80% because we only have 1 report so far. Again, this is just the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Will see if the situation stays the same with Trump, gets worse, or gets better during his time in office. For right now though, this is where were at because this all the data that is available.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Once again, Bush was at full employment for most of his time office. Most people had jobs or could get a job. That was the reality. Considering that, your stat is irrelevant.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> OP- Hasn't been true for months, and was always incredibly stupid. Fake news for the chumps.



What has not been true for months? I update the list every now and then. It was just recently updated. All the data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factual data only, thats it.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I think you would know after coming to this this thread so many times after so many years. Thats how its calculated. Obama's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2009. Bush's numbers start with the unemployment figure for January 2001. Reagans January 1981. Clintons, January 1993. So yes, Trumps start with January 2017.* It wouldn't be accurate to give Obama a 97 month and start Trumps figures with February.*
> ...



You could do either January or February to pick the end or beginning of the next President. I picked January because its the start of the year and the month when the new President enters office. Moving the starting point to February though would not significantly change the results on the list.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, its my thread. This is where you choose to spend your time. That tells everyone more than anything you might have to say.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Wrong.* Reagans 96 month total starts with January 1981. Bush Sr. January 1989, 48 months. Clinton January 1993. W. January 2001. Obama January 2009. Now Trump, January 2017. It would be inconsistent to wait until February's results are in to start counting Trump and give Obama a 97th month in Office. 

                You don't rate a President on anything simply by their first month or last month in office. Its all 96 months or 48 months if they are a one term President. For Obama and all the Presidents, no one month stands out over the other. All must be looked at and considered equally. 

                 If for example a President had between 8 and 10% unemployment every month for the first 7 years in office, and then was able to drop the unemployment down to 5% in his last year, it would be a mistake to rate that time in office as good for the worker. The average will show that while that President was in office, most people struggled. The good job environment in the last months in office CANNOT cover up the 7 years when things were very difficult.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





 GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!

"Over  six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact *"legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" *and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member _*Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.*_"  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)  
O*ctober: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it*."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "*The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.*"  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
*April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)*
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying *"Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America *… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package* for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." * (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* * House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: *
 *"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .  *
* The more people exaggerate these problems,  the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will 
 see in terms of affordable  housing."... *
             (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," 
             New York Times, 9/11/03)
          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
             ignored the President's warnings and called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" 
             position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

AND Frank admitted he was totally wrong.....2 years LATER!!!

*And who admitted his ERROR??? 

Barney FRANK!


Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts*
By Larry Kudlow  August 21, 2010
_Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, *Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. *
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie._
*"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it.*_" He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie._"
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


----------



## rdean (Feb 3, 2017)

He is also the president given the worst economy by the worst political party in US History.

Republicans are like Midas.  Only everything they touch turns to shit.  Ask a GOP minion for a GOP success and they can't name one.  Not even a lousy single something good.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Actually your video proves me right, in spite of FAUX News' attempts to lie by telling just enough truth to deceive and then shutting up.

If you pay attention they quote Frank in 2003 speaking against regulation, and then FOX said "the legislation was blocked." But FOX of course left outv that it was the GOP controlled the House and the committee that reviewed the legislation and blocked it, Frank was a powerless minority member at the time, and FOX's Britt Hume then tried to make it seem like the powerless at the time Frank blocked the bill in 2003 by pointing out that Frank was now, in 2008, the time of the FAUX report, the committee chairman.

Also near the end of your clip Hume also confirms that the ONLY House bill that was not blocked by the GOP majority in committee was blocked by the GOP majority leader in the Senate Bill Frist by not ever bringing it up for a vote, but Hume tried to blame powerless minority senator Obama by saying he made no comment on the bill.

So thank you for posting a video that proves what I highlighted in my post!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Basically the same lying technique as FAUX, leaving out that the GOP did a lot of talking, but the GOP majority blocked every reform bill they talked so much about being needed, proving just how cheap talk really is!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, February is the ONLY accurate month to choose for 2 reasons.
1. It is the first full month under the new president.
2. January is the month when the BLS uses the census data to correct for population changes during the past year.

No honest person who wanted accurate numbers would ever use January to begin a new president's tally.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Again your methodology is twisted to reward someone who was given a low unemployment rate and doubled it and punish someone who is given a high unemployment rate and cuts it in half

It doesn't reveal the true story


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It's like being a poker player who was ahead most of the night and then lost his shirt on the final hand


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 4, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Maybe you should ask Barney what he meant when he said this:

Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
Many prominent Democrats, i*ncluding House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.*
* * House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: *
 *"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .  *
* The more people exaggerate these problems,  the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will 
 see in terms of affordable  housing."... *
             (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," 
             New York Times, 9/11/03)

          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
             ignored the President's warnings and called on  him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" 
             position. Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) 
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

AND then Frank admitted he was totally wrong.....2 years LATER!!!

*And who admitted his ERROR??? 

Barney FRANK!*

*Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts*
By Larry Kudlow  August 21, 2010
_Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, *Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. *
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie._
*"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it.*_" He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie._"
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

Please refute the facts with quotes as I've done!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Your source is pushing the same lie that FOX did in the video, making it appear that Frank was committee chairman in 2003 when he was actually a powerless minority congressman on the financial services committee that the GOP had a 4 vote majority, 37 R, 32 D, 1Ind. It was the GOP House majority who killed all reform bills in committee except one which GOP Senate majority leader Frist refused to bring to the floor for a vote in 2005. So you can mindlessly blame Frank all you want, as you have been programmed to do, but it was the GOP who killed all reform in spite of all their complaining about Fannie and Freddie.

http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/108members.pdf


----------



## Faun (Feb 4, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


$30 trillion just in lost household wealth and lost stock market wealth...

America's lost trillions

Dow hits new record, regaining losses from Great Recession


----------



## my2¢ (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



No sympathy remains after the jug went dry being used up for George W.


----------



## Faun (Feb 4, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Pales in comparison to the $30 trillion lost during Bush's Great Recession.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Fake news.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The entire DOW isn't worth $30 trillion.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Obama added over $55 trillion to total wealth


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You mean he printed $55 trillion of money.  He didn't increase our wealth one iota.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If he did that the dollar would be useless and we would have runaway inflation

We have the strongest currency in the world and minimal inflation


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's exactly what he did, moron.  What do you think the term "quantitative easing" means?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Economic miracle

Flood the market with cash, create 55 trillion in wealth and keep a strong dollar and no inflation

Obama is a genius


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


He didn't create any new wealth, dumbass.  Paper money isn't wealth.  Cars, house and appliances are wealth.  We aren't producing anymore now than we did 8 years ago.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Without wealth backing it....paper money is worthless dumbass


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's right, dumbass.  So what is backing the $55 trillion Obama created out of thin air?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Feb 4, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Yeah so why do you lefties still blame Bush ? You know if the unemployment rate goes up tomorrow you Dems will be frothing at the mouth screaming TRUUUUUUUUMP!


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The U.S. Economy

If the money were just paper. It would have no value and inflation would be rampant


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The output of the U.S. economy is no greater now than it was in 2009, but you claim $55 trillion in new wealth was created.  Where is it?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Corporate America, small business, personal wealth


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 4, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> The output of the U.S. economy is no greater now than it was in 2009


LIAR!


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 5, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That's some funny shit right there.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 5, 2017)

Ernie S. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


It may be funny to you, I'm glad you can laugh at your own stupidity, but it is quite true!


----------



## Faun (Feb 6, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


What a pity you don't understand English.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 6, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Because he _does_. Look how the market spiked upon news of Donald Trump's election as President. Conversely, looked how the market tanked upon news of Barack Obama's election.

Warren Buffett said: "money flows towards opportunity". Barack Obama campaigned on a rhetoric of 0 opportunity. He bashed corporations, promised high taxes and to "spread the wealth" (i.e. socialism). Businesses immediately when into "survival mode" after his election (but before his inauguration). They wanted as few costs as possible - especially employees (less employees means less payroll taxes, less regulatory costs like Obamacare, etc.).


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> Because he _does_. Look how the market spiked upon news of Donald Trump's election as President. Conversely, looked how the market tanked upon news of Barack Obama's election.


The market was rising before pathological liar Tramp was elected, and the market was tanking before Obama was elected.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 6, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Because he _does_. Look how the market *spiked* upon news of Donald Trump's election as President. Conversely, looked how the market tanked upon news of Barack Obama's election.
> ...


Look at Eddy lie again. "The market was rising". I didn't say "rising" you Disingenuous partisan hack. I said *spike*. The market *spiked* sharply ever since Trump was elected and you know it (just like it tanked sharply upon news of the radical marxist Obama being elected to office). You are _such_ an asshole. You don't have an honest bone in your body. Everything you do is to attempt to reword and spin everything instead of just accepting reality. Propagandists like you are repulsive.


----------



## Faun (Feb 6, 2017)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


LOLOL

The Dow is up about 182% between the time it bottomed out from Bush's Great Recession and the election.

The yahoos cheer the 9% increase since the election.


----------



## charwin95 (Feb 7, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually sales of new cars and appliances was awesome in 2016 but sales of houses are just moderate.  Good job Obama. 

Top 50 Major Appliance Retailers: Appliance Sales Grow 3.7%

http://www.freep.com/story/money/ca...ales-likely-set-another-record-2016/96153138/

2016 shatters records in Orange County real estate

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus...ohio-housing-market-stays-red-hot-record.html


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 7, 2017)

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How do they compare with sales in 2008?  Not a big improvement, is it?  The bottom line is that there was no $53 trillion increase in wealth.  There was only a $53 increase in the price of stocks.


----------



## charwin95 (Feb 8, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your in denial Bri.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 10, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.7%. This is the second unemployment report with Trump in office, his second month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.80% last month to 4.75% this month.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.75%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 46 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 63%, up from 62.9% in January.


----------



## Faun (Mar 10, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.7%. This is the second unemployment report with Trump in office, his second month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.80% last month to 4.75% this month.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Your point is...?


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter (Mar 10, 2017)

Obama also presided over two downgrades of America's credit rating.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 7, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.5%. This is the third unemployment report with Trump in office, his third month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.75% last month to 4.67% this month.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.67%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 45 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at ?,  ? 63% in February.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 7, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.5%. This is the third unemployment report with Trump in office, his third month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.75% last month to 4.67% this month.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



So it turns out just as I predicted...

...that by the end of his term, Barack Obama would have a better average unemployment rate than Ronald Reagan.

lol, oops.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 7, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.5%. This is the third unemployment report with Trump in office, his third month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.75% last month to 4.67% this month.
> ...



Yep, thanks largely to the Baby Boom generation that continues to retire at a large steady rate, the labor force participation rate has significantly decline for the first time in history making it easy for new workers to find jobs as the enter the market for the first time. The decline in unemployment is  largely thanks to the Baby Boom generation retiring and not the economic performance produced by the Obama administration. If the labor force Participation rate was still at 66% as it was for most of Bush's time in office, unemployment right now would be closer to 10%.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I'm not so sure that is true. The labor force participation rate among working age people is now back to where it always was. U6 indicates the same thing. My understanding is that most people are working but many at lower wages?


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 2, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2017 was 4.3%. This is the Fifth unemployment report with Trump in office, his Fifth month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.67% in march to 4.54% in May.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.54%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 43 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7% down from 62.9% in April.


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for May 2017 was 4.3%. This is the Fifth unemployment report with Trump in office, his Fifth month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.67% in march to 4.54% in May.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


You demonstrate how much the numbers are influenced by what a president inherits.

Inherit a weak economy, and the numbers for a new president are significantly higher. Inherit a strong economy, and those numbers are lower.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for May 2017 was 4.3%. This is the Fifth unemployment report with Trump in office, his Fifth month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.67% in march to 4.54% in May.
> ...



Good point!
So why are people so down on GWB?
This is what GWB inherited!


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You are fucking deranged. How does a president inherit hurricanes?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The same way he inherits anthrax attacks. Which  like totally like causes  the economy to like totally crash.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Never the less these EVENTS occurred!
But dummies like you seem to have forgotten them.
Because GWB had these events to contend with and these EVENTS would have caused long term damage to our economy, our people our country if he
hadn't been the leader he was remember he had at one time  the highest approval rating *George W. Bush Average: September 2001 - 90% Approval Rating
Presidents By the Numbers: The Highest And Lowest Approval Ratings Post World War II
*
And this was before the BIASED MSM began bludgeoning GWB about Iraq along with traitors like these who ENCOURAGED terrorists to kill US troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said  "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
This Harvard study to have increased  violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
_Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq_?  The short answer is YES!!! 

But of course idiots like you guys weren't either born yet or were in some drug stupor or just plain ignorant about what our world was like in 2001 after
Clinton's government efforts to thwart investigations...(Look up the Gorelick memo)!


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Do you always assume that which you do not know to try and prove what you do not know?


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Makes no sense what you said.
I've links to prove the FACTS that I present.
YOU and your ilk...all you do is type stupid ass comments!
My point has been entirely that idiots like you are obviously ignorant about history! Why else do you ignore ALL the facts I present?
Contest them!  Please!  That's what intelligent scholarly dialogue demands.  Not dumb ass comments with NO support like you frequently present!
So when I present FACTs about the 2001 Recession that started under Clinton as NO RECESSION starts at 12:00 but takes a continual slow down as occurred
with GWB in 3/2001.  I present facts about the dot.com bust.  Again $8 Trillion in losses that have a direct affect on tax revenues in the following years.
Or the hurricanes that cost lives and trillions of dollars and tax revenue!  Or 9/11 that shut down the airline industry for 3 days and Wall street for 10 days!
And people like you totally ignore those events?
That's why I constantly try to educate you with the links and substantiation... like this attachment!


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Here's what you said -- _*"This is what GWB inherited!"*_

Do you see now why you look so retarded?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


No, but he sure found a lot of other words to forget about it.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2017)

I really don't give a shit about what happened during any presidency in relation to the work force and trying to wave a flag for my team. Things happen, cycles occur, shit man, it's the same thing in nature. What makes you think humans are not prone to the same??
My focus is on what's happening now, not the cheerleaders of the past for some ungodly reason of partisanship. What needs to be done for our future and securing for when times are bad, or the rain doesn't come and the veggie garden still must grow and the plywood must get through.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> I really don't give a shit about what happened during any presidency in relation to the work force and trying to wave a flag for my team. Things happen, cycles occur, shit man, it's the same thing in nature. What makes you think humans are not prone to the same??
> My focus is on what's happening now, not the cheerleaders of the past for some ungodly reason of partisanship. What needs to be done for our future and securing for when times are bad, or the rain doesn't come and the veggie garden still must grow and the plywood must get through.



Sure didn't sound that way on a number of occasions when you BLAMED Bush!


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 2, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



YOU were the first person to use the term.."Inherit a weak economy, and the numbers for a new president are significantly higher. Inherit a strong economy, and those numbers are lower."
Retard!  You said "inherit weak economy"!  Yes GWB DID!
Inherited Dot.com bust! Yes... all started under Clinton, Bush inherited!
And I agree.  Bad weather is not an inherited issue.  Even though
But over the five years of President Bush’s administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state’s congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana’s representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.
Katrina:  Louisiana Federal Money Not Spent On Levees


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Again, moron.... *You* said.... _*This is what GWB inherited!" *_And then proceeded to list everything from terrorist attacks to the weather.

Again.... how does a president inherit a hurricane?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Staidhup (Jun 2, 2017)

The key number is not the unemployment rate, which is gerrymandered crap, it is simply worker participation rate.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2017)

Staidhup said:


> The key number is not the unemployment rate, which is gerrymandered crap, it is simply worker participation rate.


95 million not working


----------



## pinqy (Jun 2, 2017)

Staidhup said:


> The key number is not the unemployment rate, which is gerrymandered crap, it is simply worker participation rate.


How on earth do you think the unemployment rate is gerrymandered but the labor force participation rate isn't, when they come from the same survey and include most of the same data?


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 3, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> > The key number is not the unemployment rate, which is gerrymandered crap, it is simply worker participation rate.
> ...



Even if the labor force participation rate was at its highest in history, 67.3%, you would still have 85 million adults not in the labor force.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Staidhup said:
> ...


Tramp himself says the not in labor force number is the REAL unemployment number.

JAN. 11, 2017 press conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — *96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.*


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 8, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2017 was 4.4%. This is the Sixth unemployment report with Trump in office, his Sixth month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.54% in May to 4.52% in June.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.52%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 42 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.8% up from 62.7% in May.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 8, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are right.  I used the wrong word.  I should have used "contend with" or "confronted with" or "endured"!  All better words than "inherit".  You are right.
So here is the list of events that NO OTHER President has ever encountered, endured, contended with, or confronted with, in the 8 years of a presidency!


----------



## miketx (Jul 8, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


LOL! It has nothing to do with deciding who works and you know it. What it has to do with is what the president does, what he controls and and his desires to see success or failure.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


As you've been shown repeatedly, all those events combined pale in comparison to Bush's Great Recession.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2017)

miketx said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


And Obama had the unprecedented streak of 76 consecutive months of job growth which added over 15 million jobs.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



1. BULLSHIT. Unemployment by year:

2009: 9.3 percent.
2010: 9.6 percent.
2011: 8.9 percent.
2012: 8.1 percent.
2013: 7.4 percent.
2014: 6.2 percent.
2015: 5.3 percent.
2016: 4.9 percent.
*Average of 7.5%*

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

2. It's true, Obama is a total asshole for starting Great Recession.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2017)

Just noticed the date on this thread


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 8, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So how many people DIED because of Bush's minor recession? ZERO!
HOW many Trillions of dollars was lost in the market, in destroyed businesses, in destroyed buildings, in destroyed homes, in destroyed property?  ZERO!
How many Trillions of dollars lost in TAX revenue due to market, in destroyed businesses, in destroyed buildings, in destroyed homes, in destroyed property? ZERO!

Idiots like you saying these events PALE in comparison to the Minor recession...you need to talk to the survivors of 9/11/hurricanes that killed people! 
And you say those events PALE????
There truly aren't any words to explain people's ignorance such as yours!
SHOW ME AGAIN where Trillions of dollars were lost due to destruction, market losses, lives lost during the minor recession?
I've showed you the events that no other President has had to confront!
Show me HOW the minor recession makes those event PALE?
Give me the links to counter this!


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You've been shown this before... $30 trillion. Way more than everything you listed combined.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 9, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



    The 8.86% figure is from an earlier point in his Presidency. This list gets updated in this thread sometimes every month. The current list is here:



Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.52%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 9, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.


It is based on your complete stupidity!


----------



## postman (Jul 9, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I see you corrected the previous rate you posted, but you must realize the average is actually meaningless, unless you also post the change in unemployment rate.

For example, someone who inherits 4% unemployment, and leaves with 8% unemployment can have an average unemployment rate of 6%

Somebody else inherits 8% unemployment, and leaves with 4%, also can have an average unemployment rate of 6%.

But one doubled unemployment, while the other cut unemployment in half.  But the average doesn't tell you that.


----------



## postman (Jul 9, 2017)

President Obama Has Cut the Unemployment Rate More Than Any President since FDR

President Obama Has Cut the Unemployment Rate More Than Any President since FDR

*The largest drop in unemployment of any president since FDR.* You would not know it from the headlines, but President Obama has overseen the largest drop in the unemployment rate of any of these recent presidents, and, in fact, since FDR. In actuality,* he has cut the unemployment rate to a lower level than any other recent president upon leaving office—except for President Clinton.*


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your link: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
YOU have to be KIDDING!!!!!
What a subjective totally ignorant GUESS!!!!
Hey IDIOT when you consider 5,000 people killed in 9/11 hurricanes what kind of "psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects did their relatives, businesses that LOSS the productivity of those dead Americans suffer?  Has that been calculated?
I mean using average age of 40 that died and the average earning power for 20 years of $50,000/year.. that alone was a loss of trillions!
Businesses destroyed in 9/11.  Almost 18,000 small businesses were shut down or destroyed. Assume each business did at least $100,000 a year
for the next 20 years... nearly $40 billion! The Impact Of 9/11 On Business The Impact Of 9/11 On Business 
Due to  9/11/01   2,996 killed, 6,000 wounded..."

Under Bush    2001 - 2008   Lives lost: 2,782  Disasters:$429 Billion  in losses ;
Total lives lost: 5,778
Under Obama 2009 - 2016   Lives lost: 831  Disasters: 100.9 Billion in losses
Source of above data: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters:  |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush.   Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000!  
Too many zeros?  $208 trillion  in "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" under GWB!!!
HA HA HA... my number is bigger than your number!!!

$208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

postman said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Yeah, some people just can't be bothered with such pesky details.

Anyone who says Bush did a better job than Reagan in terms of unemployment needs to have their head examined.


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


$30 trillion is far more than all the events you listed -- combined.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your source Using that same subjective measure during that period you divide that $30 trillion by 831 lives lost under Obama like lives lost in 9/11 and disasters, Hurricanes,floods,etc..under Bush. Then due to the "psychological trauma," loss of subjective well being", "reduced future job prospects" and using the same dumb ass ruler that James Pethokoukis did in coming up with $30 trillion... the losses under Bush were over $208,000,000,000,000 provided then the measuring stick!

So I'll match your $30 trillion and raise you to $208 Trillion in losses due to life/destruction under Bush from 9/11 disasters,etc. is nearly 6 times bigger then your $30 trillion!


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It's not how you look at the facts it is the FACT it is A FACT.

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.52%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016
Maybe a picture is better for you.



Now the FACT also is that because of Carter's Misery INDEX was the all time high Reagan was still able to reduce unemployment in spite of it!


----------



## postman (Jul 9, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> It's not how you look at the facts it is the FACT it is A FACT.



It is a misleading fact.  If you measure average wealth, the richest community in the USA is anywhere Bill Gates lives.


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Imbecile, the "psychological trauma" accounts for a _small_ chunk of the economic impact.

$19 trillion was from lost household wealth...





Plus another $7 trillion in lost stock market valuation in 2008...

Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out

Plus another couple of trillion lost in the stock market in 2009 until March when the market started turning around.

$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession.

Far exceeds everything you listed -- *combined*.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Why do all the charts stop before they reach bottom?  That looks like worthless propaganda to me.  Of course, Obama's recession because his policies made it far worse than it had to be.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Remember this is what YOU quoted based on James Pethokoukis YOUR EXPERT!!!
AND I QUOTE:
*We conservatively estimate the loss of national output as a result of the financial crisis and its aftermath at between $6 trillion and $14 trillion. If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses.*
So subtracting $14 Trillion from $30 Trillion leaves $16 Trillion of "*broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs”*
Lets agree $14 Trillion on market losses, businesses destroyed airlines not flying wall street closed, etc....associated with 9/11,etc. I'll buy that.
And let's agree then Pethokoukis attributes then $16 Trillion related to "broad and more difficult to quantify costs". You agree?  Simple math.
So $16 trillion attributed to broad and more difficult to quantify costs"  OK?
There were 5,778 ACTUAL DEATHS during the events from 2001 to 2008. 
As part of that "broad and more difficult to quantify costs"  since we are GUESSING here.. that each of those deaths cost over the next
30 years cost $50 million a year in "broad and difficult to quantify costs" There... we have $20 trillion in "broad and difficult to quantify costs"!
See I can pull a number out of my butt just as well as Pethokoukis!!!!
Remember there were stock brokers, business people, etc. all sorts of people who's lives were cut short.  Who knows what great invention
that might have spun off billions in revenue would have come from one of those 5,778!  Again nothing like that equaled during Obama!

Finally let's look at yours and Pethokoukis contention!
Neither one of you took into account the TRULY psychological  blow to America when 9/11 occurred.
A BRAND New cabinet post was created.
Just the simple time to take off your shoes at the airport for the last 17 years is cumulative and part of that "broad and difficult to quantify costs"!
And then we have the trillions of dollars completing what Bill Clinton started in 1998 with the Liberation of Iraq.  I've not even touched
on the costs that came from all those people wanting someone to do something about Saddam because remember!
If he were alive today 3.6 million kids would be dead by now!  Simply because he wouldn't agree to this simple statement:
Do you or do you not have any WMDs?  Saddam would neither confirm or deny!  Why?
So please I can pull a number just as Pethokoukis out regarding the costs that EVERY American has had to bear and not just those
during the minor recession.  
By the way neither YOU nor Pethokoukis ever admitted any knowledge of this event!
The  9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., 
to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. 
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. 
We were having an electronic run on the banks. 
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119619-how-the-world-almost-came-to-an-end-on-september-18-2008

You don't think THAT had a bearing on the financial community?


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Your craziness persists. The chart reflects the depth of each recession respectively and the only recession Obama had was the one created under the leadership of Dubya.


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


As you were shown, the financial hit to household wealth alone topped $19 trillion. About another $10 trillion in losses in the stock market.

More than every event you listed -- *combined*


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 9, 2017)

*Meanwhile, Trump Winning! *

*U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June*

The U.S. economy added 222,000 jobs in June, much more than economists were expecting, the Labor Department said Friday.

It's welcome news after the prior two jobs reports had hinted at a possible slowdown in job growth.

"The job market hasn't lost any steam," says Josh Wright, chief economist at software firm iCMS...

More:
U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


How do we know when we can't see the whole chart?


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used  Pethokoukis' quote: "If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. that he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes. NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis to arrive at the additional $16 trillion!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do!  And I quote:
"_Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases_*, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause.*_ The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in__ The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure?__ by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “_*Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”*
Hmmmm!!!! Who runs the Federal Reserve???? They certainly don't get directions from the President!
The *Federal Reserve* System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions _do not have to be approved by the President_ or anyone else in the *executive* or *legislative branches* of government, it *does* not receive funding appropriated by the *Congress*, and the terms of the members of the.. Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia

So where in the article YOU quoted does it ever say "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
It doesn't!  YOU made that up!


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Open both eyes, maybe then you'll see it. I'm not experiencing such problems.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


I gave you a link which shows household loses exceeded $19 trillion. Stock market loses account for about another $10 trillion.

That's more than everything you listed -- *combined.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How can you see what isn't there?  Each line just stops at some arbitrary point, and no explanation of why that point was chosen is given.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



BUT according to where you got your information How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI
It wasn't Bush's fault!  Yet you clearly stated: "_*$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
*_
*The same article you quoted does NOT blame the recession on Bush as you ignorantly do!  And I quote:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
*
Finally are you so cruel, so calloused such a selfish, miserly person you ignore the “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses." from 5,778 lives lost?
I'm confident that the relatives, the employers, the GDP was directly affected by these lost lives in far excess of $20 trillion!

So in summary:
1) Explain how it was "*$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"? *If the ARTICLE you linked to says it was the Federal Reserve's fault?
2) YOU explain to the relatives,employers, and businesses that lost the salaries,the goods purchased, THE LIVES of 5,778!  How totally calloused and ignorant!

NOW facts to counter your exaggerated household losses.......
1)  The office said paper wealth lost by U.S. homeowners totalled *$9.1 billion.* 
Additionally, the GAO noted, economic losses associated with increased mortgage foreclosures and higher unemployment since 2008 need to be considered as additional costs. Financial Crisis Cost Tops $22 Trillion, GAO Says | HuffPost
2) Now as far as "Bush's Great Recession"... Here are the reasons and you tell me where in that discussion is there a MENTION of President Bush?

The Community Reinvestment Act is not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Banks responded by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This was made possible by the constant reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act.[32]
Government-sponsored enterprise under the lax rules made to the Community Reinvestment Act, GSEs started to offer too many loans that were never repaid.[33]
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to use insured depositories to underwrite private securities loans and sell them on the open market in the form of securities. Better known as mortgage-backed security.[34][35]
Giving Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac GSE status allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to borrow money in the bond market at lower rates (yields) than other financial institutions. With their funding advantage, they purchased and invested in huge numbers of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, and they did so with lower capital requirements than other regulated financial institutions and banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to experience large losses on their retained portfolios, especially on their Alt-A and subprime investments. In 2008, the sheer size of their retained portfolios and mortgage guarantees led the Federal Housing Finance Agency to conclude that they would soon be insolvent. Under, GSE status Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt and credit guarantees grew so large, that 90 percent of all residential mortgages are financed through Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration.[36][37][38]
By 1966, the United States had suspended its postal savings system which encouraged savings by allowing people to buy certificates of deposit at post offices for as little as a dollar.[39] This started the transformation from a saving to consumption economy. Americans started reducing their savings and increased their debt. This temporarily kept private consumption and thus aggregate demand and employment high, but also contributed to the creation of the credit bubble which eventually burst.[40]
Offshoring of American jobs: The U.S. government has from time to time encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs by various subsidies and through loopholes in tax policy which led to wage stagnation and the loss of American jobs.[41][42] When unemployed Americans did find jobs, many of the jobs were low-wage or entry level jobs.[43]
Encouraging mergers: The U.S. government in its deregulatory periods has encouraged large corporate mergers, which often have the effect of reducing tax revenues and often choked market competition. Many such mergers act to cut employment, as well. The U.S. Treasury Department has allowed banks and other financial institutions in many cases to use the 2008 and 2009 bailout money to buy out their competitors.[44][45]
Allowing unemployment to grow to control inflation: U.S. government policy sometimes favors growing unemployment ostensibly in order to achieve long run growth by reducing inflation. According to Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg, Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

Where in that list is there ANY MENTION of Bush's recession and $30 trillion in losses???


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> *Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
> U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June*


Only if you like the fact that 35 times more government jobs were added in June than manufacturing jobs.
Big Government CON$ervoFascists love Don THE Con!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 10, 2017)

Lakhota said:


>




lol........so s0n......how's that strategy working out in elections over the last 7-8 years?

Perpetually slamming the other side while having zero idea's is ghey.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



*EPIC FAIL*

Even Barack Obama himself thought he could decide who works and who doesn't.

*Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus… Today It’s at 8.3% Instead*

Obama Promised Unemployment Rate at 5.6% After Stimulus... Today It's at 8.3% Instead - Conservative News


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 10, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...




  But winning elections s0n.........perpetual winning > attention spans!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You're an idiot. And I don't say that merely because you assign some blame to the CRA; but because you cite Huffington posts claim the GAO said the recession only cost household wealth *$9.1 billion* when the GAO never said that. The GAO put that at *$9.1 trillion*.

All total, the GAO put the price tag on the recession at *$22 trillion*, far exceeding every event you listed *combined.*


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

Fang said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Quote Obama making such a "promise"....


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Do your own research.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> *Meanwhile, Trump Winning! *
> 
> *U.S. economy gains a strong 222,000 jobs in June*
> 
> ...



In *June 2016 *were you and talking about Obama wins? Because we posted *287,000* jobs in that month.

Overall, Trump's job record has been in line, if slightly under-performing, 3 year trend. That means that so far Trump is falling short of his promises.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

Fang said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Fang said:
> ...


Don't have to. I already know Obama never made any such promise. That's why you refused to answer.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 10, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yea, Trump's few month record is stellar....which is another way of saying that he hasn't yet wrecked the 4% unemployment in a stable, growing economy Obama handed off to him.

Does anyone live in your upstairs or are you just a brainless internet bot?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

Fang said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



He never promised that.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

Fang said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Fang said:
> ...



lol.  Were you born a liar or is that an acquired feature of your character, such as it is?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 10, 2017)

Conservative axiom:  The government can't create jobs.

Conservative claim:  Last month, Donald Trump created over 200,000 jobs.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



BUT YOU quoted this article when you said "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
You wrote that!
You can't have it both ways!
Remember you used  Pethokoukis' quote: _"If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."_
to clearly state $30 trillion i.e. $14 trillion from market, GDP,etc.. he acknowledge and then he added another $16 trillion for rounding up purposes as NOT one single quantifiable source was use by Pethokoukis!
How much did the Great Financial Crisis cost America? Nearly $30 trillion • AEI

AND did the GAO call it a "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?

1) YOU and YOU alone called it "$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"?
2) YOU said $30 trillion based on this Pethokoukis' quote: _"If you include those “broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects — we’re talking closer to $30 trillion in losses."_
3) YOU with NO regard for the 5,778 killed and their _“broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects" _ callously and with evil intent to blame Bush ignored that cost!  You ask any one of the 5,778 what price tag they would put on their loved one's life?
I dare you because their loss is priceless.  Hence your stupid ass comment about _$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession_" is idiotic!
A) because everyone concluded it WAS NOTHING that Bush had any control over...much as they tried:

*GWB warned Congress to act 22 times over 6 years and to no avail!*
"Over  six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Remember the housing bubble started under Clinton and was made worse by the Democrats who refused to as Dodd/Frank said:
AND
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow  August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
*"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it*." He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


And in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when Bush was warning Congress about the GSE's...... which party controlled Congress?


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I agree!  GOP!  

But who was against Fannie/Freddie reform???

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
             the President's warning saying: 
_ "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
              The more people exaggerate these problems,
              the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..._ 
           (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
          * Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
            called on  him to _"immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position._ Eric Dash,  "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze 
            Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Doesn't matter if Democrats were against GSE reform -- *they had no power in Congress*. Republicans did, and they didn't pass GSE reform while they were in charge. Democrats did pass GSE reform after taking control of Congress in 2007 with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, but it was too late by then. By 2007, the damage was already done. 

Thanks for proving Republicans were to blame.

And who was the leader of the Republican Party...?


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



But as far as "Dems had no power"???  You got to be kidding!
With people like you NEVER ever working with the GOP it would have taken major cooperation with these and the below FACTS...
Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and 
*opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005.* 
T*hat bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing*, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. 
The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.
Don't the American people deserve to know that Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, " I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"? Isn't the fact that the ranking Democrat in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae was in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive a glaring conflict of interest? Isn't it worth noting that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters insisted, "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines"? Shouldn't the American people know that Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks insist that "there's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong with Fannie Mae"?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

BUT let me point out!  You are digressing from the topic.."$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"
It WAS NEVER TRUE and you made that phrase up!  Fake News at it's best!!!
A) The housing crisis ACCORDING Barney Frank was caused by what????
   For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous 
   role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.  But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to 
   say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie. _"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,"_ he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added,
 "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie
DID BARNEY make this statement: $30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"  NOPE!
B) Who did the author of this statement  _"broader and more difficult-to-quantify costs” — psychological trauma, loss of subjective well being, reduced future job prospects _say was the blame:
"Just as the 1929 stock market crash didn’t cause the Great Depression, the housing collapse didn’t cause the Great Recession. In both cases, monetary policy mistakes were the likely proximate and fundamental cause. The role of the Federal Reserve in the Great Depression was the subject of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States. The Fed’s role in causing the Great Recession and Financial Crisis is explained in The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? by Robert Hetzel. The first book caused a major rethink in the economic profession, so should the second. As Hetzel puts it: “Restrictive monetary policy rather than the deleveraging in financial markets that had begun in August 2007 offers a more direct explanation of the intensification of the recession that began in the summer of 2008.”
HE NEVER SAID THAT "._*"$30 trillion lost in Bush's Great Recession"  You made that up and that is proven to be a total and absolute LIE!*_


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 10, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Meanwhile, Trump Winning!
> ...



Aw, you mad? I think so.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 10, 2017)

antontoo said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Meanwhile, Trump Winning! *
> ...



Many Obamabots were here daily boasting about it. They demanded everyone kneel and praise their Dear Leader. So what's all the hatin about over these great jobs numbers?


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Why are you blaming Democrats for the failure to pass McCain's bill in 2005? Even though Democrats opposed it, it still passed in committee. It still got as far as Senate leadership; who wouldn't put it on the Senate's Legislative Calendar for a full vote on the Senate floor.

Remind me again.... which party controlled the Senate's Legislative Calendar in 2005?

And yes, Bush's Great Recession cost us about $30 trillion.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers? They're still pretty good; even though there's about 102 million people out of work and the unemployment rate is about 40.5%.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



'Who's hating on Trump over jobs numbers?' Seriously?! You must be a noob here. Hating is all Democrats are doing these days.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...



Yes seriously, who is not happy about jobs?

Answer.

There has been around the same jobs created since Trump got in office as there was over the last 3 years - what is the reason for your sudden rejoice?


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


I'm a Democrat and I'm not hating Trump's job numbers, so you are clearly mistaken.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 10, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...
> ...


Only lying greedy idiot rich a-holes are winning, dupe.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 10, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Nah, Clinton lost.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


Only in hater dupe world...I would love Trump to have success and start acting like that brilliant businessman instead of an Infowars chump...


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


How's the special prosecutor coming, dupe?


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 10, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Liar.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 10, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


And then the hater dupes say all the hate comes from Dems...hilarious, hater dupes. I don't call RWers and GOPers liars. That would be their greedy idiot billionaire brainwashers...YOU have got all the fake news, bs/hate propaganda/character assassination, and thus hater dupes on your side. See sig for what you don't know, and bs you do.


----------



## Dschrute3 (Jul 11, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> Dschrute3 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 11, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


So our entire US Justice system is a giant conspiracy to protect Dem politicians, and Fox News (only in the US) is a lone voice of truth in the entire world? I think the Justice system is very eager to find criminals- and all the Fox etc charges have been investigated and nothing has been found, but Fox etc never retracts anything...


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > It is based on the MONTHLY unemployment rate.
> ...



Wow, what a polite thing to say to another person.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2017)

postman said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



1. A President may leave with 8% unemployement, but that rise in unemployment may have only been seen in the last months in office and is not reflective of 90% of their time in office. 

2. Also, as always with economics, the fault for a rise or fall in unemployment is not always clear. It could be do to Presidential policy, or something beyond the governments control, or a combination of both. 

3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison. 

4. Otherwise, you spend your time cherry picking which months and time periods of various Presidency's to compare.

5. All that is involved here is the data from the Bureau of labor statistics for each President and the average for that data. 

6. Typically, you will see a unemployment levels during a Presidency rise and fall multiple times. Given that, it is a mistake to simply cherry pick a few months from the start of one Presidency or the end of another, and attempt to frame that President based on such limited data. Any look at any Presidency should not be based on only 6 months of data but on the full 96 months that a President is in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2017)

postman said:


> President Obama Has Cut the Unemployment Rate More Than Any President since FDR
> 
> President Obama Has Cut the Unemployment Rate More Than Any President since FDR
> 
> *The largest drop in unemployment of any president since FDR.* You would not know it from the headlines, but President Obama has overseen the largest drop in the unemployment rate of any of these recent presidents, and, in fact, since FDR. In actuality,* he has cut the unemployment rate to a lower level than any other recent president upon leaving office—except for President Clinton.*



Many would say that is because of the decline in labor force participation rate. Right along the statistic you site, is the fact that the largest decline in labor force participation rate in history occurred while Obama was President. Its much easier to get a lower unemployment rate when people are dropping out of the labor force.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Well remember who hired the guy who said this:
From the architect of Obamacare and the man who admitted it took "stupidity" to pass Obamacare!
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



For most of the time W was in office, it was easier for the average person on the street to get a job than it was when Reagan was in office. That is just a fact.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 12, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


I'm taking note of your post. I'm sure your tune will change the moment the unemployment rate moves up a fraction.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Complete and utter bullshit. In terms of employment, Bush is considered among the worst of presidents. He's the only president to leave office with fewer people working in the private sector since Herbert Hoover achieved that back in the early 30's. If not for government jobs, total job growth would have been negative as well. As it is, while most recent presidents' additions are counted in the millions on an annual average, Bush added an annual average of just 168,375 jobs.

Weakest president when it came to jobs in 80 years.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > postman said:
> ...


Sure, uh-huh.  That must explain why Bush comes in dead last among the last 12 presidents with an embarrassing 1% growth; while Reagan was 4th with over 17% growth.

Ranking U.S. presidents for jobs growth - Harry Truman to Barack Obama


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> 3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.



Ah, so differentiating between a president walking into office amid economic growth and walking into office amid Great Recession and turning that into stable, growing economy with full employment is *NOT FAIR!
*
If you cannot tell a difference between an argument a total brainless politico tool would make and your own, guess what, you're it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.
> ...


The guy just proved he's a complete and utter idiot. He actually said it was easier for people to get a job while Bush was president than while Reagan was president. 

Reagan added 16 million jobs while he was president. Bush added 1 million. And the population was smaller when Reagan was president. The numbers themselves show how much easier it was to find a job while Reagan was president.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > postman said:
> ...



Half a fact....
Remember the Misery Index that Reagan inherited from Carter?
Let's see because I lived through it!
US Misery Index - Index by President
The end of Carter and start of Reagan the HIGHEST in history at 19.72!
So Reagan had a lot to overcome.  Inflation and unemployment both historical highs at 
the end of Carter and I stupidly enough voted for Carter the first time!  Thinking this very smart nuclear engineer could be a good president.  Instead we got the "sweater talks"... etc.  Look up Carter "sweater talks"!!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Stop lying. Unemployment was not at a historical high when Reagan became president. It was higher when Obama became president.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.
> ...



I agree that Obama had some economic issues to over come. 
But he didn't help!  You can't have a President who offers these statements and expect robust economic growth.  The economy overcame IN SPITE of really anti-growth comments like these:
-  Obama wanted to bankrupt 1,400 companies, that pay $100 billion a year in taxes and unemployed 450,000 people that work for these companies! (Obama told us he favored a "_single payer health  system_"... so what happens to the above?)
-  " _if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them_.”
     (Pretty easy way of increasing unemployment.)
-  "_I prefer higher gas prices"_. (And Obama proved it by signing 40% fewer Federal oil lease exploration then Bush).
-  Obama  "Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be  their best customer"!
-  "_Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocke_t." (That certainly puts a dent in the pocketbook...

It truly is a wonder that with this anti-business statements the economy grew in spite of
Obama's economic ignorances and WISHES!


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


LOL

Liar. In fact, we had a streak of 76 consecutive months of job growth under Obama. Unprecedented.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...




How am I a LIAR?  The economy GREW anemically IN SPITE of stupid economically ignorant comments from Obama!
That was my point!  REGARDLESS of how ignorant and hindering Obama was (this dummy ADDED  ADDED...!)
Obama's Legacy: 2016 Ends With A Record-Shattering Regulatory Rulebook
And in spite of this mountainous monstrous growth of rules and regulations businesses struggled!
Now with Trump (being the experienced businessman have DEALT with this growth restraining efforts)  came in and has started to relieve the burden on businesses!

Every year economist Clyde Wade Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute releases a report, entitled “The Ten Thousand Commandments” analyzing federal regulations and their costs. Crews’ analysis found that in 2010 the federal government spent around $55.4 billion dollars funding federal agencies, and enforcing existing regulation. But these costs barely compare to the compliance costs that regulation imposes on the economy.  Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined  *that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and 
consumers $1.75 trillion,* or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP! The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving Republicans were to blame.
> ...


A perfect example of how the Right lies with half-truths!
In 2005 the GOP controlled ALL committees, that means they had the MAJORITY of seats and the chairmanships of ALL committees, which means the GOP could move any bill out of committee even if no Democrat voted for it, therefore any bill that dies in committee has to have Republican votes!!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

Dschrute3 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dschrute3 said:
> ...


No, just better informed than you!

According to the June 2017 BLS report there were 35,000 new government jobs and 1,000 new manufacturing jobs. You do the math!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Truth isn't always polite, and like Don THE Con, I'm not PC.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Well r*emember who hired the guy who said this:*
> From the architect of Obamacare and the man who admitted it took "stupidity" to pass Obamacare!


Yeah, I remember, it was Bishop Willard Romney.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and *unemployment both historical highs at
> the end of Carter*


Unemployment was at a steady 7.6% when Carter left, and St Ronnie jacked it up to 10.8% by the end of 1982.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Now who was the President in Jan 1 1983?????  Ronald Reagan!!!!
So please get your FACTS straight before calling people a LIAR!!!
US Unemployment Rate by Year


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 12, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > So Reagan had a lot to overcome. Inflation and *unemployment both historical highs at
> ...



Geez... you guys never seem to comprehend what it takes to turn around an economy!
Dummies let me make a simple illustration!
How long does it take a million barrel oil tanker to turn around?  Almost a mile.
And so it takes TIME dummies to overcome an economy in the doldrums as it was after Carter, the oil crisis...(You people are not old enough to remember GAS LINES???)
So when Reagan took office IT TOOK time to overcome the inertia of the economy!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


That doesn't change the fact that you lied that UE was at an "historical high at the end of Carter."

Funny how the "inertia" argument does not apply to the economy Obama inherited from Bush according to the Right!!!


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You lied claiming the economy came back in spite of his policies. Meanwhile, nearly all the examples you cited were not policies he implemented, but quotes he uttered while running for president.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's even worse than that. The bill he's taking about made it out of committee; along party lines. The bill never made it out of the Senate because Senate leadership sat on the bill and wouldn't send it to the floor for a full up/down vote.

The economy fucking collapses and now the right, who at one time, bragged about homeownership in America, blames Democrats because Senate leadership wouldn't pass a bill which could have averted the disaster which followed.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Stop fucking lying. Who said anything about 1983??

... *you said*...


> _So Reagan had a lot to overcome.  Inflation and *unemployment both historical highs* at the end of Carter..._


No, unemployment was not at a historical high. Unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan became president. It was equally as high when Carter became president and it was 7.8% when Obama became president. It was about 24% when FDR became president.


----------



## idb (Jul 12, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


*Unemployment Rates Under President Obama*
When Obama assumed office, the unemployment rate was still rising sharply. It topped out at 10 percent in October 2009, hovering just below that level for the next year, before beginning a steady decline at the end of 2010 that has persisted into early-2016 and breaking through the 5 percent mark at the beginning of 2016.
United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


The 2005 Oxley bill was the ONLY bill to make it out of the House committee and the GOP Senate leader refused to bring it to the floor for a vote. Contrary to what the liar said, the majority of Dems supported the bill with Barney Frank being a notable exception.

In 2005 Oxley got a reform bill through the House. Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They took no action on any bill.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.



Sorry sport but the President has a large influence in the budget making both him and the Congress instrumental in fostering an economic environment condusice to growth.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That's a different bill. I'm talking about S.190. (Forgive the link, the original article is gone. I found this on the wayback machine)...

_*GSE reform bill clears Senate Committee along party-line vote.*

BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee agreed about the need for a stronger, more powerful regulator for the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But when it came time to vote on the GSE reform bill, members split along party lines, as the committee voted 11 to nine to move the bill to the Senate floor._

GSE reform bill clears Senate Committee along party-line vote. | Government from AllBusiness.com​
That bill made out of committee. The next step was to add it to the Legislative Calendar to move it to the floor for a full Senate vote on it. Republican leadership wouldn't let that happen.

..... later, the economy collapses ... the moronic right blames Democrats.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The democrats are fully to blame for the housing crash by forcing banks through regulation to loan to high risk individuals (read poor blacks and hispanics), the crash is a direct result of the identity politics policies of the DNC:

New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The NBER, who authored the study, did not reach that conclusion. That conclusion was invented by an opinion posted on investors daily by someone who interpreted the NBER report to mean something they didn't say.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve found that CRA loans did not have that much impact on the financial crisis...

_The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. *Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA.* Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.

FRB: Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?_​


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sorry sport but that article directly quoted the NBER.



> Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve found that CRA loans did not have that much impact on the financial crisis..



Really, the Federal Reserve which is one of the regulatory agencies charged with the creation and implentation of the policies used to meet the goals of the CRA, as well as, one of the agencies behind insuring compliance with the CRA, found that it wasn't behind the collapse?  There's a fucking shocker.  God you are one gullible bitch.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending; but they fell short of citing CRA lending regulations as causing the financial collapse. The study points out CRA lending increased by about 5% -- a drop in the bucket compared to all the other mortgages being written...






And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it. The fact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market and which wrote more than half of the subprime loans; New Century Financial, the first lender to file for bankruptcy as the markets began collapsing -- was not even covered by CRA.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 13, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


News Flash, Dodo!  Obama came after Reagan!


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 13, 2017)

Faun said:


> You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;



And what the fuck do you think led to the collapse you stupid bitch?  Risky loans that didn't get payed back that didn't get payed back led to the collapse, god you're dumb.



> And while you piss and moan about the author of the study which found only 6% of CRA loans were issued by CRA covered lenders, you have nothing to refute it.



You are citing a report by an agency which didn't find fault with itself think about that for a second you joke of a human being.



> Thefact of the matter is, one of the nation's biggest lenders at the time, which controlled some 60% of the market



The CRA fostered the environment of risky and predatory lending.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 13, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


De-facto president Obama actively sought to damage the employment rate.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 13, 2017)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Easy to find the facts..
The unemployment rate has varied from as low as 1% during World War I to as high as 25% during the Great Depression. 
More recently, it reached peaks of 10.8% in November *1982* 
and 10.0% in October *2009*.
*Unemployment in the United States - Wikipedia*
Unemployment in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You poor thing, the good Lord sure screwed you over. Imbecile... they didn't quote the NBER blaming the CRA for the meltdown. They quoted them stating the CRA led to riskier lending;
> ...


The Federal Reserve was not the governing body of the CRA. And I didn't say risky loans didn't contribute to the collapse. I showed that CRA loans were a small part of that. Again, the biggest lenders, the ones who wrote the most toxic loans, were not even covered by CRA.

And the bigger issue wasn't risky loans, it was fraudulent loans. Loans the lenders knew were bad when they wrote them, but wrote them anyway because they knew they could sell them off before they went into default. It was a game of 'hot potato.'

I even know someone who already had two mortgages on his home back then who was still offered a deal by a bank who offered to pay him $30K if he would buy a property, sight unseen, and just let it go into default. The bank would wave the down payment and cover the closing costs. My friends only cost was his credit score. The bank was making so much money from deals like that because they would sell that loan before it was in default. Whoever purchased it from the bank would in turn, sell it themselves. And so on and so on. That's what lenders were doing. I have neighbor who hasn't paid her mortgage in about 7 years now. She's contesting it in court because her original loan was sold so many times, the current holder of her loan can't locate the original documents.

That's what crashed the economy. Greed. Not the CRA, which is still in place.


----------



## Call Sign Chaos (Jul 13, 2017)

Faun said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As to your first point the Federal Reserve absolutely was one of the governing regulatory agencies charges with policy creation, implementation, and enforcement:

_
*RegulationsEdit*
The same banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10]These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]

Implementation of the CRA by these financial supervisory agencies is enacted by Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); Parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e with the addition of Part 203 as it relates to sections of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).[11]

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) coordinates inter-agency information about the CRA.[11][34] Information about the CRA ratings of individual banking institutions from the four responsible agencies (Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC and OTS), is publicly available from the website of the FFIEC.[35] These ratings were first made available by the Clinton administration to enable public participation and public comment on CRA performance.[36]

In addition to the regulatory framework in place, each federal financial supervisory agency's Inspector General performs regular audits on any regulatory changes made to see if the intended goals are actually being fulfilled.[37]_

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia
As to your second point as pointed out by the NBER, the CRA fostered that environment of risky lending.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 13, 2017)

Faun said:


> Call Sign Chaos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The major problem I have with your comment is the statement "I even know someone".... Geez subjective, personal anecdotal events are NOT the norm!
See I knew a person who knew a person who had an anonymous  source tell them that 95% of all the toxic loans were done by former banks that did "redlining"!
See what I mean?
Now for the FACTS... not anecdotal stories, not one offs... but reality.
A) CRA WAS a major cause of lenders FORCED to make such loans. Proof?
In 1995 ACORN/with Obama sued CitiBank forcing them to make loans to people THAT would default on their properties!
Citibank settled out of court but this laid the premise for banks to make sub-prime loans.
So now the banks had a problem.
Forced to make sub-prime loans to people that they were pretty sure not going to pay off the loans they had to do something because the FDIC auditors said all those loans were affecting the banks financial status.
Securitization of loan portfolios..
On one hand courts ordering banks to make bad loans and other hand the bad loans were violating FDIC rules!
2) Banks were forced by FDIC to SELL these TOXIC loans to Fannie/Freddie.. and because in their own words
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an "effective'' federal guarantee,  not the "full faith  and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart  said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajIEoZCommlk
As a result this is what the current situation still is...
At one time  Activity in global OTC derivatives markets fell in the first half of 2015. The notional amount of outstanding contracts declined from $629 trillion at end-December 2014 to $553 trillion at end- June 2015. Even after adjustment for the effect of exchange rate movements on positions denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, notional amounts were still down by about 10%. Trade compression to eliminate redundant contracts was the major driver of the decline. 

http://www.bis.org/publ/otc_hy1511.pdf


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

Call Sign Chaos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


Here's one of the most comprehensive lists of causes of the crash. Risky lending was not the problem and the CRA was not the problem. Greed and opportunity was.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Call Sign Chaos said:
> ...


I never said it was the norm, nor did I attach a percentage of occurrence. I described just two of the many cases taking place which contributed to the crash.


----------



## 12icer (Jul 14, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


 Man this is an old thread to restart.
Their economic policies do,, of course some times policies that were implemented by other entities cause them, like not actually having a budget for three years, and things like that.


----------



## 12icer (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




But you did not state THE WHO'S that implemented errant policies, and extortion that directly caused the crash did YOU??? like all liberals always trying to blame anyone but your feeding pump.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

12icer said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Sure I did. It was the greedy lenders, with interest rates bottomed out, who could offer folks 1% ARMs, turn around sell the loan to someone else and make bank. This boomed out of control. It wasn't that lenders were being forced to give loans to minorities -- it was that lenders had the opportunity to make billions while nobody noticed what was happening.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > postman said:
> ...



You are never weak when you have an average unemployment rate of 5.27%. That's just a fact. When the economy is at or near full employment, the rate at which you add new jobs is not as high as when the economy is going through a massive recovery. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and at least the first half of 2008, it was easier for an unemployed person to come off the street and find a job at an employment agency than at most times while Obama was President.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Most people had jobs while Bush was President and it stayed that way. The Economy was at or near full employment. Reagan had the highest recorded monthly employment ever, and the recovery process is when most jobs are created. If Bush had 10% unemployment early in his term, then the recovery from that would have pushed his creation of jobs numbers higher. But that is not a statistic you want. Far better to be at or near full employment during your entire time in office than to suffer the impact of 10% unemployment. No President wants to have 10% unemployment!


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The only fair way to totally compare Presidential Administrations time in office to other Presidents is to look at ALL the data for every month during the time involved and average it. That is the only accurate and objective way to make a comparison.
> ...


 
You don't understand the difference between cherry picking information and being unbiased and objective. The standard in the list is the same for all the Presidents regardless. Monthly unemployment added together and then averaged. That is unbiased and objective. 

The unemployment rate can go up and down multiple times, with multiple recessions at or near recessions over a 96 month term. Only looking at 12 Cherry picked months out of that 96 months is not an accurate way to rate any President, which is what you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if your employer rated your performance over the past year and whether to keep you in the job simply based on 12 days out of 300 days of work. Perhaps we should dismiss seeing if your children get to go on to the next grade as defined by GPA and just look at 10 selected days, test or grades and perhaps fail them based on that. Same logic.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You call me an idiot, yet you keep coming back to my thread. Interesting! When the unemployment is low in any given month, the probability you will get a job is higher than if the unemployment rate was high. On average, the unemployment rate was lower while Bush was in office than Reagan, meaning it was easier to get a job. There are more help wanted signs when the unemployment rate is 5% than when it is 8%.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




You are not improving on your position, which remains that it doesn't matter that a president walked into office amid Great Recession and walked out of it amid stable growth and full employment.

It's a stupid position and that is where you are stuck. You are willing to play stupid to maintain a position you took for politico, not academic, reasons. Thankfully historians are not an obtuse bunch like that.

Taking into account stark improvement in economy under a president IS NOT CHERRY-PICKING, the suggestion is ridiculous.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Both Obama and Reagan experienced historic high unemployment during the first two years in office. Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama became President and is not a historic high. Obama also claimed unemployment would not go over 8%, but it did.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Easier to do that when so many people are on the sidelines not working.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Only one of them experienced Great Recession - equivalency is false, they were different recessions, for different economic reasons. different responses on monetary policy side and correspondingly different recovery.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



There is nothing better than being at full employment or near full employment. There for, the struggle is staying at that point, not improving on it because that is impossible. *Presidents would much rather prefer being at full employment or near full employment during their entire term than experience 10% unemployment and the struggle of fixing massive 10% unemployment. 

 Its far better to maintain great physical condition, then to be suddenly overweight and have to lose 60 pounds. Sure, and Athletic person never loses all the weight that an out of shape person does when getting into shape, but that does not mean its good to become obese and then lose the weight. Far better to maintain near peak physical performance and ideal weight than to go through all that. *


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 14, 2017)

antontoo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Great recession is a political term, not an economic one. Both experienced recessions that produced 10.8% unemployment in Reagans case and 10% unemployment in Obama's case. That's a fact regardless of the reasons or any differences between the recessions.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Economists see it as the biggest recession since the Great Depression, that is why it is called Great.

But ok, I give up, you win -  Obama was an economic failure...like Reagan. Neither of those dunces can hold a candle to the genius that is Trump and his stellar, 100% objective, economic record of 4% unemployment.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Well that's bullshit. Trump was handed an economy at full employment and the unemployment rate's been lower than Bush's average, yet he's already added about 2/3rds as many jobs in 5 months as Bush did in in 8 years.

Bush comes in dead last in job growth of any president since Herbert Hoover. The only president to leave office with fewer private sector jobs since Herbert Hoover.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


But that's the point you don't understand. Most people had jobs early in his term because he was handed a strong economy. As he progressed, unemployment rose. It only came down as a result of the housing boom, a behemoth monster which both fueled the economy before destroying it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It's worse than unbiased -- it's useless. It can't differentiate between two presidents where one takes the unemployment rate from 4% to 10% at the same rate a president takes it from 10% to 4%; even though the former would be horrible while the latter would be great.

Even worse.... take two presidents....

President A inherits an unemployment rate at a healthy 4.0%. The rate increases every month at 0.2 points... after 4 years, the unemployment rate is up to 13.6% and he would get kicked out of office.

President B inherits an obscene rate at 23.0%. The rate decreases every month at 0.2 points... after 8 years, the unemployment rate is under 4% (where president A started) and the 22nd Amendment is repealed for such a jobs god.

Then along comes a moron like you who idiotically claims president A performed better regarding unemployment because his average of *8.9%* is  far lower than president B's *13.2%* average. That it doesn't matter how one president destroyed the job market while the other saved it -- all that matters is that president A's average unemployment rate was lower.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 16, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


My statement applied to Faun's implication that Reagan"s Unemployment Rate could not have been a historical high because Obama's was higher.  The fact that Obama's rate surpassed Reagan's does not mean that Reagan's was not previously a historical high.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


One way to fairly look at it though would be to look at the average as a percent of the starting rate. Let's say President A started at 4% and ended at 10% with an average of 7%. And B starts with 10%, ends at 4%, average of 7%. A's average is 75% higher than his start and B's is 30% lower than his start. So clearly B was more successful.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

asaratis said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Umm.... even not factoring in Obama, the unemployment rate was still not at a historical high when Reagan became president. Carter inherited an unemployment rate equally as high before him.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


I keep coming back because making fun of idiots on this forum is a guilty pleasure of mine.

Like here.... employment growth under Reagan was a healthy 17%. Under Bush, it was a paltry 1%. And that 1% was 100% government jobs. Yet you continue to make the idiotic claim that it was easier to get a job under Bush than under Reagan. 

By claiming it was easier because the unemployment rate was lower is basing it on the unemployment rate measuring job availability; which it doesn't.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 17, 2017)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



You are right. 
Nixon was faced with the gas lines in 1973 which from personal awareness as I am 74 years old having lived through Carter's 4 years (which I voted for Carter also!).
This was truly a malaise on the country.
From Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

BUT Carter did NOT address that.  Carter blamed Americans.  And then this was passed on to Reagan who had to face not only growing unemployment but rising
inflation.  
Obama faced NEITHER.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Great, as usual, you deviate. 

What does any of that have to with me pointing out you were wrong when you claimed Reagan was handed a historically high unemployment rate?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 17, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> And then this was passed on to Reagan who had to face not only growing unemployment but rising
> inflation.
> Obama faced NEITHER.  View attachment 139181



Wow. Obama didn't face increasing unemployment, fucking seriously? Amid ~800,000 monthly job loss? no increasing unemployment? How stupid can you be to say that?












Yes Obama didn't have inflation problem, but I hear he did have NEAR COLLAPSE OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND REAL ESTATE MARKET to deal with.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 17, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Simple.  Let's keep it simple for you.

*Can Your Business Change its Course like an Aircraft Carrier?*
When he was “driving” it, he could make a 1 degree change in the direction of the ship every couple of seconds. That meant that in roughly 3-5 miles, depending on the speed of the ship, Can Your Business Change its Course like an Aircraft Carrier? | Jon Schallert

And so too with unemployment rates.  If the business environment is deteriorating as it did under Carter, just because Reagan was inaugurated  two month later
doesn't mean OH wow unemployment rates STOP going down and immediately go up!
So the same thing with Obama.  But the difference between Reagan/Trump and Carter/Obama is that Reagan/Trump knew that hmmm who hires the most people?
Government or businesses???  Neither Carter and more so Obama seem to know that.  I mean when was the last time a president said these anti business comments?

Obama wanted to bankrupt 1,400 companies, that pay $100 billion a year in taxes and unemployed 450,000 people that work for these companies! (Obama told us he favored a "_*single payer health system*_"... so what happens to the above?)
-  " _if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them_.”  Why would ANY president want to bankrupt businesses?
     (Pretty easy way of increasing unemployment.)
-  _"I prefer higher gas prices"._ (And how did it go about doing that?   Obama signed 40% fewer Federal oil lease exploration then Bush).
-  Obama tells "Brazil to develop oil and so that the USA will be DEPENDENT on foreign oil....will be  their best customer"!
-  "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (That certainly puts a dent in the pocketbook...)
So these are ALL REAL statements made by the truly economic moron who didn't ever seem to realize that businesses hire people!
People/businesses pay payroll taxes.  People/businesses pay income taxes.  So the more people employed the more TAX revenue!
Damn simple but how could any business under Obama especially ever plan to grow faced with this challenge?
Every year economist Clyde Wade Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers *$1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP! *The Hidden Cost of Regulation | FreedomWorks
And then you have a president like Obama who does the below!
I mean please doesn't the reality of Obama's economic ignorance mean anything to you because IT MEANT Trillions in wasted money complying with inane rules and regulations which meant fewer jobs because some idiots like Obama just don't get it!


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

antontoo said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > And then this was passed on to Reagan who had to face not only growing unemployment but rising
> ...


Obama had to deal with deflation in 2009.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Umm... the unemployment rate was dropping slowly for the first half of 1981. It did not increase "immediately," as you falsely portray.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 17, 2017)

Faun said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I KNOW that you really are something!
I wrote: "OH wow unemployment rates STOP going down and immediately go up!" Facetiously expecting a more intelligent response from people.
I DIDN"T "portray" that with any facts because I was hoping smarter people would comprehend that unemployment LIKE a aircraft carrier takes time to slow and
to turn!  But you didn't get the analogy did you?  Went right over your head!
AGAIN for simplicity... The unemployment rate under Carter was as this chart shows:
It went down under Carter BUT idiots like you don't seem to look at the BIG picture...i.e. it takes time for the job market to turn around!  It doesn't happen overnight as
you think!


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2017)

healthmyths said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


You wanna see what *immediate* increase to unemployment really looks like?

1/2009: 7.8%
2/2009: 8.3% (+0.5)
3/2009: 8.7% (+0.4)
4/2009: 9.0% (+0.3)
5/2009: 9.4% (+0.4)
6/2009: 9.5% (+0.1)
7/2009: 9.5% (---)

Now compare that to what Reagan inherited...

1/1981: 7.5%
2/1981: 7.4% (-0.1)
3/1981: 7.4% (---)
4/1981: 7.2% (-0.2)
5/1981: 7.5% (+0.3)
6/1981: 7.5% (---)
7/1981: 7.2% (-0.3)


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 4, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2017 was 4.3%. This is the Seventh unemployment report with Trump in office, his Seventh month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.52% in June to 4.49% in July.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.49%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 41 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% up from 62.8% in June.


----------



## Faun (Aug 4, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2017 was 4.3%. This is the Seventh unemployment report with Trump in office, his Seventh month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate down from 4.52% in June to 4.49% in July.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


... and just as meaningless as when you posted this last month.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 1, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for August 2017 was 4.4%. This is the Eighth unemployment report with Trump in office, his Eighth month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.49% in July to 4.48% in August.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.48%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 40 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% the same spot it was in July.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 13, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.44%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 39 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 63.1%, up from 62.9% in August.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



What is the REAL unemployment number?  Remember that?  You guys didn't believe the 5% unemployment number Obama had remember?

Unemployment numbers not 'phony' to Trump anymore - CNNPolitics

So thank you Obama.  When unemployment was going lower and lower and lower on your watch, Republicans denied denied denied.  Now they are basically admitting you were the man!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Fact is Obama took the unemployment number down from 7.45 to 4%.  Bush created the 7.45 number although I see you give him 5.27.  Unemployment must have been really low when he first started and clearly you aren't giving Bush credit for all the people who lost their jobs because of him even after he left office.  This list is a misleading joke.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

The unemployment numbers candidate Donald Trump assailed for months on the campaign trail as "phony" and fictional are suddenly up to snuff.

The numbers haven't changed, nor has the Bureau of Labor Statistics' methodology for compiling them, but with the jobless rate ticking down and hiring on the rise, Trump is eager to point to the economic indicators as a sign that his presidency has been a boon for the economy.
"I talked to the President prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now,' " Spicer said Friday from the White House podium, hours after the government announced 235,000 new jobs in February 

Only 235,000?  How pathetic.  Remember Republicans?  This is proof Republicans hold Democrats up to a much higher standard.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

And wages haven't gone up yet.  Has Trump already made America great again for the uneducated blue collar who were struggling just last year?  I doubt that.  But he will claim he did.  

In other words Trump has given the blue collar under employed nothing.  Today Republicans only give out advice. The same advice they gave in 2007.

a.  Go back to school
b. Start your own business
c. Go get another job if you don't like the one you got now.

No change for the blue collar.  Not yet.  Wages are not up.  I'm talking about the people who's high paying union jobs went overseas and now they work at Walmart.  Trump hasn't made America great again yet.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> And wages haven't gone up yet.  Has Trump already made America great again for the uneducated blue collar who were struggling just last year?  I doubt that.  But he will claim he did.
> 
> In other words Trump has given the blue collar under employed nothing.  Today Republicans only give out advice. The same advice they gave in 2007.
> 
> ...


I don't think they'll support Trump in 2020, if he makes it that long.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 13, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



This is some dumb shit.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 13, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




Wow. 

That means his record setting jobs creation is even more impressive. Especially since the worthless Repub party refused to even consider a jobs bill. 

And they are still refusing to help create jobs. 

Good thing the orange moron inherited an almost 100% employed country and an economy that has continued to grow. Just imagine what we'd be looking at if thee fucking Repubs had not declared war on the US when Obama was elected. And notice that the first month of jobs creation that is truly trump's was dismal.

*Thank you President Obama!!*

And thank you to the OP for posting this.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And wages haven't gone up yet.  Has Trump already made America great again for the uneducated blue collar who were struggling just last year?  I doubt that.  But he will claim he did.
> ...



What did you say about Trump in 2016?  You said he would never get elected, didn't you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 13, 2017)

*Which President Created the Most Jobs?*

Bill Clinton created the most number of jobs (21.5 million) during his term. 

Barack Obama is second, creating 17.2 million jobs from the beginning to the end of his term.

 But* Obama created 22.3 million jobs from the worst part of the Great Recession* (January 2010) through the end of his term.


===

*How Trump compares with Obama so far on jobs*
Trump's six-month record is far better than Obama's first six months, when 3.4 million jobs were lost. That's because *Obama was sworn in during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, when the economy was hemorrhaging jobs.*

*Obama handed Trump an economy that was close to what economists consider full employment.* The unemployment rate on Inauguration Day was 4.8%, and it has fallen since then, to 4.3% in July.

*In fact, if Obama left a problem for Trump, it wasn't that the economy was too weak -- it was that the labor market was almost too strong.*


=====
Don't bother with the whiny "fake news" lies. Read the sources of the FACTS. If you can't post FACTS that prove this is wrong, then just shut up. 

Now ... a video showing that trump finally gets something right.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 13, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



bripat9643 

Political Junky was right.

The orange moron lose by 3 million votes. 

If Repubs didn't have the electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression and outright vote theft, they'd never get elected.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



The "Orange Moron" is occupying the White House.  Your so-called "winner" is sitting home writing books blaming everyone but herself for her losing.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


And if poor and young blacks, mexicans, whites, women, gays and arabs would just show up and vote they wouldn't win either.  Stop blaming Republicans because our base is full of retards.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



She was our best candidate.  Who should we have run?  Socialist Bernie?  I think not.  But next time a rock should be able to beat the orange one.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



That's a sad admission.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not really.  Just because you guys hate her and you convinced (over 2 decades) the independents that Trump was more trustworthy than she was, doesn't mean she wasn't a great candidates.  Bill rocked.  Obama rocked.  She would have probably rocked too.  Especially with Obama handing her practically zero unemployment.  

I don't love her either but lets be honest, the fact that Trump got the GOP nomination says the same thing about the Republicans as it does Hillary.  Chances are Hillary would have beat any of them and Trump was just in the right place at the right time.  He/Republicans convinced voters that America was headed in the wrong direction and it turns out Obama had us going in the right direction.   

Now Trumps going to have us take a huge step backward.  Are you lower middle class?  Well lets see if you are better off in 4 or 8 than you were last year.  Lets just see.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



By "rocked" you mean they were shameless liars.  Hillary was a criminal.  She sold her office to the highest bidder.  She got 4 of her employees killed in Benghazi and then played politics with it.  Obama was just as corrupt.

Obama definitely didn't have us going in the right direction.


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> ...


Bush also created the 10% unemployment rate in October of 2009... Which gives you a better idea of what Obama did, despite total GOP obstruction of the usual Solutions. It's unbelievable that anybody can vote for the GOP anymore- all they have is b******* propaganda and bulshit character assassination of Democrats.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




sealybobo

The whole point of voter suppression is to keep Blacks, HIspanics from voting.

That's on the Repubs. 100%

Look at their record for the past 50 years. Do a search for "what have the Republicans done" and see what you get.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 13, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



More far left religious dogma not connected to reality.

Just like the far left used their propaganda sources to predict that Hilary would win and there was no reason to go out vote.

Which is real voter suppression..


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 13, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


^^  Another ignorant repugnant.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 13, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



When did you become a "repugnant"?

Silly far left drones!


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Oct 13, 2017)

Obama was the Greatest President that illegal aliens and the Iranians ever had


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 13, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> By "rocked" you mean they were shameless liars. Hillary was a criminal. She sold her office to the highest bidder. She got 4 of her employees killed in Benghazi and then played politics with it.


DoTard Trump is the most shameless liar in history. Tramp is actually a criminal, Tramp University, Hillary is only accused of criminality by liars. "President Chirp" got 4 of his employees killed in Niger this very month and refuses to acknowledge or honor their deaths.
No matter how bad the Right IMAGINES Hillary to be, Tramp IS.





Army Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright was one of the American soldiers killed last week in an ambush in Niger. The military released this photo of his body being brought back to Dover, Del., last week. Credit U.S. Air Force


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > By "rocked" you mean they were shameless liars. Hillary was a criminal. She sold her office to the highest bidder. She got 4 of her employees killed in Benghazi and then played politics with it.
> ...



All bullshit, of course.  Nothing about Trump university is criminal, moron.  It's a civil matter.  Hillary is accused of criminality by countless lawyers who know the law and by virtually everyone with a security clearance.  Saying Trump go them killed is total bullshit.  People working for the government die every day.  Is Trump responsible for all of them?  

Once again, you're trying to compare things tha aren't comparable because the facts are so incriminating for Hillary.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Why'd Trump pay $25 million to the defrauded?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That queston is too stupid to bother responding to.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 14, 2017)

Obama was 1/2 black. He gets 2.5 affirmative action points


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 14, 2017)

Likkmee said:


> Obama was 1/2 black. He gets 2.5 affirmative action points


Trump is so jealous of Obama, all he's done is attempt to reverse everything Obama did.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 14, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was 1/2 black. He gets 2.5 affirmative action points
> ...


How could tRump be jealous of a nigglett who couldn't qualify for a credit card until you aszholes sElected it ?


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 14, 2017)

Likkmee said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Likkmee said:
> ...


No doubt you pretend you're not racist.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually it's not. You are too chickenshit to answer the question because Trump is a crook. Hillary is not president and Hillary was not indicted of any crime nor was she forced to settle out of court for anything she has ever been accused of.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Actually, it is.  A lawsuit is a civil action.  Losing one or settling out of court doesn't make you a criminal.

Hillary was not indicted only because the Obama administration was so corrupt and Republicans are so spineless.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 14, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Hilarious - if Trump's numbers drop by .5 snowflakes jump on him like jackals; yet when Obama is pointed out as being this bad snowflakes respond by saying, "Who cares"...


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Again it is not. Trump is a crook.  If you do something against the law, and are found guilty of a crime whether it be in a civil proceeding or not, you are a criminal. You see Bill Clinton settle out of court with Paula Jones and he is a rapist  according to those like you. So Trump is a criminal. He is a crook. A proven crook. Fraud is a crime. Understand?

Hillary was not indicted because she did nothing illegal.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

easyt65 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Obama never got this low. You chicken wings listened to your right wing media telling you fake news about Obama for 8 years.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



He wasn't found guilty of committing a crime, moron.  You can get sued because someone slips on your sidewalk.  Are you a criminal?  Obviously not.   A brain damaged cockroach has a better understanding of the law than you.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Trump just had his first Benghazi. And trump was the highest bidder. Are you saying she colluded with trump too?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Obama didn't have the entire mainstream media out to destroy him.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He was found guilty of fraud. He paid a settlement of 25 million. He had won the presidency. If he had been innocent, he could have taken this to court.  Presidents word against those who sued. But he knew he committed fraud and agreed to a settlement.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



You aren't "found guilty" in civil court, moron.  You simply win the case or lose it.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > easyt65 said:
> ...



The media is not out to destroy Trump.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Of course it is.  It couldn't be more obvious.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And obstruction. It pays off because voters don't punish them. Can't because of gerrymandering


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



As long as fraud is a crime,, Trump s a criminal. When fraud becomes legal, then you can say what you are now.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What's obvious is that you are a member of the Donald Trump cult and when he tells you the media is out to get him, you believe it.


----------



## gipper (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The blind can't see the obvious.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Lucky for republicans these groups aren't really passionate about voting in the first place.

No one who has the right to vote has an excuse why they didn't vote. Yes republicans try to discourage them but it's their fault if it works.
Go get an id


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



He wasn't indicted for fraud, moron.  He was simply sued.  Any accusations made in a lawsuit have no implications in criminal court.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

gipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Yes you blind right wingers can't see that your boy is a crook that is a grave danger to our nation.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fraud is a crime. Trump is a criminal.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

gipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


It's unbelievable how brainwashed these morons are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


When he is indicted for fraud, please let us know.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?



Jimmy Carter.

But you have Newspeak reverse history provided by the party.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It's really not that easy SB. I'm not saying don't try to get what you need, but its just not that easy. Second we don't need voter ID just because republicans have decided that something that does not exist happens.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Anyone who doesn't vote because they don't think it matters is a bad citizen. But keep in mind people not voting benefits republicans not democrats. Bernie said 80% of the poor don't vote


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Obama was the Greatest President that illegal aliens and the Iranians ever had


So trumps going to take on the Middle East, North Korea, win in Afghanistan take Iran on. Talk about over promise and under deliver.

I hope he does!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> It's really not that easy SB. I'm not saying don't try to get what you need, but its just not that easy. Second we don't need voter ID just because republicans have decided that something that does not exist happens.



We need voter ID because you traitorcrat Stalinists engage in massive election fraud.

You fight voter ID because your traitorous party depends on fraud.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So when Hillary is indicted for anything, please let us know.

Trump settled the case for 25 million out of court to avoid indictment. He was guilty of fraud. He is a crook.

So like I said chicken wing, when fraud becomes legal let me know. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > It's really not that easy SB. I'm not saying don't try to get what you need, but its just not that easy. Second we don't need voter ID just because republicans have decided that something that does not exist happens.
> ...



There really is no election fraud.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


They're in charge and they say you need an I'd or sign an affidavit. I'm not even sure the vote isn't rigged. Red states are awfully red and Michigan wi and pa voted trump? What's wrong with people?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > It's really not that easy SB. I'm not saying don't try to get what you need, but its just not that easy. Second we don't need voter ID just because republicans have decided that something that does not exist happens.
> ...


But this is fake news you're putting out.

The only voter fraud is guys like trump voting in 3 states.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



While we should vote, one of the greatest examples of peaceful demonstration  and show of dissatisfaction is those who choose not to vote. But after  this, maybe we might want to protest differently so we don't end up with another idiot president.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> [
> 
> So when Hillary is indicted for anything, please let us know.
> 
> ...



Mafia Don Hillary is too powerful to be indicted. She is above the law. You traitorcrats have designed a nation where laws are only meant for the little people.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Voter fraud and election fraud are different. There is no voter fraud but Florida did happen so did Ohio in 2004. Ken Blackwell didn't give Kerry a chance to get a recount in Ohio. Jen and Katherine Harris committed election fraud


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They are requiring things and doing things knowing they will make it difficult for certain people to vote. We need to make it so this stops. Not go along with it.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


So you elect a billionaire reality dope


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



No ID would have stopped these things from happening. We simply need to vote out republicans.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



You are a retard.

California openly registers illegal aliens and protects them for illegally voting. 

democrat traitors have engaged in election fraud since the great depression, You believe it is your right to rig elections, but we normals are tired of the corruption you depend on.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


That's as close to admitting voting matters and your people fucked up by not showing up for Hillary as I'm going to get. Thanks. Voting matters.

How many blacks will be hurt by trumps healthcare reform?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



The other option was an openly corrupt war monger.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



More retard.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Then step one is get an I'd

Step 2 vote for dems who will get rid of voter id laws

3 show up to the midterms. Obama didn't let you down in 2009 you let him down in 2010 when you didn't show up like it mattered. It did matter and you blew it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




ID would stop the millions of illegal aliens voting in California. Oh wait, California has legalized voting for illegal aliens...


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

So don't tell me it's hard. When Obama was on the ticket enough of you figured it out, then skipped the midterm and came back in 2012.

You all need to realize you have to vote every 2 years. Republicans know this why don't we?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


States rights


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


California only gets so many electoral votes so don't worry about them. You ain't winning California unless Arnold runs. Lol


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Brilliant retort, Comrade shitferbrains.

Tell me, three people defrauded the SBA by selling the same parcel of land three times. 

Two of those people went to prison for the act. The third, Hillary Clinton was declared above the law and not charges.

One law for the proles, a very different law for democratic oligarchs. The ONLY crime a traitor oligarch can commit is to embarrass or diminish the party. Murder, theft, graft, these are all ignored. Bad press is an offense that will not be forgiven.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



My people have nothing do with Hillary losing. My people were the most affected by voter suppression. Whites elected Trump SB. Dumb whites who were mad because a black man had been president so you were losing your country and you needed to get the white man back in charge so whites could feel on top again.

Again please stop trying to tell me what blacks need to do. 88 percent of all blacks voted for Hillary. That's was enough for her to get the  most popular votes. It was rural whites that won for Trump. Go ask those rural whites in Michigan how many of their white asses will be hurt by Trumps 'reform."


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Trump defrauded people out of money. Why didn't he get put n prison?  Hillary was never declared above the law. You're just an idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Don't you traitors always whine about "popular vote" to justify the coup you are attempting?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> He wasn't indicted for fraud, moron. *He was simply sued*.


For committing fraud.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



What coup? If Trump goes down Pence is the president. Another racist white male. So you'll still have what you want.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


In a way I'm glad trump won so it cleanses the Democratic Party. And I'm actually a fiscal conservative republican now. I tried to help the bottom 50% but they won't help themselves because everything trumps done so far doesn't hurt me except maybe

Increase the retirement age

Cuts to social security and Medicare

Ruin the environment

Pre existing conditions. We should all worry about this.

Other than these things so far trump hasn't hurt me. I'm not gay, Muslim  poor and uninsured, going to college, no kids going to school, a woman. Anyone who he has offended so far. Each time I ask myself does this issue matter to me? So far no has been the answer


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > He wasn't indicted for fraud, moron. *He was simply sued*.
> ...


And trumps move is to settle with the condition he isn't found guilty of anything. Slimeball


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> So don't tell me it's hard. When Obama was on the ticket enough of you figured it out, then skipped the midterm and came back in 2012.
> 
> You all need to realize you have to vote every 2 years. Republicans know this why don't we?



I've voted in every election since I was 18. Whites did not vote in the mid term in larger numbers. Concern yourself with that and shut the fuck up.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Just pointing out you really don't have a mandate


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You can't help anyone when you don't know what the fuck you are doing. That's your problem SB.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Don't take a knee and then not vote. Better to vote and win then feel proud to stand up.

George washington risked his life to win. Go pay $45 and get a god damn voter id


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Yet despite not knowing what I'm doing I've seemed to figure out how to be successful and happy in life.

My biggest flaw is that I care too much. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So don't tell me it's hard. When Obama was on the ticket enough of you figured it out, then skipped the midterm and came back in 2012.
> ...


Whites like trump. I got news for you trumps going to upset blacks long before he upsets those poor whites.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I already knew this. But it seems like 67% of all Americans don't like Trump. If poor whites are stupid enough to sink themselves, well you should have helped them instead of trying to tell us what we need to do as blacks.


----------



## gipper (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


But Hillary is not.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You're a demographic we need. For years poor whites said blacks stupidly vote democratic. I told them you guys are the ones voting right.

If poor whites would stop being conned with god gays guns and racism they'd realize economically they don't belong in that party.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Then it's up to you whites to convince them of it. But first you have to work to get rid of their racism. That cowardly you can't change hearts and mind mentality that white democrats use with white racists needs to go.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 14, 2017)

gipper said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No Hillary is not. Just because the only thing you listen to and don't question is propaganda from the right wing media doesn't make her a criminal no matter how many times Hannity tells you she is.


----------



## gipper (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Like I posted.  CRAZY!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


It's true. Time is liberals speak up when ignorant cons say stupid shit.

I don't want republicans to go away. I like the two party system. I want them to change. Instead of appealing to gun nuts anti abortion nuts racist nuts and religious nuts I want them to serve normal people like you and me


----------



## ColonelAngus (Oct 14, 2017)

Wow, the same handful of Progs have been repeating the same shit for about 5 years on this board?

It's pretty sad,


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Republicans defend the corporations. Pay what they want fire who they want pollute without reprocussion insure only the healthy war for profit etc

And they love wallstreet too


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

ColonelAngus said:


> Wow, the same handful of Progs have been repeating the same shit for about 5 years on this board?
> 
> It's pretty sad,


You've changed? The fact is the middle class will figure you guys out. It may take a few elections but they'll see. It's why you lost your majority with delay hastert and bush


----------



## ColonelAngus (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Republicans defend the corporations. Pay what they want fire who they want pollute without reprocussion insure only the healthy war for profit etc
> 
> And they love wallstreet too



Do you just parrot idiot talking points?

Why did Hillary get $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for 3 speeches of 20 minutes each?  Because she hates Wall Street?

Wake the fuck up, dude. 

"Corporations" are people.

Walmart employs over 2 million people in America. Should we drive them out of business?

The 10 largest employers in America

You just whine with no solutions.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

ColonelAngus said:


> Wow, the same handful of Progs have been repeating the same shit for about 5 years on this board?
> 
> It's pretty sad,


The republicans had to wait 8 long years for this and trump might be losing it in 4. You hope not but he won't stop being divisive. P rhaps it benefits him.

Now I am worried about rigged elections


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

ColonelAngus said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans defend the corporations. Pay what they want fire who they want pollute without reprocussion insure only the healthy war for profit etc
> ...


Why do you care Hillary takes money from Goldman sax but not when trump appoints Exxon to sos?

Hypocrite


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Link?

The data I found shows that Obama is 7.44%, below Ford and Reagan.






United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 14, 2017)

And there are interesting graphs showing the unemployment rate change per each President.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Uh, wrong asshole.  The worst thing that could have happened is that he would have lost the case and possibly had to pay more.

You don't get indicted for losing a lawsuit.

You should quit while you're behind because all you're doing is demonstrating how stupid you are.

Trump wasn't indicted for fraud.  Someone using that term in a lawsuit doesn't constitute indictement.

One thing is certain:  you're dumber than a brain damaged cockroach.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Bullshit.  All kinds of election fraud has been documented.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


While the average unemployment rate is a meaningless throw away figure, trump ended the 83 month long streak of job growth.


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> While the average unemployment rate is a meaningless throw away figure, trump ended the 83 month long streak of job growth


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The unemployment numbers candidate Donald Trump assailed for months on the campaign trail as "phony" and fictional are suddenly up to snuff.
> 
> The numbers haven't changed, nor has the Bureau of Labor Statistics' methodology for compiling them, but with the jobless rate ticking down and hiring on the rise, Trump is eager to point to the economic indicators as a sign that his presidency has been a boon for the economy.
> "I talked to the President prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now,' " Spicer said Friday from the White House podium, hours after the government announced 235,000 new jobs in February
> ...


No longer do you hear the brain-dead right bark about the "real" unemployment rate, unemployment rates between 20% and 40%, 94 million folks out of the labor force, the labor force participation rate, phony numbers, part time employment, crappy job, etc.....

It's not that the job markets have changed since trump was sworn in -- it's that rightards are finally grasping at reality.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > While the average unemployment rate is a meaningless throw away figure, trump ended the 83 month long streak of job growth


Imbecile.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Hillary is accused of criminality...


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Share this documentation with all of us.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.  All kinds of election fraud has been documented.
> ...



As soon as Facebook, Google, and Twitter share all those illegal Russian ads.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


California does no such thing. You're batshit insane. 

*Vehicle Code, Division VI, Chapter 4.5 § 12801.9*

_(d) (1) A license issued pursuant to this section, including a temporary license issued pursuant to Section 12506, shall include a recognizable feature on the front of the card, such as the letters “DP” instead of, and in the same font size as, the letters “DL,” with no other distinguishable feature.

(2) The license shall bear the following notice: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes. *This license is issued only as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.*”_​
From Alex Padilla, California's Secretary of State...

_*Here's how California's new voter registration law will work*

Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. *Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not.* That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

“We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place."_​


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


There have been some cases discovered. Find three million more and you can finally boast about trump willing the popular vote.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> There have been some cases discovered. Find three million more and you can finally boast about trump winning the popular vote.



Does he really need 3 million.  I'd say finding 2 million illegal votes would be good enough.  So what is Kobach up to so far?  A couple of dozen over the last decade?


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You are the imbecile...you have a fake scale tard...

*Download:
Year* *Jan* *Feb* *Mar* *Apr* *May* *Jun* *Jul* *Aug* *Sep* *Oct* *Nov* *Dec
2007* 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
*2008* 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
*2009* 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
*2010* 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
*2011* 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
*2012* 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
*2013* 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.7
*2014* 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
*2015* 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
*2016* 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.7
*2017* 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2
You are truly a dummy...you need to find a new website for the duped...BUUUUAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHAHAHAHOHOHOHEEHAHAHA!
Unemployment is lower than it has been in.....well 8 years...Hmmmmmmmm Obama years!!!! LMFAO 4.2 baby!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

Unemployment going down stock market going up and the idiot libs here can't or won't see and except it


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> *Download:
> Year* *Jan* *Feb* *Mar* *Apr* *May* *Jun* *Jul* *Aug* *Sep* *Oct* *Nov* *Dec
> 2007* 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
> *2008* 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
> ...



*He's talking job creation, not unemployment.  

Trump ended the Obama record for continuous job creation.*


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> He's talking job creation, not unemployment.
> 
> Trump ended the Obama record for continuous job creation


There was no job creation under Obama...the proof is in the unemployment rate. You don't have a positive rate of growth in jobs when so many don't have one...the graph he posted is ridiculous...The two don't jive son....


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> There was no job creation under Obama...the proof is in the unemployment rate. You don't have a positive rate of growth in jobs when so many don't have one...the graph he posted is ridiculous...The two don't jive son....


Obama cut unemployment by 3-1/2% (from 8.2 to 4.8)


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Obama cut unemployment by 3-1/2% (from 8.2 to 4.8)


The fact that his term in office was in it's twilight is what helped to cut the rate. People couldn't wait for his term to end. It was an 8 year economic nightmare.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




Yes but, according to your stats, Obama should be at the top as #!.  And to be fair, a lot of that was inherited from the late-GW Bush term and the failed policies of the 2006-2007 democratically-led Congress, just as Ronald Reagan should fare much better, a lot of his stats were inherited from Carter, and Bill Clinton reaped the rewards of a lot that Reagan did to fix it.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > Obama cut unemployment by 3-1/2% (from 8.2 to 4.8)
> ...


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Look at the Obama unemployment graph.

Notice how from 2010 it went DOWN DOwn Down down.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Obama unemployment in font form

Down Down Down Down Down Down Down


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> There was no job creation under Obama...*the proof is in the unemployment rate.*



Enough said.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Unemployment going down stock market going up and the idiot libs here can't or won't see and except it


Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things


You can keep saying it but it will not make it so...the people know what their bank accounts and job or wage increase opportunity's were like under Obama and what they are like today. All the fudged numbers and wishful thinking from your crowd will never change reality....remember, it's the economy stupid.


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things
> ...


.

 .


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.





 


*Stop playing STUPID.*


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What I said was you can keep talking up the Obama economy but we all lived through it...we know better.


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.
> ...


Thank you for proving my point....


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Thank you for proving my point....



Only if your point was that under Obama we had a huge drop in unemployment a huge rise in the stock market,   And an economy that went from deep recession to the longest continuous job growth in history.


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for proving my point....
> ...


No my point once again for the slow thinkers was the closer Obama got to the inevitable end of his terrible reign the more comfortable the business community felt about adding employees and investing. His term in office was an economic nightmare for the people and we sent him and folks like him packing by electing Trump....Thank God we did!


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> No my point once again for the slow thinkers was the closer Obama got to the inevitable end of his terrible reign the more comfortable the business community felt about adding employees and investing. His term in office was an economic nightmare for the people and we sent him and folks like him packing by electing Trump....Thank God we did!




Here's unemployment under Obama





Add the longest continuous job growth in the history of the country.

Until Trump blew it in september.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> ...


Which month in his presidency had a decline in the number of jobs?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > No my point once again for the slow thinkers was the closer Obama got to the inevitable end of his terrible reign the more comfortable the business community felt about adding employees and investing. His term in office was an economic nightmare for the people and we sent him and folks like him packing by electing Trump....Thank God we did!
> ...


Obama happened to be president at the right time - right at the bottom of a recession.  Doing nothing would have been better than all the crap Obama signed.

Look at the chart below, it shows unemployment turned the corner virtually the day Obama was innaugurated.  How can anyone honestly claim that Obama deserves the credit for that?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It's already been explained at least a dozen times in this thread.

How stupid are you?


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > No my point once again for the slow thinkers was the closer Obama got to the inevitable end of his terrible reign the more comfortable the business community felt about adding employees and investing. His term in office was an economic nightmare for the people and we sent him and folks like him packing by electing Trump....Thank God we did!
> ...


You are just incapable of understanding....I feel very bad for you. Damn public schools!!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



He wasn't indicted for fraud, asshole.  Claims in a lawsuit don't mean jack shit in terms of criminal law.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



He doesn't need to tell me jack.  I can see it with my own eyes.  CNN is the 24 hour a day destroy Trump network.  So is NBC, ABC and CBS.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama happened to be president at the right time - right at the bottom of a recession.  .



The recession didn't end until after Obama pushed both the stimulus and the cars for clunkers (major legislation) through congress.  A large influx of government spending that got the economy moving again.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That's because we haven't been gulping down the LSD Koolaid you and your ilk are so fond of.


----------



## jillian (Oct 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



hey, loony toon.... how about a link to your lunacy?


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama happened to be president at the right time - right at the bottom of a recession.  .
> ...


Obama's failed stimulus bill was a failed jobs bill that contained over seven thousand pieces of Democratic party only pork and failed to keep unemployment under 8% as promised

Obamas cars program called for the destruction of used cars which hurt Americans.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Why'd Trump pay $25 million to the defrauded?
> ...



You didn't explain why Trump also agreed to pay $1 million in penalty fines.


----------



## jillian (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



quiet


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama happened to be president at the right time - right at the bottom of a recession.  .
> ...



Nothing Obama passed helped the recession.  In fact, most of the money from the stimulus wasn't even spent by year end. and the recession turnd the corner long before that. 

Cash for clunkers was a disaster.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 14, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...





And when will you get rid of YOUR personal racism?


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

easyt65 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*Those two programs pushed the GDP into positive, ending the recession.*


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Nothing Obama passed helped the recession.  In fact, most of the money from the stimulus wasn't even spent by year end. and the recession turnd the corner long before that.
> 
> Cash for clunkers was a disaster.



Actually the economy turned into positive GDP with the auto makers gearing up for cars for clunkers.  The auto suppliers pushed the GDP into positive, ending the recession.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


Snowflakes really need to learn that just because they say something doesn't make it true. 

Thank you for that examplem


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama happened to be president at the right time - right at the bottom of a recession.  .
> ...



Bullshit. Unemployment was already headed in the right direction the day Obama was innaugurated.


----------



## gipper (Oct 14, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Never


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

easyt65 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > *Those two programs pushed the GDP into positive, ending the recession.*
> ...



It came from economic analysis.  The bureau of economic advisers ran the numbers to determine when the deep recession ended and why they declared it over right after cars for clunkers.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



Study: 'Cash for Clunkers' an even bigger lemon than thought

_WASHINGTON –  The government’s "Cash for Clunkers" program – pitched as a plan to jump-start U.S. auto sales and clean up the environment by getting gas-guzzling vehicles off the road -- may have been a clunker itself, according to a new economic study.

 Researchers at Texas A&M, in a recently released report, measured the impact of Cash for Clunkers on sales and found the program actually decreased industry revenue by $3 billion over a nine-to-11-month period. Meanwhile, the "stimulus" also cost taxpayers $3 billion._​


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



The recession was over the day Obama was innaugurated.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Bullshit. Unemployment was already headed in the right direction the day Obama was innaugurated.



Unemployment was still rising from 8.2% when he took office  January 2009 through 10% in January 2010

Why LIE that unemployment was going down?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> _ Researchers at Texas A&M, in a recently released report, measured the impact of Cash for Clunkers on sales and found the program actually decreased industry revenue by $3 billion over a nine-to-11-month period. Meanwhile, the "stimulus" also cost taxpayers $3 billion._​



The program jump started the economy, pulling sales for the next 9 months compressed into a buying spree that pushed GDP into positive growth, this ending the recession.

Of course after the HUGE car buying spree, people didn't rush out to buy cars in the following months.  But the impact of ending the recession continued to carry the economy.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > It came from economic analysis.  The bureau of economic advisers ran the numbers to determine when the deep recession ended and why they declared it over right after cars for clunkers.
> ...



Stupid Moron.  Obama was inaugurated in january, the recession didn't end until after cars for clunkers in the summer.

The *recession* officially *ended* in June *2009*, according to the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of such dates.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:



Are you some kind of mental moron?  Read the chart, It's shows GDP change, the line remained BELOW ZERO (meaning negative growth) until June 2009 that second dotted line.

You must have gotten a 400 on the math SAT's.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

The recession ENDED when GDP stopped shrinking, and started to grow, which was june 2009.  Until then, the economy continued the deep recession, and continued to lose GDP.

re·ces·sion
_noun_

*1*.
a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
The National Bureau of Economic Research—an independent group of economists—is charged with the official proclamation of a U.S. *recession's end*. In general, however, a *recession* ends when the economy starts to grow


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:
> ...



The chart shows the recession bottomed out in the last quarter of 2008.  GDP growth may have been negative for a while, but the negative was decreasing quickly.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> The recession ENDED when GDP stopped shrinking, and started to grow, which was june 2009.  Until then, the economy continued the deep recession, and continued to lose GDP.
> 
> re·ces·sion
> _noun_
> ...




ROFL!  Sorry, but the economy started improve in 2008 Q4.  You have to be a moron to interpret that chart the way you claim.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> The chart shows the recession bottomed out in the last quarter of 2008.  GDP growth may have been negative for a while, but the negative was decreasing quickly.



The recession didn't end until 6 months (and 2 major pieces of economic legislation) later. Unemployment continued growing, GDP continued shrinking,  *Your claim the recession ended when Obama was inaugurated is STUPID.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > _ Researchers at Texas A&M, in a recently released report, measured the impact of Cash for Clunkers on sales and found the program actually decreased industry revenue by $3 billion over a nine-to-11-month period. Meanwhile, the "stimulus" also cost taxpayers $3 billion._​
> ...



It did nothing of the sort.  It was a huge boondoggle that made it impossible for poor people to buy affordable cars.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> ROFL!  Sorry, but the economy started improve in 2008 Q4.  You have to be a moron to interpret that chart the way you claim.



The chart is NEGATIVE, it means the economy wasn't going to shit as fast.  But it ws still losing GDP, still losing jobs, still losing stock market.  It was losing 770,000 jobs a month


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> It did nothing of the sort.  It was a huge boondoggle that made it impossible for poor people to buy affordable cars.



It ended the deepest recession in history.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > It did nothing of the sort.  It was a huge boondoggle that made it impossible for poor people to buy affordable cars.
> ...



You have to be the world's biggest sucker to believe that.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> It did nothing of the sort.  It was a huge boondoggle that made it impossible for poor people to buy affordable cars.




It was the middle of the deepest recession in history. Poor people couldn't afford to buy cars anyway.

Instead that money got the economy GDP into positive territory, and the grow continued.  Remember, even as the recession ended, unemployment continued to go up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL!  Sorry, but the economy started improve in 2008 Q4.  You have to be a moron to interpret that chart the way you claim.
> ...



If I have a fever of 103 and then it goes down to 101, than means I have turned the corner.  Nothing a doctor gives me when my fever is 101 could be given credit for breaking my fever.  That's what Obama did, administer medicine when the patient was already getting better.  All you're saying is that he wasn't ready to play football yet.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > It ended the deepest recession in history.
> ...



The NBER make that call.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > It did nothing of the sort.  It was a huge boondoggle that made it impossible for poor people to buy affordable cars.
> ...


You have to be the world's biggest sucker to believe that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


We can all see the data.  Only morons like you need some government agency to tell you what to think.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> If I have a fever of 103 and then it goes down to 101, than means I have turned the corner.



It means you're not in a death spiral.  But if your fever remains at 101 you need medical attention.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Bripat thinks the economy is no longer in recession once the patient is out of intensive care.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 14, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



As liberals try to hijack and distract from what this thread is all about I think it is important to post this once again to remind everyone.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Bripat thinks the economy is no longer in recession once the patient is out of intensive care.



You believe you're still going downhill when you've already started up the other side of the valley.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

easyt65 said:


> As liberals try to hijack and distract from what this thread is all about I think it is important to post this once again to remind everyone.






 
Obama creted millions of jobs,  His "average" only reflects what a pile of shit Bush left.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> You believe you're still going downhill when you've already started up the other side of the valley.



*Nobody ever relapses when they get out of intensive care?*  Once out of intensive care, everybody makes a full recovery?

*You're stupid.*


----------



## gipper (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > easyt65 said:
> ...


It is amazing what lefties don't know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

gipper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



Worse than that, everything they know is wrong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You believe you're still going downhill when you've already started up the other side of the valley.
> ...



That would be irrelevant to the question we are discussing.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > *Nobody ever relapses when they get out of intensive care?* *.*
> ...



You made the economic example of the USA came out of intensive care in Jnauary 2009, but remained in recession until June 2009, saying once out of intensive care, they no longer needed medical attention.


----------



## my2¢ (Oct 14, 2017)

With final years of his presidency included Obama managed to slip in just below Reagan.  Trump is off to a fine start.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> With final years of his presidency included Obama managed to slip in just below Reagan.  Trump is off to a fine start.
> 
> View attachment 154405​



You realize Trump could have been assassinated the day after he took office, and he would still hold the same average unemployment position.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

A real rating is not the average unemployment, but the change in unemployment between what they inherited, and what they left.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

It's like measuring the average lead of a driver in the third leg of the 24 hours of LeMans.  You would think somebody who started out 3 laps ahead,  after losing 5 laps, ending up 2 laps behind, but had an average 1/2 lap lead was doing a great job.

And somebody starting 3 laps behind and made up 5 laps taking a 2 lap lead but averaged 1/2 lap behind, was doing a bad job.


----------



## my2¢ (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > With final years of his presidency included Obama managed to slip in just below Reagan.  Trump is off to a fine start.
> ...



Yep, I think taking the difference between were they started and ended and then calculating it on an annual percent would make a lot more sense.  But it was first time I looked at this thread and when I noticed it was from 2013 I got to wondering how things eventually turned out?


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> Yep, I think taking the difference between were they started and ended and then calculating it on an annual percent would make a lot more sense.  But it was first time I looked at this thread and when I noticed it was from 2013 I got to wondering how things eventually turned out?



It's like a relay race.  How you do is based on both your performance and where you started.    You can run the fastest leg of anybody, but if you had a big handicap, you're still behind.

Same if you inherited a big enough lead, you could be the slowest runner, and still end up ahead.


----------



## radical right (Oct 14, 2017)

Obama and Clinton were really fast runners, but since they followed a Bush, they had a lot of distance to make up.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Imbecile.... I said the streak of job growth came to an end. Have someone with more patience than myself explain the difference between job growth and the unemployment rate to ya. 

Oh, and while you're bitching about the website I used for the statistics I showed, have someone else explain to ya that I used the same source as the source for the unemployment rates you posted.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Unemployment going down stock market going up and the idiot libs here can't or won't see and except it


Moron.... 

The unemployment rate under Obama went down from its recession high of 10.0% to 4.8%, a *52%* decrease. Rightards attacked Obama over unemployment. It's down *13%* under trump and rightards finally cheer.

The Dow under Obama went from its recession low of 6600 to 19800, a *200%* increase and rightards attacked Obama over it.. It's up *16%* under trump and rightards finally cheer.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > He's talking job creation, not unemployment.
> ...


Imbecile....

The unemployment rate peaked at 10% under Obama and was down to 4.8% and dropping when he left office. Even the numbers you posted reflected that. During that period, there were some 15 million jobs added according to the same source you linked, the BLS.

Don't you ever tire of making an ass of yourself?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.
> ...


What makes you think he's playing?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Ummm... the drop in unemployment began during Obama's first term and continued throughout his second term.

So much for that nonsense you referred to as _your point_, huh?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Last month...


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Well, no, it shows unemployment turned the corner a few months after Obama became president; after he signed ARRA into law.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

jillian said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


A link isn't necessary. His nonsense has been debunked on this thread repeatedly. He's simply too retarded to comprehend.

Case in point.... take two presidents....

President A inherits an unemployment rate at a healthy 4.0%. The rate increases every month at 0.2 points... after 4 years, the unemployment rate is up to 13.6% and he would get kicked out of office.

President B inherits an obscene rate at 23.0%. The rate decreases every month at 0.2 points... after 8 years, the unemployment rate is under 4% (where president A started) and the 22nd Amendment is repealed for such a jobs god.

Then along comes a moron like you who idiotically claims president A performed better regarding unemployment because his average of *8.9%* is far lower than president B's *13.2%* average. That it doesn't matter how one president destroyed the job market while the other saved it -- all that matters is that president A's average unemployment rate was lower.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You know you're fucking nuts, right?

Unemployment rate, when Obama became president....

6.8
7.3
7.8
Obama becomes president
8.3
8.7
9.0

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Employed, when Obama became president....

-474K
-766K
-694K
Obama becomes president
-793K
-702K
-823K

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > easyt65 said:
> ...


You know you're fucking nuts, right?

The recession ended in June, 2009, not January, 2009...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


Reality is anathema to the right.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Moron, recessions don't end when GDP bottoms out. They end when GDP turns positive.

Seriously, you're a fucking nut.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Insists the idiot who moronically claims Bush's Great Recession ended in December, 2008.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Ya mean like your claim that a recession is over even as GDP remains negative, right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> With final years of his presidency included Obama managed to slip in just below Reagan.  Trump is off to a fine start.
> 
> View attachment 154405​


Of course he is. That's the difference between inheriting a shrinking economy with 7.8% unemployment as opposed to inheriting an expanding economy with 4.8% unemployment.

Of course, to the brain-dead right, the unemployment rate went from 40% to 4% in little more than a year.


----------



## RASTAMEN (Oct 14, 2017)

LordBrownTrout said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...


*The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage*
*The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage*

*The Republican political strategy has been to obstruct efforts to help the economy for everyone but the wealthiest few, and then campaign on complaints that the economy isn’t helping anyone but the wealthiest few. It’s working.

In President Obama’s July 12 weekly address he said, “So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.” He could have said, “Since 2009.” Since the 2009 “stimulus,” Republicans have obstructed pretty much every effort to help the economy. In the Senate they have filibustered hundreds of bills, and since the “stimulus” they have managed to keep anything from passing that might help the economy.

In the House, Republicans have refused to allow votes on anything that seriously would help the economy, instead passing only tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, spending cuts on essential things like maintaining our infrastructure and scientific research, and cutting regulations that protect people and the environment from being harmed by corporations seeking profit.

Republicans have blocked every effort since the stimulus to maintain infrastructure, hire teachers, raise the minimum wage, give equal pay for women, stop special tax breaks for millionaires corporations (especially oil companies), stop tax breaks for sending jobs out of the country, provide student loan relief, help the long-term unemployed, and more. Instead they insist on even more tax breaks for oil companies and billionaires, on cutting environmental protections, deregulating oil companies, and so on.

Obstruction Using Senate Filibusters

How many bills have been filibustered by Senate Republicans since President Obama took office? Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein, in “All Filibusters, All the Time,” writes, “The correct count of how many bills have been filibustered during Obama’s presidency is: approximately all of them.”

That’s what it means to have a 60-vote Senate, which is what Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans declared as soon as Obama was elected. Almost every measure and, until Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats invoked the nuclear option last fall, almost every nomination, had to have 60 or more votes to pass. That’s a filibuster.

Here are just a few of the hundreds of bills Senate Republicans have filibustered since President Obama took office — just a few:


Infrastructure bills
The following headlines are from last week’s “Full Employment Is More Than Possible. It Is Essential.“


2011: “Republicans filibuster Obama infrastructure bill”
2012: “‘Phantom filibuster’ blocking path forward for highway bill, says Reid“
2013: “Bipartisan Transportation and Housing Bill Filibustered“

Equal Pay for Women

Minimum wage increase

Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act

Bring Jobs Home Act – stop tax breaks for moving jobs and production facilities out of the country

Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011 – rehire 400,000 teachers, firefighters, paramedics and police officers.

Student loan reform – ease the crushing burden of student loan debt by at least allowing refinancing to lower interest rates

Extended unemployment benefits – for the long-term unemployed

Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — let working people join unions – filibustered in 2007, killed by threat of filibuster 2009

Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act – let public safety officers join unions

The Buffett rule – ensure millionaires pay a comparable tax rate to middle-class Americans

Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act
What would it have meant for the economy and jobs to launch a post-stimulus effort to maintain and modernize our infrastructure? How about reversing the tax structure that pays companies to move jobs out of the country? How about equal pay for women? How about a minimum wage increase? How about hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders going back to work? How about being able to organize into unions to fight for wages, benefits and safer working conditions? How about relief from crushing student loan debt?

All of those things blocked, and people wonder what the economy is just slogging along…

Obstruction And Economic Sabotage In The House

In the House Republican leadership has been following what is called the “Hastert Rule” to obstruct bills that would win with a majority vote. This is not a real “rule”; it is a partisan method of limiting what Democrats and moderate Republicans can accomplish. Republican leadership will not bring a bill up for a vote unless a majority of Republicans are for it. In other words, even if a bill would pass with most Democrats and some Republicans voting in favor, it can’t even get a vote unless it fits with Republican doctrine. (Actually that would be Republican funder doctrine, which is basically oil companies, Wall Street and a few ultra-billionaires.)

So instead of looking at what has been blocked in the House, which would be literally everything Democrats and up to 49 percent of Republicans think would help the economy, we should look at what has passed. What has passed is a record of economic sabotage. Republicans claim there are more 300 bills passed by the House that are held up in the Senate. (Note that The Washington Post took a look at this and found that “In 11 of the past 19 Congresses – more than half – more than 300 bills were waiting for Senate action by the time the Congress completed its work.”)

Of particular note among the passed bills is the Republican “Path to Prosperity Budget” (a.k.a. the “Ryan budget”). It is described as “Cuts spending & implements pro-growth reforms that boost job creation.” It dramatically cuts taxes on the rich. It privatizes Medicare. It cuts spending on infrastructure, health care for the poor, education, research, public-safety, and low-income programs. It turns Medicaid, food stamps, and other poverty programs into state block grants.

Tax cuts aren’t going to fund schools or repair roads and bridges. And lo and behold, this Republican budget that passed the House cuts taxes and cuts funding for even maintaining – never mind modernizing – our vital infrastructure needs. This is a budget of economic sabotage.

Other Republican House “jobs” bills, listed at Speaker Boehner’s “jobs” page include:


Repeal ObamaCare
Working Families Flexibility Act – Eliminates overtime pay
Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act
Approve Keystone pipeline, to build a pipeline across the country so Canadian oil can be soil to China, easing an oil glut here and bringing prices back up.
More offshore oil drilling
Student Success Act – Promotes charter schools, cuts federal programs and support for schools
Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act – blocks regulations on coal ash
Energy Consumers Relief Act – block government regulation of oil companies and carbon pollution
Stop Government Abuse Act – “Provides small business owners with tools to protect against government harassment.”
Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act – “Stops the IRS from implementing the president’s health care law”
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act – “Requires congressional approval of any new regulation with an economic cost of at least $100 million”
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act – Facilitates the development of strategic and critical minerals used to support manufacturing jobs. (Note Senate Republicans filibustered this.)
Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act – Prevents regulations on fracking
Responsible And Professionally Invigorating Development Act – Expedites the approval for new energy projects
Electricity Security & Affordability Act – Protects coal-fired plants from regulation
Preventing Government Waste & Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act – prevents coal regulations
Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act
North American Energy Infrastructure Act – promotes cross-border pipelines.
The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act – Expedites the approval of liquefied natural gas export applications
Lowering Gas Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act – expanding production of oil and gas
Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act – Permanently extends a ban on Internet access taxes
OK, got that? Their “jobs” bills include things like cutting government support for schools, stopping regulations on coal ash, requiring people receiving federal assistance to work, and drill-baby-drill. Oh, the list even includes bills that Republicans filibustered in the Senate.

It is not clear how getting rid of public schools and replacing them with charter, private and home schools is about “jobs.” It also is not clear how banning taxes on Comcast internet access “creates jobs.”

Many of these so-called “jobs” programs are really about subsidizing and assisting the oil and coal companies that provide so much of the funding for the Republican Party and conservative propaganda apparatus. (Note that Koch Industries is at heart an oil company.) They’re just called “jobs” programs because people need jobs – because Republicans have been blocking actual jobs programs.

And what about direct sabotage? Who can forget the Republican hostage-taking of the debt ceiling, when they threatened to take down the entire world economy unless we cut back on things like maintaining our infrastructure, scientific research, public health, hiring teachers and other things we do to make our lives better? There was a direct cost of $18.9 billion, but then there was the resulting credit rating downgrade, the pullback by businesses worried that they might actually do this, and so on.

Who can forget the terrible cost to the economy of the government shutdown? There was a direct cost of $24 billion, but also the reduced fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent. And the continuing harm from loss of confidence in our government’s ability to, well, govern.

The Voting Public Doesn’t Know

The Senate filibusters of real job and economic recovery efforts, the House’s so-called “jobs and growth” bills, the debt ceiling fights, the cuts in economically necessary spending like infrastructure maintenance and finally the government shutdown combine to show an incredible record of economic sabotage. This was the Republican plan, we saw it unfold, and now we see Republican campaigns running against the “Obama economy.”

However, the voting public is largely unaware of this record of obstruction and sabotage and the effect on the recovery. Seriously, go out and ask around. If you are reading this you are likely a highly-informed person. So you might be aware that there have been filibusters, but maybe not that there have been up to 500 or more Republicans filibusters.

The corporate media obscures the obstruction and sabotage. The corporate/conservative propaganda apparatus blasts out diversion and distraction. And, of course, the Democrats are not presenting a unified explanation of how Republicans are hurting the economy and how they would make things better. (Until recently President Obama blamed “Congress” in general, and the media still does.)

If Republicans take the Senate this fall, will they continue the obstruction and sabotage? What if they later also take the presidency? Here’s the thing, they know their tax cut, deregulate, smaller government nonsense does not work to boost the economy. Any economist will tell you, history will tell you, and common sense will tell you that taking money out of the economy won’t help the economy. It’s bad enough now, what happens to the country if they win? It’s well past time to be fed up with this. Vote, make sure your friends and family vote. Volunteer to talk to people about the urgency of voting. It’s all we have left.

By the way, here is what that 2009 stimulus spending accomplished — we went from losing more than 800,000 private sector jobs a month to gaining 100-250,000 a month:
*
 September 23, 2014
The Cost To Our Economy From Republican Obstruction And Sabotage


----------



## RASTAMEN (Oct 14, 2017)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


Hey man, the 2017 economy that Trump is enjoying and taking all the credit for is actually Obama's economy!  But don't worry starting in 2018, the economy belongs to TRUMP.

Keep in mind Trump has already lost 33,000 jobs!


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


He signed it on Feb 17, right at the very bottom of the recession, which means the recovery was already underway.  As Obama himself pointed out, there were no "shovel ready jobs."  It would take many months before any substantial monies went into the economy.  The claim that the stimulus was resonsible is laughable.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

RASTAMEN said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Sept 23 2014?  Havne't you turds been saying the stimulus and "cash for klunkers" ended the recession?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

RASTAMEN said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> ...



Yeah, we know.  Obama gets credit for anything good that happens from Jan 2009 until the end of eternity.  Trump gets credit for anything bad that happens.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



Look at the graph I posted.  Where does it show the economy bottomed out?  It wasn't June 2009.  It was 2008-Q4 - before Obama was inven innaugurated.  When the government says the recessino is over, that means it started recovering months earlier.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...



Bullshit.  The have already been recovering for months by the time they are officialy "over."


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2017)

The unemployment numbers should be higher than 8.86%.  Obama and the Dems created the most part-time jobs due to Obamacare and trying to get employment numbers higher so they could stay in office.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He paid a 25 million dollar settlement so it would not go to court. Because had it gone to court he was dead. He committed fraud. That is a crime.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I can't get rid of what I don't have.


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


Technically yes it did but in the world that's still in a depression not enough yet at that time and the GOP blocked everything from then on.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Just face it chicken wings. Your economic polices failed and almost created a depression that Obama saved us from.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



So, you can't get rid of self awareness?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



The worst that would happen if it had gone to court is that he would have had to pay more.  

How many times do I have to tell you, dumbass, that a lawsuit is a civil action. There are no criminal penalties involved.

You are so fucking stupid that it's a miricle that you can make your lungs function.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The problem you have is your own, not mine. You call me a racist because you have a fucked up dead ass wrong understanding of racism as it has been convoluted by whites like yourself. For me to respond to a white man who tells me how I should be grateful to whites for freeing me as a fucked up honky is not so  an angry response to a racist belief. Do I believe all whites are fucked up honkies? No/ But did the guy who made the comment to me believe all backs should be grateful to whites for our freedom? Yes. To you that's the same thing which is why I can say that you are an idiot.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fraud is a crime  idiot. It doesn't matter how the crime is settled.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


You have to be indicted and have a regular criminal trial to be convicted of fraud, moron.  A civil trial is not a criminal trial, by definition.

You morons are pinning all your hopes on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic law.    Every time you post this claim you only prove that you're an imbecile who shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...








Every reasonable person who has read your hundreds and hundreds of blatantly racist comments here knows that you ARE a filthy racist hypocrite. Own it, or change it.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fraud is a criminal offense. Trump settled out of court to hopefully avoid a trial. Because if this had gone to court, he would have faced a RICO trial for racketeering and fraud, OK? So while you want to make excuses and name call learn the facts.

The fact is Trump may still face trial. There are people who opted out of taking the settlement which was an option as part of the settlement.

Learn the facts son. You are misinformed.

The Trump University case isn’t over. An attorney on the case explains what’s next.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



No they do not. Not those who are reasonable. Only silly scum like you. The majority of the posters here are white racists. So of course they will call me a racist for talking about their racism and the continuing racism of whites on top of how they built a racist system using law and policy. I don't own what I am not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > He wasn't indicted for fraud, moron. *He was simply sued*.
> ...



Nope.

His company was sued for misrepresentation.

This is why you are called edtheliar.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> What coup? If Trump goes down Pence is the president. Another racist white male. So you'll still have what you want.










What Chicken?

You are attempting to overthrow the legally elected government of the United States, that is a coup.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> What coup? If Trump goes down Pence is the president. Another racist white male. So you'll still have what you want.










What Chicken?

You are attempting to overthrow the legally elected government of the United States, that is a coup.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> In a way I'm glad trump won so it cleanses the Democratic Party. And I'm actually a fiscal conservative republican now. I tried to help the bottom 50% but they won't help themselves because everything trumps done so far doesn't hurt me except maybe
> 
> Increase the retirement age



Trump increased the retirement age?

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Cuts to social security and Medicare



Trump cut social security? 

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Ruin the environment



Trump ruined the environment, whatever that means?

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Pre existing conditions. We should all worry about this.
> 
> Other than these things so far trump hasn't hurt me. I'm not gay, Muslim  poor and uninsured, going to college, no kids going to school, a woman. Anyone who he has offended so far. Each time I ask myself does this issue matter to me? So far no has been the answer



You sure do lie a lot.

But you're a Stalinist waging war against the legally elected government of the United States, which is treason, so lying is a minor concern,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> In a way I'm glad trump won so it cleanses the Democratic Party. And I'm actually a fiscal conservative republican now. I tried to help the bottom 50% but they won't help themselves because everything trumps done so far doesn't hurt me except maybe
> 
> Increase the retirement age



Trump increased the retirement age?

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Cuts to social security and Medicare



Trump cut social security? 

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Ruin the environment



Trump ruined the environment, whatever that means?

Cite? I mean, unless you are lying that is.



> Pre existing conditions. We should all worry about this.
> 
> Other than these things so far trump hasn't hurt me. I'm not gay, Muslim  poor and uninsured, going to college, no kids going to school, a woman. Anyone who he has offended so far. Each time I ask myself does this issue matter to me? So far no has been the answer



You sure do lie a lot.

But you're a Stalinist waging war against the legally elected government of the United States, which is treason, so lying is a minor concern,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So don't tell me it's hard. When Obama was on the ticket enough of you figured it out, then skipped the midterm and came back in 2012.
> ...




If whites (we hates them precious) didn't vote in the mid terms, who did you Communists lose control of the house and senate? Are you saying that minorities have turned against you Bolsheviks?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So don't tell me it's hard. When Obama was on the ticket enough of you figured it out, then skipped the midterm and came back in 2012.
> ...




If whites (we hates them precious) didn't vote in the mid terms, who did you Communists lose control of the house and senate? Are you saying that minorities have turned agains you Bolsheviks?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No mandate because California blatantly thwarts Federal law and encourages foreign nationals to tamper with our elections through voting?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> [
> 
> You can't help anyone when you don't know what the fuck you are doing. That's your problem SB.



Funny, isn't one of the main planks of the traitor party you follow that, "ignorance is strength?" Don't you in fact depend on the weak minded like Silly Bonobo to form the foundation of your vile party?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things
> ...


Show us the numbers! And even if you show us today, I'll credit Obama. I got a  huge raise this year. Was it trump? Hell no. I killed it last year too


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things
> ...


Show us the numbers! And even if you show us today, I'll credit Obama. I got a  huge raise this year. Was it trump? Hell no. I killed it last year too


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




Until you grow up and learn to be honest with yourself, you will just be another ignorant racist like so many others here. 

"you may feel a slight sting. That's pride ****ing with you. **** pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps."


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'm plenty grown and know what I am not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Then it's up to you whites to convince them of it. But first you have to work to get rid of their racism. That cowardly you can't change hearts and mind mentality that white democrats use with white racists needs to go.



I have no concern with white racists. They are extremely rare and immediately shut down. My concern is with you Stalinists. You are openly racist and plow the absurd line that "since it only be whitey dat you be hatin, iz all okie dokie."

Virtually ALL racism in this country comes from the left, and is aimed squarely at white people, which the party preaches hatred against 24/7 on the propaganda networks.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Oct 15, 2017)

i thought 94 Million People out of work would have the Obama average closer to 35%


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Not enough to be honest with yourself, evidently.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Not enough to be honest with yourself, evidently.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



So, Mafia Don Hillary is "not a criminal" by merit of her being in the inner party and not subject to the laws that are designed to rule the proles and Republicans?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



So, Mafia Don Hillary is "not a criminal" by merit of her being in the inner party and not subject to the laws that are designed to rule the proles and Republicans?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Not enough to be honest with yourself, evidently.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Republicans defend the corporations. Pay what they want fire who they want pollute without reprocussion insure only the healthy war for profit etc
> 
> And they love wallstreet too




So what you are saying is "Four legs good, two legs bad, bahh, bahhh, bahhh"


----------



## postman (Oct 15, 2017)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i thought 94 Million People out of work would have the Obama average closer to 35%



Obama cut the unemployment rate by over 40%

Republicans hate job performance metrics, because they're not very good at them.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 15, 2017)

Whose Congress was a Dem majority for the last 2 years before that crash





g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> The problem you have is your own, not mine. You call me a racist because you have a fucked up dead ass wrong understanding of racism as it has been convoluted by whites like yourself. For me to respond to a white man who tells me how I should be grateful to whites for freeing me as a fucked up honky is not so  an angry response to a racist belief. Do I believe all whites are fucked up honkies? No/ But did the guy who made the comment to me believe all backs should be grateful to whites for our freedom? Yes. To you that's the same thing which is why I can say that you are an idiot.



He correctly identifies you as a racist because you hate people based on the color of their skin. 

Blacks should work hard, be educated, be faithful to their families, refrain from and eschew robbing, raping, and murdering: just as whites should.

But then, without a victim class, you Stalinists lose too much power, hence you are a racist so that you can build power for your filthy party.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> The problem you have is your own, not mine. You call me a racist because you have a fucked up dead ass wrong understanding of racism as it has been convoluted by whites like yourself. For me to respond to a white man who tells me how I should be grateful to whites for freeing me as a fucked up honky is not so  an angry response to a racist belief. Do I believe all whites are fucked up honkies? No/ But did the guy who made the comment to me believe all backs should be grateful to whites for our freedom? Yes. To you that's the same thing which is why I can say that you are an idiot.



He correctly identifies you as a racist because you hate people based on the color of their skin. 

Blacks should work hard, be educated, be faithful to their families, refrain from and eschew robbing, raping, and murdering: just as whites should.

But then, without a victim class, you Stalinists lose too much power, hence you are a racist so that you can build power for your filthy party.


----------



## postman (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, Mafia Don Hillary is "not a criminal" by merit of her being in the inner party and not subject to the laws that are designed to rule the proles and Republicans?



Republicans have been going after Hillary since before half of them could vote.  Many republicans can't remember a time they weren't going after Hillary.

If you're going to call somebody a crook, at least find somebody willing to prosecute a criminal complaint against her.  Otherwise, as Elsa would say, "let it go"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...





What a fucking retard.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Learn something, Stalinist.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS*

18 U.S. Code § 1961 - Definitions

Maybe you might want to learn this. Because these are the charges Trump would face.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'm very honest with myself. I'm not a racist. You have white fragility. Go learn what that means.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment was going down under Obama and the stock market up too. When we said this last year you pointed to other things like the debt, real unemployment and blue collar wages. Let's see you deliver on those things
> ...


Show us the numbers! And even if you show us today, I'll credit Obama. I got a  huge raise this year. Was it trump? Hell no. I killed it last year too


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I'm very honest with myself. I'm not a racist. You have white fragility. Go learn what that means.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




*White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress*_. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. *White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves*. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”_


*Dr. Robin DiAngelo*​


----------



## Thinker101 (Oct 15, 2017)

You're sure sounding like a racist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


 I'll repeat it one more time for all the forum morons like you:  A civil trial is not a criminal trial.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


 I'll repeat it one more time for all the forum morons like you:  A civil trial is not a criminal trial.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.


The fewer days in bushs the economy got worse. How come you didn't apply that logic back then?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.


The fewer days in bushs the economy got worse. How come you didn't apply that logic back then?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> The fewer days left in Obama's term the better the economy did...what does that tell you libs? THE People wanted his ass out.


The fewer days in bushs the economy got worse. How come you didn't apply that logic back then?


radical right said:


> Look at the Obama unemployment graph.
> 
> Notice how from 2010 it went DOWN DOwn Down down.


they noticed


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Moron, you said the economy turned around when Obama was inaugurated. Now you're making up excuses for why it didn't happen as you idiotically claimed.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You are too painfully retarded.

Again -- recessions do not end when GDP bottoms out. That's the part you're too stupid to comprehend.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That isn't what I said, you dumbass douche bag.  You obviously don't have a firm command of English.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's when recovery begins, moron.  If the patient's fever drops from 103 to 101, it hasn't ended, but he's well on his way to getting better.  Any medicines applied after the fever has already declined had nothing to do with the patient's recovery.

Every fool understands you don't get up and go to work the minute you start getting better.

However, you can't give up the meme that Obama's "stimulus" is what caused the economy to recovery.  Anyone who isn't a congenital moron can look at the data and see that isn't true.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Great, then it should be no problem for you to link an economist saying the definition of a recession ending is when GDP bottoms out, even if it still remains negative.......


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The official definition of a recession is irrelevent.  Government bureacrats aren't the arbiters of reality.  Furthermore, the discussion here isn't about when the recession ended.  It's about when the recovery started.  That's long before the official end of the recession.  It's before Obama was even innaugurated.  That's what the data shows.


----------



## my2¢ (Oct 15, 2017)

Layoffs in 2009 were still going bigly.

The Layoff Kings: The 25 Companies Responsible for 700,000 Lost Jobs


----------



## Fenton Lum (Oct 15, 2017)

No, 


regent said:


> Should the president be given the power to control America's economy?



No, that’s why Goldman Sachs is always present in your White House regardless of electoral outcomes.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

james bond said:


> The unemployment numbers should be higher than 8.86%.  Obama and the Dems created the most part-time jobs due to Obamacare and trying to get employment numbers higher so they could stay in office.


There's certainly no shortage of imbeciles like you who keep repeating bullshit like that, no matter how many times it gets debunked. 

Part time jobs

jan/2009: 26,377,000
jan/2017: 27,405,000
increase: 1,028,000 (4%)

Full time jobs

jan/2009: 115,818,000
jan/2017: 124,705,000
increase: 8,887,000 (8%)

Civilian Labor Force

jan/2009: 154,210,000
jan/2017: 159,716,000
increase: 5,506,000 (4%)

Part time jobs increased on par with labor force growth, whereas full time jobs outpaced labor force growth by a factor of 2 to 1.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Well, no, the worst thing that could have happened had he lost in court is that the NY Attorney General could have filed criminal charges of fraud and relied on the civil case for evidence.



bripat9643 said:


> You are so fucking stupid that it's a miricle that you can make your lungs function.


Spits the forum moron who actually said Bush's Great Recession ended in December, 2008, because GDP bottomed out.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Well, duh, that’s what we have concentrated corporate wealth and power elites for, to tell the people what is real and what is not. Then when they sodomize society economically, we reward them with socialism.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> *18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS*
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 1961 - Definitions
> 
> Maybe you might want to learn this. Because these are the charges Trump would face.



Izzatrite Comrade? Is that what your hate sites told you during the 2 minutes hate?  So explain to the class *exactly *how that applies to Trump University, Comrade? While you are filled with hate and rage on behest of your masters, you lack even a hint of actual knowledge. 

Trump U was not, despite the name, a solicitation of higher education. It was a series of seminars that promised to show the attendees the "secrets" of the Trump real estate investment strategies. Indeed the seminars did just that. Of course the techniques taught were not proprietary or in any way secret. The same knowledge is widely available from YouTube videos.

So the possibility of  misrepresentation was present, though even that was remote. But criminal fraud is a joke that you hate filled, shit eating Stalinists spewed on hate sites and the bullshit leftist media. At no time were such charges considered, they would be laughed out of court.

Now as for RICO, you are fucking retard, not even CNN, MoveOn or ThinkHatred would float something that fucking stupid.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i thought 94 Million People out of work would have the Obama average closer to 35%


There's 101 million people out of work now, which is 40% of the civilian non-institutional population. So does that mean the unemployment rate under trump is *40%*?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> I'm very honest with myself. I'm not a racist. You have white fragility. Go learn what that means.



You may be honest with yourself, but you are far from honest with us. You are absolutely a racist, you judge people first by whether they are party members, then by skin color. Character, knowledge, integrity, and compassion are never part of your calculus. You are a Stalinist.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Whose Congress was a Dem majority for the last 2 years before that crash
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The recession began 2 months after that Dem Congress' first budget went into effect.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 15, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


What was it in the last Great Recession? 20%


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



What a vile piece of racist shit.

And what the professional racist wrote is vile as well.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LOLOL

You poor, demented imbecile... you said the recession ended before Obama became president. How is saying the recession ended not the same as saying the economy turned around?


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Imbecile....

You said the recession ended before Obama became president.

Yes, you really are retarded enough to believe that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




To racist boi IM2, that is irrelevant. His job is to spew hatred. Facts are irrelevant to the Stalinists. Reality to them is whatever the party tells them it is at any given second.  The chances of the plaintiffs prevailing were in fact quite slim. While the investment strategies explored in the seminars were fairly common, the claims that they would be taught the Trump investment methods was actually true.


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 15, 2017)

I guess you haven't read Marc 


LordBrownTrout said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...


Looks like you haven't read Marc levinson and others.say after WWII was an anomaly
Prob never will get much above 2% (Obama had 3 plus a couple of months) 5 or 10 year average ever again.
What is don the cons actual not forecast ytd?
Guessing 1.8?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > i thought 94 Million People out of work would have the Obama average closer to 35%
> ...



101 million people seeking work cannot find it, Comrade Fawn? 

You Stalinists sure are shameless fucking liars....


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



That's why he settled out of court. The only Stalinist here is you and the other chicken wings.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


25 Million are illegal aliens


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...








I accept your concession you're a moron and I accept your surrender.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Fenton Lum said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You Stalinists are the dumbest motherfuckers in the universe. No doubt you signed up for the seminars with the absolute belief you would become a billionaire if you took them. Then got angry when the instructors didn't hand you massive piles of cash.....

Standard Disclaimer: Obviously the Russia bullshit has utterly failed, since the hate sites are training the sheep to bleat this idiocy again....


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Rexx Taylor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I doubt that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Oh no, Obama massively increased the depth and duration of the recession. That was the slowest recovery in history, thanks to the utter incompetence of Obama and the Communists.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually it was due to the republicans in congress. Remember? The guys who didn't work for most of 3 terms.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> That's why he settled out of court. The only Stalinist here is you and the other chicken wings.



Too dumb to figure that out, huh? Well, you're not a Stalinist because you are particularly bright, now are you?

Trump settled because Trump U was a sleazy setup.  A bunch of fluff sold to the stupid and greedy for a premium price. The seminars preyed on the greed of the stupid and fleeced them for their stupidity. While there was nothing illegal in it, nor as I said, does it even rise to misrepresentation, it's still sleazy as hell, on the level of pay day loans and pawn brokers.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > That's why he settled out of court. The only Stalinist here is you and the other chicken wings.
> ...



Trump settled because he was facing a RICO trial.


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 15, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


That's hilarious. You and every Liberal in America passed judgement on Donald Trump's entire presidency BEFORE he had even served 6 months.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






Bammy spent a TRILLION fucking dollars.

What did he spend it on? Bailing out union goons, particularly the public sector unions. Obama fleeced a trillion dollars from taxpayers who had lost homes and jobs, and gave it to pampered government workers to ensure they could retire in luxury while those who paid for the whole thing watched their own retirements vanish,

That's how you fucking Communists do things, steal from the private sector to give to the well connected crooks in government.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

MarathonMike said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Kinda like you chicken wings did to Obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




Oh really?

Got a credible citation for that lunacy?

Fucking Stalinists, bunch of demagogues without a hint of a shred of integrity.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Here comes more retard.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



So wait a minute Comrade, are you claiming Obama did NOT spend a trillion dollars on "stimulus?"

Is that what your masters have trained you to bleat? 

There isn't even a dim spark of critical thought in you, is there? The party is your mind, they do the only "thinking" that needs to be done...


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Well since it's not lunacy........

The fact is there are people who have decided not to take the money and Trump may still face that trial.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


Sadly, your dementia prevents you from comprehending what people write.

Where did I say 101 million people are looking for work, ya senile old fruitcake???


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



So, no link then, not even from the most absurd leftist hate sites like CNN or the Washington Post...


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> Layoffs in 2009 were still going bigly.
> 
> The Layoff Kings: The 25 Companies Responsible for 700,000 Lost Jobs


Try paying attention to what I actually post.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Actually the stimulus went to private businesses idiot. Like car manufacturers and banks.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Go back a few pages and look for yourself.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


It was also among the deepest recessions


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Spare me your obsession with official government terminology.  How about I use terms you can understand:

The recovery begain in 2008 Q4 when Obama obviously had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What do the party rulers tell you that "unemployment" means, Comrade shitferbrains?  5 year olds in pre-school are "unemployed" you drooling retard? 

You are one dumb motherfucker, Fawn.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You never fail to post your support for Stalinism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Only a goose stepping moron believes government definitions overrule facts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



ROFL!  There is absolutely no evidence of that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> *Actually the stimulus went to private businesses* idiot. Like car manufacturers and banks.



Are you lying, or actually that fucking stupid?

{
So where did all that sweet stimulus money go? *Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions *– those with already locked-in jobs. In fact, right-to-work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states. *Where Democrats had a vast majority of representatives, their states got $460 per person more.*

When Obama signed the stimulus bill in 2009, he promised it would provide “help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis.” Clearly, it did not. The states hurt the most, the ones with more foreclosures, unemployment and bankruptcy, got less money than richer states closer to power. *Washington, D.C. got the most stimulus money: $7,602 per capita*.}

Emphasis added

{Even creepy crony capitalist of the century Al Gore got his snout in the trough. His investment in Fisker Automotive scored a $528 million loan guarantee. Can you imagine the risks you could take if you were given $528 million that you were not personally on the hook for? Of course all these businesses are tanking or have tanked already.}

Ron Hart: Where did the stimulus money go? – Orange County Register

You don't even try. You think spewing mindless slogans you are fed on the hate sites is good enough to stand as debate. 

If I want your opinion, I can read it directly off of DailyKOS or ThinkHatred. You have no mind at all.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

IM2 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Wrong.  The bulk of it went to government union employees.  Very little of it went to car manufacturers, and none went to banks.  There were no "shovel ready jobs."  It was all a colossal scam.  Of course, that's what liberalism is, so it's hardly a surprise.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



He seems to think posting moronic shit that he simply made up will please his masters in the party.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Imbecile...

The government doesn't create the definition of a recession -- economists do.

And you admitted you're a moron when you tried to replace the actual definition of a recession with your own made up definition.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


You poor, demented, senile old fool.

Imbecile...

Unemployed means not working. Which is what I said.

You're so fucked in the head, you thought I said 101 million people are looking for work; which of course,I never said.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Oct 15, 2017)

out of the 100 million people unemployed,,,about 30 million are dead.....the ones that voted for Hillary


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Rexx Taylor said:


> out of the 100 million people unemployed,,,about 30 million are dead.....the ones that voted for Hillary


LOL

Your delusions are noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 15, 2017)

November 7, 2006 — California Representative Nancy Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid lead the Democratic Party in taking control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 congressional elections, the first time in 12 years the Democrats secure control of both houses of Congress simultaneously.
..........
The most recent recession began in December 2007 
The Recession of 2007–2009: BLS Spotlight on Statistics



Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Whose Congress was a Dem majority for the last 2 years before that crash
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> November 7, 2006 — California Representative Nancy Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid lead the Democratic Party in taking control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 congressional elections, the first time in 12 years the Democrats secure control of both houses of Congress simultaneously.
> ..........
> The most recent recession began in December 2007
> The Recession of 2007–2009: BLS Spotlight on Statistics
> ...


Thanks for proving what I said.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 15, 2017)

Actually, it started a year after Dems took control.  They also had been denying there was even a problem for years, dear.



Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > November 7, 2006 — California Representative Nancy Pelosi and Nevada Senator Harry Reid lead the Democratic Party in taking control of both the House and the Senate in the 2006 congressional elections, the first time in 12 years the Democrats secure control of both houses of Congress simultaneously.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Actually, it started a year after Dems took control.  They also had been denying there was even a problem for years, dear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said it started 2 months after their first budget went into effect.

That was in October, 2007.

You then posted how the recession started in December, 2007.

December, 2007, coming two months after October, 2007, proved me right.

Thanks again.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

depotoo said:


> Actually, it started a year after Dems took control.  They also had been denying there was even a problem for years, dear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, and speaking of Barney Frank, check this out....

Only two months after Democrats took control of Congress, Barney Frank introduced a bill in the House to reform oversight of the GSE's...

H.R.1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01427:@@@R

Introduced in House by Barney Frank: March 9, 2007

Dem:223-0; Rep:90-104​
Most Republicans voted against it.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

radical right said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for proving my point....
> ...



The American people made this mistake before. Clinton gave bush a surplus and booming economy


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


You said that about Clinton. Let's hope trump doesn't blow it cause he's in the right place at right time. Thanks obama


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You're quibbling about semantics.  Government economists created the definition of the term "recession" that you're using.

The bottom line is that the recovery began in 2008 Q4, before Obama was innaugated, which proves his "stimulus" bill had nothing to do with the recovery.   I know that gets your panties into a tight little wad, but unlike I you I don't choose to believe things because it would be nice if they were true.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The unemployment numbers should be higher than 8.86%.  Obama and the Dems created the most part-time jobs due to Obamacare and trying to get employment numbers higher so they could stay in office.
> ...





Faun said:


> There's certainly no shortage of imbeciles like you who keep repeating bullshit like that, no matter how many times it gets debunked.



Heh.  Calling me an imbecile when we know you are one of the lemmings that lick Obama's and other Dems' anal hole.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.  The full time jobs that Obama created were not in the high productivity sector, but the low-skill, low-pay gigs in bars, restaurants, Wal-Marts and temp agencies.  The number of breadwinner jobs  full-time positions in energy and mining, construction, manufacturing, the white collar professions, business management and services, information technology, transportation/distribution and finance, insurance and real estate — is still 1.7 million below the level of December 2007; in fact, it is still lower than it was at the turn of the century.

What does this mean?

It means there is no mystery as to how the Obama and Wall Street celebrate d year after year of “jobs growth” during his term.  However, the long-term trend of full-time, family-supporting employment levels were already heading south.

It’s the Democrats' version of “trickle-down economics,” and not the good kind.

What happened is the Keynesian money printers at the Fed were fueling serious financial bubbles. It generated a temporary lift in the discretionary incomes of the top 10 percent of households, which own 85 percent of the financial assets, and the next 10-20% which feed off the their winnings.

Accordingly, the leisure and hospitality sectors boomed, creating a lot of job slots for bar tenders, waiters, bellhops, etc.

I call this the “bread and circuses economy,” but it has two problems.   Most of these slots generate only about 26 hours per week and $14 per hour.  That’s about $19,000 on an annual basis, and means these slots constitute 40 percent jobs compared to the breadwinner category at about $50,000 per year.  Besides that, a soon as the financial bubble goes bust, these jobs quickly disappear.

How stupid can you be if don't realize you can't create jobs by continuing to raise taxes on corporations?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


When will you stop turning a blind eye to how blacks are treated like second class citizens? You may not be the one yelling the n word you're the one who says nothing


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In a way I'm glad trump won so it cleanses the Democratic Party. And I'm actually a fiscal conservative republican now. I tried to help the bottom 50% but they won't help themselves because everything trumps done so far doesn't hurt me except maybe
> ...


Just wait. I'm already hearing guys tell me their age is 67. Did you not know this is happening? That's republicans doing that


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Dumbfuck, it's not semantics. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean.

Yes, you moronically claimed Bush's Great Recession ended 7 months before it actually did.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...








You're done.

I already proved the vast majority of job gains under Obama were full time jobs.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Semantics.   The bottom line is that the recovery began in 2008 Q4.  You aren't even trying to deny it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...








Dumbfuck, you idiotically claiming the recession ended 7 months before it actually ended is not semantics -- it's you being the dumbfuck you are.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > In a way I'm glad trump won so it cleanses the Democratic Party. And I'm actually a fiscal conservative republican now. I tried to help the bottom 50% but they won't help themselves because everything trumps done so far doesn't hurt me except maybe
> ...





Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Then it's up to you whites to convince them of it. But first you have to work to get rid of their racism. That cowardly you can't change hearts and mind mentality that white democrats use with white racists needs to go.
> ...



Liar. I'm white and know white racists go unchecked because the unkotares deny they exist


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Trump loves Putin t


Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Trump likes Putin we like Stalin.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Yea bush wanted to give tarp no questions asked and obama said hold on a second. Then Romney wanted to let gym go bankrupt and McCain wanted to bomb iran


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Oh, is that what it means, you fucking retard...

{The official unemployment rate is known as U3. It defines unemployed people as those who are willing and available to work, and who have actively sought work within the past four weeks. Those with temporary, part-time or full-time jobs are considered employed, as are those who perform at least 15 hours of unpaid family work.}

Unemployment Rate

You're dumb as a pile of bricks, Fawn.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Rexx Taylor said:


> out of the 100 million people unemployed,,,about 30 million are dead.....the ones that voted for Hillary




Fawn is brain dead, and he voted for Hillary 5 times.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Your delusions are noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.



You laughing at anyone is a bit like the Elephant man shouting "UGLY" at others... 

You have the intellect of a fire hydrant, Fawn.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


LOLOLOL

You're so fucked in the head from senility, it's actually amusing to read your nonsense.

Imbecile....

I said unemployed means folks who are not working. I said nothing about the official unemployment rate, which only factors in folks who are working or actively looking for work.

Keep 'em coming, ya fruit-loop dingus. This is fun!


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Your delusions are noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.
> ...


What a pity all you can do is name call but not prove anything I'm saying is wrong. At least when I name call, I prove you're the senile imbecile I claim you to be.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You lied that Trump raised the retirement age.

You're a liar, just like all you fucking Stalinists are.

{The retirement age for full Social Security benefits has already been increased from 65 to 67 for anyone born in *1960* or later. This increase was enacted in *1983* as part of comprehensive legislation to strengthen Social Security's financing at a time when the program faced an imminent financial crisis.}

Trump had nothing to do with it, the Tip O'Neil Senate full of democrats raised the age, back in 1983.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...






I've said more and DONE more than most here. Certainly more than the likes of you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You're trying to divert attention to the fact that Obama's "stimulus" didn't do a thing to end the recession.

No one is fooled.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Cries the forum imbecile who actually claimed the recession ended 7 months before it really did. 

Since you're too looney tunes to know what a recession is or when it ended, why on Earth would anyone accept your claims that Obama's stimulus had anything to to with it??

You even said unemployment began to improve before Obama became president until I showed you that too was nothing but more idiotic nonsense from you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're a fucking retard and liar, Fawn. You have zero credibility with anyone here. You join the ranks of shitflinger and Guno as a partisan turd who doesn't even pretend to deal in fact or reality. You say what you think will smear those whom your party directed you at during the 2 minutes hate. You have no ability to think, only to emote and spew the hatred the party instills in you. 

You're more than just stupid, you are unconscious. You refuse thought for fear that it might interfere with you serving the party. You are an unthinking meat machine raging at a world you refuse to even try and understand. You are a lump of flesh with no sentience or purpose.


----------



## radical right (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Semantics.   The bottom line is that the recovery began in 2008 Q4.  You aren't even trying to deny it.



I presume you never learned higher math, or you would know you're confusing acceleration with velocity.  It's like putting on the brakes before driving off a cliff.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...








Find another poster who has called out white racists (which includes you) here more often than I have. Go ahead.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The hating points you bleat from the leftist hate sites are not rational. You don't make points that can be refuted, you emote rage and hatred, but you have no thoughts, no logic, no meaning. You spew idiocy from KOS or ThinkHatred, but you lack sentience to engage in an actual conversation.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Semantics.   The bottom line is that the recovery began in 2008 Q4.  You aren't even trying to deny it.
> ...



I'm not confusing jack shit, moron.   The bottom of the curve is where the recovery begins.  None of you raging imbeciles have managed to disprove that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


My figures came from the *BLS*, ya fruit-loop dingus. You know, what you insanely call, *"leftist hate sites."*

Just how determined are you to show the forum how fucked in the head you really are?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




The fuck you do. You know a thousand anti-white hating racists to a single racist against blacks. The entire staff of CNN to start with, then the WaPo hate blog..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Oh?

So you have BLS numbers saying 101 million people are unemployed? 

You pathological fucking liar.

You're not sane, but then, you're not sentient. You are just a hate vessel for your filthy Bolshevik party.


----------



## radical right (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Wrong.  That's the bottom of the GDP curve.  (think of it as velocity)

You're looking at the change in GDP curve.  (think of it as acceleration)

Like they said in :"space balls" when Dark Helmet wanted the ship to stop, Colonel Sanders told him, "It's too dangerous,  we have to slow down first."


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Of course you're confused. You really did say...


bripat9643 said:


> This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:



^^^ full-blown rightard ​


----------



## radical right (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:



Which proves you're looking at the wrong chart.

The NBER says the recession ended in June 2009, not  Q4 2008​


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


First and foremost, what I said was...


Faun said:


> There's 101 million people out of work now...


... and yes, of course I got that figure from the BLS, ya senile old coot...

Not in Labor Force: 94,417,000
Unemployed: 6,801,000

............... 94,417,000
................. 6,801,000
---------------------------------
Total ... 101,218,000


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


Nope.  That's the velocity curve, you mathematical ignoramus.  It's GDP growth (velocity) at a given time.  Acceleration would be the change in the rate of GDP growth, which isn't shown.

Try learning how to read a simple chart before you accuse others of not understanding math.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > radical right said:
> ...


You're harping an a triviality because you don't want to address the main point:  The recovery started in 2008 Q4.  Address that instead of trying to fool everyone that you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I'm addressing the main point.

You're fucking nuts. <<< that's the main point.


bripat9643 said:


> This chart shows the recession ended even before Obama was innaugurated:



^^^ full-blown rightard ​
... and you idiotically want folks here to take your word on matters when it's easily proven that you're fucking nuts. Like you idiotically posting an image of the KKK marching in *Madison*, Wisconsin and moronically claiming they were marching at the DNC at *Madison* Square Garden.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're posting diversions, like you always do.  No matter how many times I bring it up, you fail to address the point that the recovery began in 2008 Q4.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


You deny the truth. You remind me of Cain on king fu


----------



## LeftofLeft (Oct 15, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



American voters care about jobs.  Don't you people know that?


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 15, 2017)

What corrupts bubble do you expect


ph3iron said:


> I guess you haven't read Marc
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


What corrupt bubble do you expect the GOP to make money out of for the rich, dupe? How long before it's busts and gives us another corrupt GOP meltdown slash recession?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Any liberal


Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Any liberal


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Quote? Link? Trolling again?


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


To be clear, you're claiming the recovery began in 2008. My point, which I've proven repeatedly,  is that you're too brain-dead to expect anyone to accept your assertions.

As evidence, I point to your brain-dead assertion that the recession ended in December of 2008 when it actually ended in June of 2009.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Like I said just wait. These are the things I know republicans are going to do to us. If not they don't hurt me at all. Although their healthcare reform will leave us all broke


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Any liberal
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> ...




Find one.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

Shes


Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 making sense to me


----------



## LeftofLeft (Oct 15, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Some Presidents push 


NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



Because it happened on his watch. We learned that one from you people.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I don't expect anyone to accept my assertions, you fucking dumbass.  I posted government statistics showing that to be the case.  In typical Faun fashion, you are still harping an a trivial semantic issue, because that's the only point you can win.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We're already broke from Obama's healthcare, moron.


----------



## my2¢ (Oct 15, 2017)

Getting back to topic at hand, what are we to conclude that the President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is Ford and the one which served 2 full terms is Reagan?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Actually I'm happy for anyone who was being forced to buy $400 or more a month healthcare. That's ridiculous. But I feel for people with pre existing conditions if republicans get their way.

And I told my dad if free Obamacare goes away for the poor maybe they'll go get a job that pays for insurance


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I would have to pay $1650/mo to get  a policy comparable to what I had with my employer.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You know you lying retard, you can change your own posts, but you can't alter the backquotes in my posts...






OOPSSSS

Busted lying again, you fucking liar,


----------



## RASTAMEN (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...


Trump's economy begins in 2018!!!!!  So you can comment then.  Mean-time quit bitching and making excuses on behalf of Trump.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> ...



All this is are the numbers from the bureau of labor statistics for the unemployment rate each month. Those numbers are then added up and then divided by the number of months in office to get the average. Raw data, facts. That's it. During Obama's time in office, his highest monthly umployment rate was 10% and his lowest was 4.6%. The average of all 96 months Obama was in office though, was 7.45%. So for the most part, on average while Obama was in the White House, the public had to contend with a 7.45% unemployment rate on average. While Bush was in office, the average that people had to contend with was 5.27%. 

Its very early in Donald Trumps term, and a lot can still happen to change his numbers. I am NOT a Donald Trump supporter, by the way.


----------



## RASTAMEN (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


We are broke because of the GOP caused Great Recession in 2008!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



But Obama has the SECOND BEST difference between unemployment when starting and when finishing as president. Number one in Clinton. Only one Republican has + figures, Reagan, and only on Democrat doesn't have plus figures, Carter who had 0.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for September 2017 was 4.2%. This is the 9th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 9th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.48% in August to 4.44% in September.
> ...



Well, if you really thought it was meaningless, I think you would have stopped posting in this thread long ago, yet here you are again.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 15, 2017)

The start point and the finish point comprise only TWO months of data. You need to look at all 96 months of data which often will see the unemployment rate rise and fall many times. Taking average gives you the best idea of what the public usually had to deal with on a day to day basis while said President was in office. A great finish is wonderful, but does not tell you the full story of what it was like for 8 years.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

RASTAMEN said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Oh? So the $9 TRILLION in new debt that Obama added has nothing to do with it, RastaTard?

Are you lying to us, or yourself?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



What the fuck are you lying about? Carter left Reagan an 8% unemployment rate, that was on a sharp rise due to the malaise that was the hallmark of the the Carter years.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're someone with an IQ over 30 ha ha.  I'm not sure why you're laughing as Donald Trump is POTUS now and has been draining the Obummer swamp.  Obummer was a liar and one of the worst presidents of all time, so as I said the full time jobs were of the lower variety and ones that would not last.  If the economy turns, then the companies can just easily cut them such as your job.  What we want are the jobs Donald Trump has promised and that is the breadwinner category jobs such as full-time positions in energy and mining, construction, manufacturing, the white collar professions, business management and services, information technology, transportation/distribution and finance, insurance and real estate.  These jobs were 1.7 million below the level of December 2007; in fact, it is still lower than it was at the turn of the century.

Thus, the joke is on you as like I said how stupid can you be if you don't realize you can't create great jobs by continuing to raise taxes on corporations?  We want to cut ze taxes on corporations.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Fawn is a party zealot. He is in a panic, but doesn't actually grasp why. His rulers tell him the party is winning, but somewhere in the gelatinous muck that substitutes for a brain, the fact that Trump is president and the Republicans hold congress haunts him. If he could think, it might be clear to him. But the party programs him to believe that they are winning, so he does. Still there is that nagging fear that eats at him as he chews his cud....


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Imbecile....

You posted a graph and moronically claimed it showed the recession ended in December, 2008, when it actually ended in June, 2009.

You see, it's not the chart you posted -- it's your demented rightard interpretation of what it shows.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


You're fucking demented, remember?

I changed nothing in your posts or mine. In fact, I even quoted my post verbatim.

I said, _"there's 101 million people out of work now..."_

and you idiotically thought I was said _there's 101 million people looking for work_ -- which of course, I never said. sadly, your senility led you to believe I said that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You lied, you got busted. The whole board sees it.

It should be nothing new for you, you lie incessantly.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And it's a meaningless figure as it tells you nothing about the performance of the president in terms of job growth.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


^^^ more dementia. 

Unemployment wasn't 8% or higher until 10 months into Reagan's first term.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

And what frigidweirdo is alluding to is the fact that every Republican president on record except for one (Reagan) left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started; whereas not a single Democrat on record left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.

You may now proceed with your next rightarded post.......


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I'm laughing at you because your idiocy was sooo easily exposed.

Need I remind you, you started by falsely claiming Obama and Democrats created the most part time jobs? Then when you were shown the actual figures, you abandoned that nonsense and quickly switched to your next idiocy about the jobs not being quality jobs.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


^^^ yet even more demented drivel from the forum's leading senile patient.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


LOLOL

You're sooo fucking senile.

I copied and pasted my quote verbatim and also included a link to my post.

You have any idea how crazed you have to be to assert I lied about what I said?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I'm sorry you're unable to understand this.

When Carter entered office unemployment was 7.5%, when Carter left office unemployment was 7.5

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Go check it out.

Nothing like someone who has no idea of the facts attacking someone who knows the facts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Your link says 7.5 when Reagan took office, 5.4 when he left.

Not a bad delta.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 15, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


 That is a lie...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, that's what I did - which exposed you as what you are, a complete liar and fraud.

Hey, you're a Stalinist, lying is just your nature.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



The problem here is that there are lots of different figures.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy

Here are some different figures that show different presidents in good or bad light.




















Picking one statistic and then saying it's all the President's fault is ridiculous. Often what a president does lasts for decades.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


No, not bad at all. Now look at all the data..... 

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Every other Republican left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.... not a single Democrat left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started.

That data also reveals you were demented when you falsely claimed, "Carter left Reagan an 8% unemployment rate, that was on a sharp rise due to the malaise that was the hallmark of the the Carter years."

Unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took over and it was 7.6% 8 months later.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


All you exposed is what I've been saying all along -- that you're batshit insane.

I said *"101 million people are out of work now"*; and your malfunctioning brain translated that into thinking I said, *"101 million people seeking work cannot find it..."* -- which of course, I never said.

Even worse for your dementia -- I copied and pasted my quote verbatim along with a link to it; and your abnormal brain thinks I lied.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 15, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 The truth is that the stockmarket is doing great, and that the Dems knows that. When it is going up means that the economy is doing great. But the Dems are trying to get Pres.Trump to waste money. Because if he bring down the deficit, that means that they were wasting everybody's money. But on what? But then that it shows that they were orchestrating the whole entire system. That they let a little of money flow through to make it look as if they are trying to help. But Pres.Trump is bringing in a big flow, and it is continuous flow that they are trying to stop. He has been bringing back jobs that had left America because of of the high taxes and overwhelming of regulations. But which if they moved to places like China, that they doesn't has to pay that much import tax to bring their products back here. It seems as if they were encouraging companies to move across seas for some reason. Maybe that they were being paid to bring jobs across seas.But now, the Clinton's foundation is not receiving any more funds at all. China charged us a very high import tax, but the previous administrations has been letting them pay a very low import tax, and which it is too low that it barely is nothing. But Pres.Trump is making sure, whatever they charged us, that he will do the same to them. No more special privileges for them.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


The stock market's been doing great for years now. The right is just now noticing it.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 15, 2017)

Faun said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 No, it was just going up and down. But once pres.Trump had stepped into office, the it has been on an upward climb. And it is still climbing on the charts It has broken records climbs.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


LOLOL

Just going up and down?

Looks like way more up than down to me ...


DJIA: UP 139%
01/20/09:  8,280
01/20/17:  19,795

NASDAQ: UP 265%
01/20/09:  1,521
01/20/17:  5,557

S&P500: UP 167%
01/20/09: 850
01/20/17: 2,270


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...




Well the economy is doing well because the recession came and the recession went. You could have a monkey in as president and the economy would be doing well. 

Whether the Democrats are or are not trying to sabotage the economy is neither here nor there. The Republicans control the whole show. However the partisan bullshit politics that is going on between the two parties isn't exactly going to make things better. 

The system is a problem which leads to two partisan parties and to complete biased views from many people.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...



Do you really think a President has such an impact on the stock markets?

Dow Jones Industrial Average | 1912-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

The problem with your blinkered partisan view is that a president has an impact on the economy after they've left office. Also, the president doesn't have that much control over the stock markets in the short term, especially.

Looking at this chart there is a basic line trajectory for the last 5 years that hasn't changed with Trump at all. There was a certain amount of dropping in Obama's last year in office, but the last two months of his presidency there was a massive rise in the stock market. 

Trump got in, there was a slight rise, and then a dip, then a rise and a dip. The same sort of thing that's been happening for the last 5 years. 

This isn't Trump no matter how much you push it, and it wasn't really Obama either. A steady ship allows the stock markets to rise out of a recession. 

What policies has Trump put in place to make this rise?


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Dow Has Set 64 Record Closes Since 2016 Election

Stock Market Rally Continues as Indexes Close at Record Highs

Unemployment hits record low in seven states

 FWD 19 minutes into the video.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...



Do you have a point to make? Or are you just throwing webpages at me? I'm not going to search through loads of webpages on the off chance I figure out which statistics you think make your argument.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 16, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



 Well, the media cannot wait for Pres.Trump to spread disinformation around. And so since they cannot challenged his statement about the unemployment being at it lowest in years, so then that it must be true.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


LOLOL

Too stupid for words.

First of all, you're giving  trump credit for 17 times the Dow broke a record *while Obama was president*. 

That nonsense aside, while the Dow went from its recession low of 6600 to 19800 under Obama, it broke a record high *122* times.

It's happened *48* times since trump has been president.

^DJI Historical Prices | Dow Jones Industrial Average Stock - Yahoo Finance

... and even then, it's more because Obama handed him a Dow that was near its record high when he left office.

And again... the Dow under Obama increased *139%*. 200% from when it bottomed out from the Great Recession. Under trump, it's up  *15.5%*.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 It is because they liked the one whom was elected as President.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...



I'm not really sure what you're going on about. 

Unemployment is at a low point for years.

So what? Are you trying to claim this is because of Trump? If you are, you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


Sorry to burst your partisan bubble -- but again ... Obama was still president.

Obama ... 122
Trump ....... 48

And it's not so hard to break that record when you're handed a Dow near its all-time record high. Try doing it like Obama did, inheriting a Dow that was 42% lower than its previous high. Trump inherited a Dow that was less than one percent (0.9%) off its previous high.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're still dancing and avoiding the issue.  How did Obama's "stimulus" boondoggle end the recession when the economy was already in recovery starting on Q4 of 2008?  You know that isn't possible, so you will continue to lie and deflect.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, it's much easier in Obama's situation.  When the Dow has bottomed out, then only way to go is up.  Obama's only accomplishment was getting elected at the right time.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Only a brain damaged cockroached is dumb enough to swallow what you're peddling.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem you have is your own, not mine. You call me a racist because you have a fucked up dead ass wrong understanding of racism as it has been convoluted by whites like yourself. For me to respond to a white man who tells me how I should be grateful to whites for freeing me as a fucked up honky is not so  an angry response to a racist belief. Do I believe all whites are fucked up honkies? No/ But did the guy who made the comment to me believe all backs should be grateful to whites for our freedom? Yes. To you that's the same thing which is why I can say that you are an idiot.
> ...



I don't hate anyone dumb ass. Blacks do all of the things you said in the second paragraph.

But to point what you said out as an example pf white racism will have you and unkotare telling me how I am a racist and how much I hate whites.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...



Actually the DOW could have gone down even more. But it did not. So what you said is some dumb shit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

IM2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bullshit.  I love the way all of Obama's accomplishments are based on what would have happened.   This prediction comes from all the people who said Hillary had 98% chance of winning and that the economy would crator the minute Trump was innaugurated.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That's what happens to unemployed people who have to buy their own insurance. Trumpcare ain't gonna fix that. He just said you no longer must buy it. Let me know when he lowers your prices.

And when he does it'll be for catastrophic insurance that doesn't cover anything and has high premiums


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Business has picked up and stock market went up because trump promised to cut taxes and spend on infrastructure. We're waiting


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Sorry obama was getting us out of bush's recession. 

And he got us to 4.6%


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It's misleading right wing spin.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Can't wait to see trump triple debt just on air travel for the fam and his cabinet


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The start point and the finish point comprise only TWO months of data. You need to look at all 96 months of data which often will see the unemployment rate rise and fall many times. Taking average gives you the best idea of what the public usually had to deal with on a day to day basis while said President was in office. A great finish is wonderful, but does not tell you the full story of what it was like for 8 years.


And obama handed trump a good economy. Don't forget.

You guys seem to want to downplay bushs great recession


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


How did he Ryan and McConnell raise corporate taxes? When?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


They blamed obama for people retiring.  They won't do that to trump. Now they know better


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Wages went down and the wealth gap grew under Reagan.

So more people working for less and the rich got richer. No wonder you love reagan


----------



## IM2 (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



I don' t think we can really attribute much of any growth to Trump, but I do agree that we are waiting for those tax cuts and infrastructure spending. Ironically infrastructure building is something Obama proposed.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Why should I let your bullshit go unopposed? 

When you post this, I will remind readers how meaningless it is by pointing out the gaping head wound in your logic....

One president takes the unemployment rate from 2% to 10%, increasing it one point per year. Another president reduces it two points per year from 26% to 10%. They both end at 10%......

Imbeciles like you come on forums like this to brag about how the former president’s average is less than the latter’s.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The problem here is that I see a lot of what happens in the economy as way beyond the Presidents, especially while they're actually in charge. They take the credit, but it can often be policies from 20 years ago which make the difference. Reagan was dealing with a recession which was going to happen whether he was president or not. So, it's hardly fair to blame Reagan or Obama for the decrease in wages which were an impact of a recession which wasn't their fault.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 16, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> What corrupts bubble do you expect
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> ...



Derp derp derp


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I’ve already shown here you have no clue what you’re talking about. Who knows why you carry on like a raving lunatic?


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


More rightarded nonsense. 

In reality, from which you are clearly divorced, the Dow under Obama had to go from 6600 to over 14000 just to break the record. A 113% increase and  roughly 7500 point increase from where the market bottomed out; while starting off in a massive recession. It then went up another 40% and broke a record high another 121 times before Obama left office.

Compared to President Tinkles who inherited the Dow at 19800. It needed to go up only about 200 points, less than one percent, for him to break a record high, in a good economy.

Leave it to brain-dead sycophants like you to blindly assert it’s easier to increase the Dow by 7500 points in a poor economy than it is to raise it by 200 points in a good economy.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Let’s put your idiocy to a test, shall we? Or are you going to run from this too...?

_Take two presidents....

President A inherits an unemployment rate at a healthy 4.0%. The rate increases every month at 0.2 points... after 4 years, the unemployment rate is up to 13.6% and he would get kicked out of office.

President B inherits an obscene rate at 23.0%. The rate decreases every month at 0.2 points... after 8 years, the unemployment rate is under 4% (where president A started) and the 22nd Amendment is repealed for such a jobs god._​
Now in terms of a president’s performance regarding job growth, describe what is meaningful about showing president A had a lower average unemployment rate than president B.....,.

I’ll laugh at your ignorance while I wait for you to run from explaining that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Which even they can’t explain.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Someone who relentlessly harps on an irrelevant point to avoid discussing the real issue is showing all the symptoms of a raving lunatic, as well as proving that he's an imbecile.

Who do you think you're fooling, dumbass?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's easy to make the DOW go up when the FED pumps $4 trillion dollars into the economy and keeps interest rates at 0%.  Under such circumstances, what can people do with their money other than put it into the stock market?

You're so stupid and gullible that it's positively comical.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

IM2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'll give Trump a little credit because corporations love it when a Republican wins and talks about cutting taxes and infrastructure spending.  So far he hasn't fucked up Obama's good economy like Bush did Clinton's.

Remember Bill signed NAFTA but he put protections in it for the environment and American workers.  Want to bet Bush and Chaney and Deley and Hastert took those protections out?


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about is hardly irrelevant.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LOLOL

So you say, but you don’t even know what s Recession is.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Faun, Faun, Faun, Faun, Faun.  You are no faun (pun intended) at all.  Your silly posts just goes to show that we should never listen to leftists when it comes to running a business, economy or country.  Those NFL players should not have listened to you leftists.  You and the left only know how to RUIN the economy, businesses and the country.  Is it any wonder that, "Make America Great Again" was the winning slogan.  Not "Stronger Together" nor the hilariously ridiculous "Hillary for America."


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It started in 2009 with Obamacare.  Then it continued in 2015 with his plan for more taxes will solve everything -- Obama's ten new taxes.

Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform

Obama's 10 new taxes


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Here's how Obama's trickle down theory didn't work.






OTOH, Reagan's supply side did work with flattening the tax curve, lowered homelessness and... well let the libertarian Cato Institute explain,

"Economist Stephen Moore stated in the Cato analysis, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He argued that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion, the greatest American sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the U.S. government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround."

What it meant was better jobs for the breadwinners even though some of lesser jobs that the left likes to promote were cut.  Obama was the complete opposite of Reagan and that's why America went down.  You can't rely on lower paying jobs that could be cut at a moment's notice to stimulate the economy long-term.  His middle out trickle down theories were really jobs for the lower middle class.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Derp


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Is this true?  *Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax* (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

I found that on your link.  This is the first I'm hearing this.

*Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services??  No one goes to these things anymore.  BFD*
*
Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies?  You mean like a tax on this guy?





Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives?  GOOD!

And still the rich have never been richer.  Your list is pathetic.  

Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike

*_


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 16, 2017)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The fact is the rich have never been richer.  So why isn't it trickling down?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I know exactly what you're doing dirbag, and proving your point isn't it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Jest keep dancing and deflecting.  You're only proving that you're a weasel and a fool.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Immigrants from third world countries are holding our wages down.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LOL 

Spits the idiot who demonstrated he doesn’t know what a recession is... doesn’t know how it started ... doesn’t know when it ends...  doesn’t know what affects it... doesn’t know what defines it........

.... but thinks he’s an authority on the subject.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


More of the same.   

What do you think you're proving, hosebag?


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Do you need my post explained to you?? 

Exactly how rightarded are you?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

frigidweirdo said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




The top graph shows that Bush added more debt than Obama, which is a flat out lie.

You wonder why people don't trust the Communist press?

Here is the truth to destroy the blatant lie you just posted:

*George W. Bush:* Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

*Barack Obama:* Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




That is NOT what you said, you lying fuck





Trump has a 40% unemployment rate is the lie you told - and you just keep on lying now that you've been busted.

But let's face it, if you had so much as a shred of integrity, you wouldn't be a Stalinist in the first place.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



While it is true that the DOW went up after the crash in 2007,  isn't it true that the jump from 17 to 19 occurred after Trump won the election and was in fact in response to Obama LEAVING office?

It's okay Comrade Fawn, you need not answer...


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


Great, now average that out by year since different presidents served different spans, ranging from 32 months to 8 years....


* Reagan     ** 23.3% ** GHW Bush   ** 13.6% ** Bush       ** 13.1% ** Nixon/Ford ** 12.2% ** Carter     ** 10.7% ** Obama      **  8.7% ** Clinton    **  4.0% ** Kennedy    **  3.0% ** Johnson    **  2.5% ** Eisenhower **  1.1% *


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


You lying scab -- I even linked my quote which proves that was what I said.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



When the economy is at full employment, job growth is not as high a priority. Job growth becomes very important during a recession or depression. The unemployment rate if it is high will be lowered by high job growth. But when the economy is at or near full employment, job growth simply needs to keep pace with population growth and economic growth. So Job growth does impact the unemployment rate and therefore is not something that is totally hidden from these figures. 

The unemployment figures for each President show you the difficulty the man on the street had in getting a job while that particular President was in office. It is a significant figure and you and other people continue to believe that by your continued participation in this thread.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 16, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yet, here you are once again.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That is a fictional construction in your mind. In the real world, the unemployment rate goes up and down multiple times over a 96 month period. You think looking at the first month and the last month of a 96 month period are the only things that are relevant. That leaves out 94 months of information and huge impacts on peoples lives. Do you rate the level of suffering in a war by the casualties taken in the first month and the last month? You would create some very odd ideas on suffering for various wars if you did that. Again, you have to look at every month over a 96 month period, whether its look at GDP, unemployment, a war, the level of crime. Every month counts, but it won't be counted when you only look at the first month and the last month. 

Finally, if what I post is indeed meaningless, then there is no need to oppose it. I don't bother posting in threads I find meaningless or irrelevant. Again, your continued participation in this thread is evidence that you find it relevant.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Because it remains a meaningless figure in terms of presidential performance. If it had any meaning, Reagan would have a better record than Bush since Reagan far out performed Bush when it came to jobs. That he comes in second to last, right behind Ford, should have been your first clue.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




Tax reform is underway - with you Stalinists digging your heels in to keep the middle class from prospering.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Not that fictional. Bush took the unemployment rate from 4.2% to 7.8%. I merely stretched those figures a bit to accentuate the point. FDR did inherit an unemployment rate at around 25%. It was under 2% when he died. Your bizarre logic puts Bush ahead of FDR despite one drastically increasing unemployment while the other drastically lowered it.

That's why you run from these examples because even you know how retarded this makes you look.



U2Edge said:


> Finally, if what I post is indeed meaningless, then there is no need to oppose it. I don't bother posting in threads I find meaningless or irrelevant. Again, your continued participation in this thread is evidence that you find it relevant.


Why on Earth would I miss out on an opportunity to bitch-slap you and your nonsense?? 

I'm not a coward like you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

james bond said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




What about her winning slogan of "bow to your queen, peasants?" 

Fawn is but a hate drone spewing falsehoods from the hates sites in order to pervert American elections on behalf of the international cabal he serves.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Why don;t you ask the rich? They are virtually all radical left democrats.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



When one lie fails, you Stalinists just float another, and another.

You have zero credibility Fawn, with anyone. You are on the level of Guno and shitflinger, an absurd Communist spewing steaming piles of shit.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


LOLOL

And by "hate sites," you mean the BLS


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Aww, you poor thing. Did you really think the forum needed  evidence you can't refute what I posted?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




Oh, the BLS claiming 101 million unemployed? 

You are a clown.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Here's my post again with what I actually said... for the hard of learning...


Faun said:


> There's 101 million people out of work now...


... and as I showed, according to BLS statistics, there are indeed 101 million people, aged 16 and over, who are currently not working.

Reality is such a bitch to you, idn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2017)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Same lie all over again?





You are literally insane.

Not just stupid, not just a pathological liar, but flat out insane.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


LMAO

Just because you're senile doesn't mean I'm lying.

Again... here are BLS figures showing 101 million people not working....

94,417,000 + 6,801,000 = 101,218,000


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Watch as I demonstrate again just how senile you are....

You claim I lied with those figures......


* Reagan     ** 22.5% ** GHW Bush   ** 15.2% ** Obama      ** 11.0% ** Bush       ** 10.7% ** Nixon/Ford ** 10.6% ** Carter     ** 10.6% ** Clinton    **  4.6% ** Kennedy    **  3.0% ** Johnson    **  2.5% ** Eisenhower **  1.1% *

^^^ annualized  percentage of increase by presidential fiscal budgetary fiscal year.

Which of those do you claim is a lie? Point it out and I'll show you the math that proves you're batshit crazy........


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You obviously have me confused with the fools who swallow what your peddling.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Don't give us that crap. Remember bush sent you $300 but sent his rich friends $300k

And when I complained that $300 wasn't much help you said send it back.

Then when I said he just added to the debt you said debt don't matter.

This ain't this stalinists first rodeo


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Bush also lost a lot of good paying manufacturing jobs and added a lot of McDonald's jobs.

And of course oil did well under bush gouging us like they did back then


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 17, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Do you really believe that? Then you're a brainwashed close minded fool. You just don't get it.

And what do you care? You're in charge. Lead! But you can't because all your ideas are bad and unpopular


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 18, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Anything to show the uppity nigxxer in a bad light.
No mention of his inheriting a recession


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 30, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


He had 75 months of straight jobs growth then Trump took a dump last month

Did you see this? How come the liberal media didn't tell me this? 

Jobs fall by 33,000 in September as hurricanes hammer employment

*US lost 33,000 jobs in Sept, vs 90,000 jobs increase expected*

The U.S. economy lost 33,000 jobs in September even as the unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.
The jobs loss was the first monthly decline in seven years, when the economy was still pulling out of the Great Recession.


----------



## pinqy (Oct 31, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The way the Current Employment Statistics survey works is that if you didn't receive a paycheck for the pay period that includes the 12th of the month, you are not included as employed. (also excluded are all agricultural workers, self employed, domestic servants, under the table employees, and employees of the CIA, DIA, NGA, and NSA).

So the hurricanes caused a lot of temp unemployment. We'll see a large increase on Friday.
Compare to the Current Population Survey, which counts as employed everyone age 16 and older who either worked during the week containing the 12th or were temporarily absent due to vacation, weather, etc.  That number went up over 900,000 in September.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> Ronald Reagan should fare much better, a lot of his stats were inherited from Carter


St Ronnie inherited a stable Jan 1981 7.6% U-3 rate and promptly jacked it up to nearly 11% by Nov and Dec 1982.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2017)

toobfreak said:


> Bill Clinton reaped the rewards of a lot that Reagan did to fix it.


And by that logic, DoTard Trump is reaping the rewards of what Obama did to fix Bush's economic disaster.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2017)

pinqy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



You have heard those conservatives who are claiming god is responsible for exposing Harvey Weinstein because he didn't support Trump, right?

OR this Pastor: Hurricane Harvey was God's punishment for Texas failure to pass anti-LGBT law



Well if that's true, consider that maybe god is punishing the US for electing Trump

President Barack Obama was the longest-serving president in U.S. history to have no major hurricanes strike the continental U.S. during his term of office, according to data published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

And then think about how GW Bush got hit on 9-11.  Clinton didn't.  Maybe that was god too?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2017)

pinqy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Yes we all know how unemployment numbers work.  Unfortunately you guys don't seem to remember when it's a Democrat in the white house. 

Up until the election Republicans were saying the 4% unemployment numbers weren't real.  Even Trump himself said so.  

Analysis | 19 times Trump called jobs numbers ‘fake’ before they made him look good

Unemployment numbers not 'phony' to Trump anymore - CNNPolitics

"I talked to the President prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now,' " Spicer said Friday from the White House podium, hours after the government announced 235,000 new jobs in February and a dip in the unemployment rate to 4.7% from 4.8%.

This is why I can't take Republicans seriously.  Either they are liars or fools being lied to who are just repeating those lies.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton reaped the rewards of a lot that Reagan did to fix it.
> ...



Remember every month for 75 months Obama had job gains and Republicans said big deal.  Not good enough.  Only 100,000 jobs gained?  Only 200,000 gained?  Pathetic.  Well now Trump has losses or no better numbers????  Where's the outrage?


----------



## RealDave (Oct 31, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




You are a lying fuck.

My God you people are such assholes.

Are you such a cowardly snively little girl that you have to lie to try to make Captain Bone Spur look good?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Actually, the lying scum Right said you needed 500,000 new jobs each month just to stay even with population growth and said the economy sucked if less were created. Now suddenly Tramp LOSES 33,000 jobs and the same lying scum Right say the economy is going gangbusters!!! 

June 5, 2015
RUSH: From the moment Obama did his Porkulus, *we needed 500,000 jobs a month just to stay even, and a little more than 500,000 jobs a month in order to grow the economy.*  And we haven't come close to 500,000 jobs in a month being created. 
Not even close!


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 31, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Irrelevant.
You should compare 10 year rates
been around 2% since Reagan, irrapective of Pres 
Now the trumpettes are having an orgasm of 3% this q.
Obama had > 3 % more than one Q 
It's the long term rates that matter.
Read Levinson he said whoever is in charge we will have trouble getting to 3% ever again
World changed folks


----------



## ph3iron (Oct 31, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Ronald Reagan should fare much better, a lot of his stats were inherited from Carter
> ...


Why did ronnies 10 yr average be 2+%


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


This is why I never take them seriously.  You can't be such bold faced hypocrites and liars and be taken seriously. 

What I love is Trump team members get busted colluding with Russia and they come back with more Hillary shit.  Unbelievable really.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Are you a righty?  Then I can't take you seriously.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 31, 2017)

ph3iron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



It changes only because of leftwing economic policies, moron.  The claim, which you deliberately got wrong, is that Obama didn't have a full year over 3%.  Many such years occurred prior to his reign of error.  Reagan had a full year over 5%.  Here's a comparison of GDP growth between Reagan and Obama:


----------



## Astrostar (Oct 31, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Thanks to Dubya, the 2nd worst President (after Trump).


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 31, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


They haven't been busted for anything, numskull, especially not collusion.


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 31, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Left-wing policies such as what, Dupe? GOP obstructed everything Obama and Clinton wanted to do. Obama just allowed our wonderful economy to recover on its own without a corrupt GOP bubble and bust as they always do it seems. We still have Reaganist tax rates and policies giving it away to the rich like The Last 35 years, silly Dupe.


----------



## pinqy (Nov 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


"You guys?"  For over 8 years I've been in these forums explaining pretty much every month how the unemployment numbers work. I can tell you, no, not everybody knows. And it doesn't matter at all to me if the President is a D or an R, my message has been consistent because I only deal with the facts.



> Up until the election Republicans were saying the 4% unemployment numbers weren't real.  Even Trump himself said so.


Look at any of my posts on unemployment during that time and you will find me arguing with Republicans explaining how the numbers are real and not manipulated.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2017)

_September’s numbers were also revised up to show gains of 18,000 after having been previously estimated to decline by 33,000. - Job gains miss expectations, unemployment rate hits lowest since December 2000_

Yay, the streak continues after all... 85 months of continuous job growth.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 3, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 10th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 10th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.44% in September to 4.41% in October.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.41%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 40 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, down from 63.1% in September.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for October 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 10th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 10th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.44% in September to 4.41% in October.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


^^^ still a meaningless statistic


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 3, 2017)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for October 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 10th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 10th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.44% in September to 4.41% in October.
> ...


Yet, here you are, once again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2017)

And the highest since WWII was Reagan.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


As are you.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2017)

There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.

Funny how the right almost never talks about that anymore.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 18, 2017)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.38%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 39 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, the same as it was in October.


----------



## miketx (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


CNN?


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


And how many inherited the worst recession since the 20s?


----------



## my2¢ (Dec 18, 2017)

Almost need two full terms to get a fair shake from the numbers.  Ford took office in the summer of 1974 and so his numbers had quite a bit to do with the Arab oil embargo of late 1973 that tanked American car sales as folks abandoned our gas guzzlers and switched over to economical imports from Japan.  

They may call it the Reagan Recession but it was Jimmy Carter who put in place Paul Volcker to slow the economy and attack a decade of runaway inflation.  

Likewise Obama inherited a mess.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> They may call it the Reagan Recession but it was Jimmy Carter who put in place Paul Volcker to slow the economy and attack a decade of runaway inflation.


It's called the Reagan Recession because the policies he enacted in 1981 caused it to peak Nov and Dec 1982.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 18, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > They may call it the Reagan Recession but it was Jimmy Carter who put in place Paul Volcker to slow the economy and attack a decade of runaway inflation.
> ...



You're forgetting that under Carter we had the all time highest misery index ever recorded.  Inflation was at 14% and unemplyment was at 7.5%.  Interest rates aren't even included in the Misery Index, but they were at 21% for consumer loands and 14% for mortages.  Fixing that couldn't be accomplished withut going through a recession.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 18, 2017)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > my2¢ said:
> ...



Great for us corporists though.
cD s were earning 12%


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2017)

Faun said:


> There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> 
> Funny how the right almost never talks about that anymore.








No, we talked about it all of the time.  And it takes time to bring companies back that obummer chased away.  obummer was the biggest destroyer of jobs this country has ever seen.  He not only caused people to lose their jobs from the abortion known as obummer care, but he actually caused those jobs to LEAVE this country.  Congrats, you're a moron.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> ...


All of which of course had nothing to do with the corrupt W bush World depression LOL! Super dupe.


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Seriously, do you understand anything... We have repeatedly explained that talking about average unemployment is like saying the team with the average score higher is better... Sorry it what you were given and what you give it back as, determines success or failure....


So if unemployment wasn't lowering Trump would have to actually sabotage it... Well done, Trump did nothing, just living of Obama's Coattails...

Actually, the only real success Trump has had is taking credit for Obama's coattails...


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...









No, it has everything to do with it super duper dupe.  There is a political class that has been running this country for decades to their advantage.  Morons like you think they are only one side.  Enlightened people, like me, KNOW that the political class is made up of Dems and repubs, they don't care who "wins" the POTUS job, they just make damned sure it is one of them.

Dipshits like you haven't figured it out yet because you're an ignorant hater dupe with your head shoved so far up your ass you can't see anything but brown.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2017)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> ...







Pure unadulterated bullpoo.  The reason why the economy is rising is because of trump.  The consumer confidence level is at its highest level in 17 years BECAUSE trump won, and is reversing the anti business, and anti employment tactics of your hero obummer.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It's a conspiracy!! In my lifetime and I'm 66 every corrupt recession and depression has been under Republicans, as well as this ridiculous tax rate system we have now that has caused the slow ruin of the non rich and the country and is about to get worse. Great job, GOP!


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> ...



Have to break it to you but unemployment dropped significantly under Obama...

Trumpsters are trying to take credit for Obama's coattails... They are getting very desperate for a win... VERY SAD....


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Nothing has changed under Trump except for the hopes of Wall Street for another corrupt bubble and following bust that the middle class will have to pay for it again.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 18, 2017)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


Bill Clinton caused the Great Recession with his mortgage policies


----------



## idb (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


On the month of President Obama’s first inauguration in January 2009, the US economy bled nearly 800,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was speeding toward its peak of 10 percent.

He leaves office with the jobless rate down to 4.7 percent in December, wages showing their strongest pickup in seven years, and the recovery finally reaching to the bottom rungs of the US labor market.
Obama leaves office with unemployment at 4.7 percent - The Boston Globe


----------



## idb (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> ...


On the month of President Obama’s first inauguration in January 2009, the US economy bled nearly 800,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was speeding toward its peak of 10 percent.

He leaves office with the jobless rate down to 4.7 percent in December, wages showing their strongest pickup in seven years, and the recovery finally reaching to the bottom rungs of the US labor market.
Obama leaves office with unemployment at 4.7 percent - The Boston Globe


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



VERY SAD... Just look at the numbers, Obama was the true leader... Trump is looking VERY SAD....


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2017)

CowboyTed said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...








Yeah, we ARE looking at the REAL numbers.  Not the cooked up fraudulent bullshit the obummer admin was shoveling to you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 18, 2017)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...








And every move he made to make it better actually made things worse.  Congrats you don't know how to interpret data.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


*I suppose you think that worst recession since the great depression which began before he took office had nothing to do with the high employment rate.*


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 18, 2017)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.41% in October to 4.38% in November.
> ...



Hey, this is just the objective fact of what the average unemployment was while the said President was in office. Raw facts. Just like your Grade Point Average from school.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



That recession ended 6 months after he took office. He would be in office for another 7.5 years beyond the end of that recession.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2017)

Flopper said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



if Obama has switched toward capitalism unemployment would have come down quickly. Being anti-business communist ("you didn't build that")  during recession is not helpful.


----------



## skews13 (Dec 18, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Well, that's the BS version, which the faithful and the stupid will buy into.

Lets look at the facts.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-in-8-charts&usg=AOvVaw2QWZKonUSAs2NPtXVELq7Y


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2017)

skews13 said:


> Lets look at the facts.



 and what do we learn from the facts?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Pure unadulterated bullpoo. The reason why *the economy is rising is because of trump. The consumer confidence level is at its highest level in 17 years BECAUSE trump won*, and is reversing the anti business, and anti employment tactics of your hero obummer.


Now that really is "Pure unadulterated bullpoo!"


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...


BULLSHIT!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Yeah, we ARE looking at the REAL numbers. Not the cooked up fraudulent bullshit the obummer admin was shoveling to you.


BULLSHIT!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> And every move he made to make it better actually made things worse. Congrats you don't know how to *interpret* data.


Your "interpretation" is PURE BULLSHIT!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> if Obama has switched toward capitalism unemployment would have come down quickly. Being anti-business communist ("you didn't build that") during recession is not helpful.


The BULLSHIT from the Right never ends!!!


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 18, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


explain what caused the Great Recession


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And every move he made to make it better actually made things worse. Congrats you don't know how to *interpret* data.
> ...


can the liberal say why it is BS? Does it even occur to a liberal  have a reason?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> explain what caused the Great Recession



massive liberal govt interference in free market. Fan/fred owned or guaranteed 75% of alt a and subprime at time of crisis.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


Bush in order to try to take minority voters away from the Dems in the run-up to the 2004 election, set out to put 5.5 million minority families in houses they could not afford. He eliminated the requirement of good credit for no down payment loans and allowed banks to make those no down payment loans for more than the house was worth.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The BS artist gave no reason for his BS, so I need no reason to call him on his BS.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 19, 2017)

Faun said:


> There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> 
> Funny how the right almost never talks about that anymore.


Out of the labor force - does that figure include those laboring at selling drugs, mugging people, pimping and prostitution ?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 19, 2017)

U2Edge said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*The recession official ends when there are two consecutive quarters of GDP growth.  Unemployment is a lagging indicator and usually is at it's peak when the recession ends.  For example, in the 1981-82 recession which ended in Nov 1982 with an unemployment at it's peak of 10.8%.

In Nov 2009 unemployment began a slow but steady improvement from a peak of 10.2% to a low 4.6%. *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Makes perfect sense to a liberal 2 wrongs make a right?? See why we say slow.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


No, 2 wrongs make THE Right. Slowpoke!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


substance free typical liberal clown


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 20, 2017)

This is NOT rocket science......

America at it's greatest is what you get under Right wing leadership.

Venezuela is what you get under Left wing leadershit

If you're not familiar with the situation in Venezuela, your right to post is revoked immediately.


----------



## Faun (Dec 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > There is now a record number of people out of the labor force, *95,358,000*, as the labor force participation rate drops to tie the lowest it's been under Trump at *62.7%*.
> ...


What a pity you don't understand the meaning of the word, _*"anymore"*_.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 27, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Typical Right-wing hypocrite.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 27, 2017)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> This is NOT rocket science......
> 
> America at it's greatest is what you get under Right wing leadership.
> 
> ...


Nazi Germany is what you get under Right-wing hateful leadership.

Denmark is what you get under Left-wing leadership.

If you're not familiar with the situation in Nazi Germany, your right to post is revoked immediately.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.38% in November to 4.35% in December.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.35%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 38 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, the same as it was in November.


----------



## Faun (Jan 5, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.38% in November to 4.35% in December.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Thanks, Obama!


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 2, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for January 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 13th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 13th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.35% in December to 4.33% in January 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.33%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 37 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, the same as it was in December. 

If 4.1% or lower unemployment continues for the next 6 months Trump will reach #1 on this list with the lowest average unemployment rate ever for a US President. But keeping the unemployment rate this low for the rest of his Presidency will be very difficult. The rate will likely rise which may push his position back down on the list even if he does briefly reach #1 this year.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 10, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.31%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 36 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 63%, up from 62.7% in January 2018. 

If 4.1% or lower unemployment continues for the next 6 months Trump will reach #1 on this list with the lowest average unemployment rate ever for a US President. But keeping the unemployment rate this low for the rest of his Presidency will be very difficult. The rate will likely rise which may push his position back down on the list even if he does briefly reach #1 this year.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



This is such a revealing statistic! It shows how truly awesome Trump is and how awful Obama was.

Thanks for the constant updates to this very important information!.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


All you need to do is juxtapose energy costs against those ratings and a clear pattern emerges. 
Not coincidentally, the only time high energy prices were _caused_ by American energy policy was under Obama.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> ...



Yeah...that must be why the UE rate rose so drastically while Obama was POTUS. You nailed it!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Exactly. Unemployment (more people out of work) rose under obama because Obama's reimposition of oil extraction restrictions drove the cost of energy up and squeezed down the economy.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> ...


Which energy policy was he using since Bush and company set up the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that Oblama was following...?


----------



## Rustic (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> ...


Obama is the biggest shit stain on the list...


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


So that's how the US became an exporter of oil again and a major producer in the world?


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Grunt a little harder and maybe history will rewrite itself..


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The one that Obama reversed that was put in place at the end of September 2008.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Yet it didn't hinder the oil production capacity that drove the price of oil down due to overproduction by US companies


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Whoa!!! That's so smart! I hope I can be as smart as you someday!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I know, right! And that color....it just matches!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


That increased due to fracking that Obama opposed but couldn't prevent. What's more, the export factor is less relevant than the _global_ supply factor.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


And the global supply rose which caused the price of oil to drop..During Obama....


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Before you comment on another post, please learn to read, dumbass!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Thank god! It was Bush policy and congressional acquiescence that brought about the supply potential which drove the price back down. Obama reversed that immediately upon entering office.


----------



## Rustic (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Half black in all 57 states and under sniper fire?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

Shhhh! Moonglow ! Don't tell him that the UE rate dropped steadily while Obama was POTUS! It's a well kept secret!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I don't think that's possible. You can't even rebut simple obvious facts.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I know! Like how you think Obama's policies caused the UE rate to rise. That's a hard one to rebut right there. I don't care who ya are.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


_In spite of Obama_. That was a result of fracking, 2014 and beyond. The previous six years were Obama's fault directly.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Unemployment is a result of contracted economy. High energy costs contract the economy.


----------



## basquebromance (Mar 10, 2018)

Trump radiates strength. Obama was weak. what a change!


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

What this shows is Trump walked into a healthy economy with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent because of Obama.


----------



## basquebromance (Mar 10, 2018)

TRUMP: "We're saving the steel and a lot of steel mills are now opening up because of what I did... steel is back. It's gonna be back."


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> Trump radiates strength. Obama was weak. what a change!



Trump radiates none of that.


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> TRUMP: "We're saving the steel and a lot of steel mills are now opening up because of what I did... steel is back. It's gonna be back."



LOL!


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...





What the fuck does that even say?

You need to go back to basics.  Try writing simple sentences that convey straight forward factual information.  Like

The wall is blue

My desk is big

There is a spider crawling up my arm.

You get so lost in being sarcastic that you fail to make any sense at all along the way


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Shhhh! Moonglow ! Don't tell him that the UE rate dropped steadily while Obama was POTUS! It's a well kept secret!



Yes, people kept giving up on finding a job and dropping out of labor participation.

Every time someone stopped looking, you and your leftist brethren just cheered.  And another one gives up!  Bam!

Labor participation did nothing but fall under Obama.  Good job on that.  Socialist policies work!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Shhhh! Moonglow ! Don't tell him that the UE rate dropped steadily while Obama was POTUS! It's a well kept secret!
> ...



Dude. Why do you keep poking me? It never ends well for you. Are you a masochist?


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



When has it ever ended up badly for me?  Stop reading your own propaganda


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Shhhh! Moonglow ! Don't tell him that the UE rate dropped steadily while Obama was POTUS! It's a well kept secret!
> ...



And that's why Obama cut the unemployment rate from over 10 percent to 4.5.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Every time. I bring simple facts. You bring opinion and rhetoric. I always win. 

The low participation rate has more to do with people being freed up quit bullshit jobs and start businesses due to OBAMACARE and people retiring than it does with your weird bogeyman. 

The idea that people who wanted jobs stopped looking because jobs were not available is simply not supported by evidence. 

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. I'll wait.


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Whatever turns you on, guy


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yes.  People didn't find jobs, they quit looking.  The labor participation rate kept dropping


----------



## kaz (Mar 10, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You have a long wait ahead of you.  You don't have the balls to back up anything or answer questions, so as you know, your right to ask questions has been removed.

You actually think your teenage insults and internet macho act is good, don't you?  You really do?  Admit it, you think it's actually some good rhetoric.

Remember this classic?

Uh, duh, dar, you're gay, kaz.

Next post:  You actually are gay, kaz, you're gay

I haven't heard wit like that since I was 13


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Not so.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Never said any of that. Not even close.

Are you confusing me with someone else again?


----------



## skews13 (Mar 10, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...





Barack Obama. President with longest streak of job growth in US history. Brings back America from Greatest Republican Depression, since the great Republican Depression of the 1930's. Ends war in Iraq at same time, Restores America's reputation in the world. Will go down as one of America's greatest Presidents.

U.S. enjoying its longest-lasting streak of jobs growth


----------



## Thinker101 (Mar 10, 2018)

IM2 said:


> What this shows is Trump walked into a healthy economy with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent because of Obama.



Sure, your comment shows you're about a bright as a bucket of bolts.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 10, 2018)

kaz said:


> Yes, people kept giving up on finding a job and dropping out of labor participation.


There are more people not in the labor force now than when Obama left office.


----------



## skews13 (Mar 10, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > What this shows is Trump walked into a healthy economy with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent because of Obama.
> ...



https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02032017.pdf


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

Thinker101 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > What this shows is Trump walked into a healthy economy with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent because of Obama.
> ...



Actually this comment shows I am right.


----------



## IM2 (Mar 10, 2018)

skews13 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



And so this shows Trump walked into the office with a healthy economy and I was off .3 of 1 percent.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

IM2 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



You're just factually wrong.  Obama reigned over historically low labor participation rates


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Which is the fault of companies  not the president..The companies in the US are very age discrimination, so many over fifty can't get jobs, which again is not due to what the president does..The laying of all at the feet of the president is most dienginious.....


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Probably Wry Catcher again.  I can't tell the two of you apart


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, people kept giving up on finding a job and dropping out of labor participation.
> ...



Factually incorrect.  It also doesn't contradict my point that labor participation was historically low under Obama which is what drove down the unemployment rate


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



When YOU are the only one who has a problem, maybe YOU should work on it. Repeating the same error over and over isn't a good sign.


----------



## Deno (Mar 11, 2018)

Lakhota said:


>




What a Friggin Hoot…

Compare that to what you liberals and your lying media

have tried to do to Trump…

President Trump has out SMARTED you at every turn.

obongo was a RACIST SOCIALIST community organizer

and Americas first affirmative action President…

President Trump has exposed you liberals and obongo  

and your lying media for the fools you are……………..


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



You're just making up your shit as you go.

What you are saying is you'd never see that Democrats are responsible for anything ever


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"; in ;this post we see the missing one:  A lie by omission.

Ford, Reagan, Obama and Carter all inherited a shit hole economy.

Thus this thread is a damn lie by omission using statistics.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 11, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


That is why the drive toward liberalism is insane.  It has NEVER WORKED...and IT NEVER WILL.  Take a long look at what liberalism has done to our big cities.....and states.  They are fucked up beyond belief.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 11, 2018)

asaratis said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Which cities and states are fucked beyond belief? Add some data, please.


----------



## skews13 (Mar 11, 2018)

Americas first affirmative action President…

Obama won twice with over 50% of the vote.

Failed comment.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 11, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


San Francisco
California
Dearborn
Detroit
Hamtramck
Reno
Chicago
New York City
St. Louis
Philadelphia

These Are The 5 Worst-Run Major American Cities

....all run by liberals.


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Yes, because baby boomers began retiring in record numbers. When a person retires, they leave the labor force.

2006 30,971,472 ......... 516,174 
2007 31,525,098 ......... 553,626 
2008 32,273,145 ......... 748,047 
2009 33,512,913 ....... 1,239,768 
2010 34,592,322 ....... 1,079,409 

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Baby boomers began hitting age 62 in 2008. Not surprisingly, we see the number of baby boomers retiring in 2008 rising drastically. It's been roughly double since then; compared to what it was before.

There are certainly other factors in the labor force participation rate, but that measures demographics, not policies set by a president.

You really do have shit fer brains.


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> ...


He's been told that repeatedly. Reality is too pesky to interfere with his dementia.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


  Being handed the worst recession in 60 years has its problems.  But hery, be a fucking dumbass & ignore it.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2018)

asaratis said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You mean like when you take office with a surplus on the way to paying off the debt & end with the worst recession in 60 years?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

RealDave said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



W did suck.  What's funny is how W got us in a recession by following Slick's policies, then Obama fixed us by following W's policies.  Leftists are bizarre people.

BTW, we never had a surplus.  The national debt went up every year.  And when you count it in accrual terms, it went up massively.  You don't know what that means, do you?  You need a Democrat to give you a talking point to parrot


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


  W  H  A  T????????

W cut taxes.  That is NOT following Clinton's plan.

We had a BUDGET surplus.

I realize how embarrassing it must be for you that we had what you conservatives masturbate to - a balanced budget & then your party blew it.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



If we had a "budget surplus," then why did the national debt go up every year?

A hint.  Politicians lie.

And we haven't even started talking unfunded liabilities.

You don't know what accrual accounting even is, do you?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Spin ^^^ won't turn.  Clinton reduced the annual deficit.  Thus the spin above is a lie by omission.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 11, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Still, there was no surplus...as claimed by lying democrats.


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


_"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt." ~ Newt Gingrich, lying Democrat_


----------



## asaratis (Mar 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Newt Gingrich has been a Republican for decades, dufus.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 11, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Damn. I LOVE how stupid you are. It validates all functional retards.


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2018)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Figures you wouldn’t know that answer


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Wait, so when RealDave said there was a surplus, now a "surplus" means Clinton "reduced the annual deficit?"


And  I  am the one spinning?

Sit down there, pardner, you're going to pass out


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It's hysterical after changing the definition of "surplus" to "reduced deficit," he accused me of spining



And in an accrual sense, the deficit under Clinton was massive


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


LIAR!


----------



## jillian (Mar 11, 2018)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?



they average that in because they know it includes bush's crash. 

but then again, the Obama deranged loons never do anything honestly.


----------



## jillian (Mar 11, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



you noticed that, too, huh?


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> Wait, so when RealDave said there was a surplus, now a "surplus" means Clinton "reduced the annual deficit?"


That's the way Snooty Newtie and the 1990s GOP Congress defined it.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 11, 2018)

jillian said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Exactly, when they calculate Bush II's and Obama's debt they use the calendar year so Bush gets the Clinton budget surplus and Obama gets the Bush crash, but when they claim that the GOP National Debt never went down under Clinton, they suddenly abandon the calendar year for the fiscal year because in calendar year 2,000 the GOP National Debt went down under Clinton. Then the lying scum HYPOCRITES accuse others of moving the goalposts they just moved.

National debt for calendar year 2,000:
01/03/2000 $5,751,743,092,605.50
01/02/2001 $5,728,739,508,558.96


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Kazzer.

The lowest the labor force participation rate ever was under Obama was still higher than it was prior to the mid-70’s. i.e., not historically low.


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Kazzer. Do you ever stop kazzing? Ever??

More people are out of the labor force now than when Obama left office.

1/2017: 94,364,000
2/2018: 95,012,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Or are you so brain-dead, you _think_ 94 million is more than 95 million?


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're just wrong, dude.  The labor force participation has gone up.  You're just full of shit.

It doesn't contradict anything I said anyway, but you're just wrong


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Learn to read your OWN post. YOU said people give up looking for work and drop out, that is the number of people "not in the labor force" not the LFPR. More people have dropped out since Tramp took over. Even Tramp says the drop outs are the REAL unemployment rate, not the U-3 or the LFPR.

JAN. 11, 2017
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — *96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.*


----------



## Faun (Mar 11, 2018)

kaz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You kazzer, he said there are more *people* out of the labor  force now than when Obama left office; and there are. You don’t get to switch to the rate just because you made an ass of yourself again. It’s too late for that.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...



Figures you aren't a math wizard, too.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


so what is it that makes it a math problem to solve?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Consider when Obama took office we were losing nearly a million jobs a month.  Graphs are a much better tool to understand the issue,  using the average is to lie by omission:

See:  https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


still not sure how that has anything to do with math.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Liberals are proud of their ability to lie and spin.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


You actually think you made a point.  That is one of your occasional delusions.  The only point you have is at the top of your head.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


LOL

Everyone else got it even though you’re too thick to get it.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Had it been left alone, your fake news would have convinced more liberal idiots of your deliberate lie.  Try being truthful, at least once in a while.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


If Liberalism is a mental disorder, you’re the biggest Liberal here. 

I quoted Gingrich taking credit for the budget surpluses.... how is that fake news?


----------



## RealDave (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



"
President Clinton today projected that the United States will have a $1.9 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. He said the increase in the expected surplus means the government will be debt-free by 2010.

The fiscal 2001 budget surplus was projected at $256 billion, White House officials said. The fiscal 2000 surplus was $237 billion, officials said, which capped four straight years of budget surpluses.

This was the first time the country has had four straight budget surpluses since 1930, officials said.

The increase in the surplus, which does not include the Social Security or the Medicare surplus, marks the ninth consecutive year in which the government’s bottom line has improved, a first. In June, Clinton projected a 10-year surplus of $1.87 trillion. The new figure was $300 million higher."

Clinton Projects $1.9 Trillion Budget Surplus
We hads a fucking budget surplus.  Quit your fucking lying about it.

We had it.

'And you & your worthless party  took that & led us to the worst recession in 60 fucking years.

That is the truth.  You can cry & stomp your feet & deny it all you want.

You party sucks.  It can't manage anything & its members are too fucking stupid to know it.

RThios 9as how we got Trump.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...





RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Trump is lying using the same fake math that Clinton used.

That Trump told the same lie doesn't make Clinton's lie truth.

I keep pointing out two things you keep running away from.

1)  If Clinton ran a surplus, then why did the deficit go up every year?

2)  Explain that you understand unfunded liabilities and accrual accounting

Government would never allow a corporation to report it's numbers the way government repeats theirs.  Management would go to jail.

Government grasps it.  They are lying


----------



## RealDave (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you do not know what a budget surplus is.  shut the fuck up until you find out.

You are embarrassing yourself.

The government does not use accrual accounting.  Another subject you evidently don't know shit about.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



That's what I said, moron.  The government doesn't use accrual accounting.

That's why I asked you to demonstrate you understand unfunded liabilities and WHY the government doesn't use accrual accounting.

Classic, you don' even understand the question and you're calling me stupid.

And you don't know what budget "surpluses" have to do with the national debt.

Explain what happened to unfunded liabilities under Clinton and why that's important to their not being counted in the so called budget surplus


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He took credit for reducing the deficit, not for creating a surplus.  Apparently you do not understand the difference between deficit and debt.

He is definitely not a democrat.  

He did not lie.

You did.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



You really think that Faun was trying to claim that Newt is a Dem?

That's why you are a moron. You don't understand simple shit.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Swish.  Another illiterate leftist.

He wasn't saying that Newt is a Democrat.  He said that Newt isn't a Democrat, so he isn't lying.

Now you can agree or disagree with that, but you failed to even read it. 

Another government school educated failure


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

RealDave said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You dingbats continue to insist that Clinton produced surpluses.  How silly can you get.

Bill Clinton Legacy of Myththology and Surplus.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



OMG. The stupid is blinding.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



From the guy who couldn't even read the post


----------



## RealDave (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


  Facts really confuse the Trumpettes.

Budget Surplus:  Budget Surplus


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


LOL

Newt said, _”I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt.”_

How does merely reducing the deficit pay off $405 billion in debt without a surplus?

Keep digging.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


From post #3446


			
				faun said:
			
		

> _"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt." ~ Newt Gingrich, lying Democrat_



That is clearly meant to imply a quote of Newt Gingrich.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL 

How would you know what I said? You’re pretending to have me on ignore, remember?

Kaz caught kazzing once again.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Imply? That is a quote from Newt Gingrich.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Post some lies I’ve told. Looks to me like you’re projecting now.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Apparently, you are correct about the quote.  But you did lie in implying he is a democrat.
FACT CHECK: Gingrich off on his budget history – Twin Cities

Kudos for being half-assed truthful.

He did correct his statement later.

Newt Gingrich revises claim on balanced budgets, improves Truth-O-Meter rating

I see you missed that part.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Give me a few months to look over your 13000+ posts.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Nope, when I said he was a lying Democrat, *I was mocking you*, ya dumb fucking moron. That’s the point that sailed clear over your head. That’s the point you don’t get.

Now where have I lied? Either prove that or demonstrate for the forum you’re the liar, not me.....


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


LOL

You said I “lie a lot.” How difficult could it be to quote me lying if that were true?


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


By the way, the part he “corrected” was he went from saying he balanced four budgets, even though he wasn’t even in office during 2 of those years, to saying we had 4 balanced budgets.

But he was still lying since there were zero balanced budgets.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Every time you tout liberalism as a worthy cause, you lie.  That's a lot.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


LOL

As expected, you couldn’t find a single quote.



You’re the best alibi that I’m an honest poster that I could have hoped for.

On the flip side, you also showed you’re actually a liar — so I can’t really rely on you as a solid alibi.

Oh well, c’est la vie.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Explain the accrual sense, not its meaning but how you come to make this claim.

I didn't claim a surplus, everyone knows we spend more than we collect in revenue.  The gap was smaller during Clinton's final years in office.

The new Tax Bill will create more debt, and expand the income / wealth inequality.  It's not what Trump&Co + Ryan and the Republicans say, it is what they've done.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Oh, I found one where you referred to 300,000K new jobs....repeatedly.  It's really not worth the effort to prove to a liberal that liberals lie a lot.  You people actually think you're telling the truth.

The condition of big liberal cities and liberal states tells the truth.  All you fuckers are liars.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


LOL

Suffice it to say, if you could quote me lying, ya would have.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Accrual accounting would count unfunded liabilities.  It's not that complicated.

Government continued to promise government pensions, social security, medicare, USPS and other liabilities that are mostly unfunded and entirely underfunded.

Even if Clinton had balanced the budget in a cash sense, our liabilities under him grew enormously.  Clinton also personally did nothing.  It was Newt who restricted spending growth, not Slick.

It's like saying your budget is balanced because you put charges on your credit card and not counting your increased credit card debt as debt


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I'm NOT RealDave.   

For the record:

Is the U.S. Deficit Really That Bad?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



The direct issue is not the deficit, it's the national debt.  National debts which reach 100% of annual GDP are when countries are considered to have a read debt issue because too much of our budget is just servicing the debt.  We are reaching Greece levels.  And that doesn't count unfunded liabilities.

Yes, the deficits are real issues


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


All in the thread "313,000 Jobs"


WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?

                                                                                             #182  #194





Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is still around 40% as we now have over 100 million people who are not working.        #77



Unemployment is a totally phony number.   #81



The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good.   #91



Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real.     #95


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Of course they are, and yet Trump&Co cut taxes for those who don't need a tax cut, and gave a pittance to those who do. 

If you own treasury bills, you hold some of the debt.  Millions of Americans do, and so do foreign governments and non citizens.  The tax bill will create more debt; passing protective tariffs will create higher prices for the American's who consume goods in vastly more volume than those who benefit from this tax fraud.

Trump and the Republicans have created the next Great Recession.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Good grief, you really are stupid.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> He [Gingrich] took credit for reducing the deficit, not for creating a surplus.


_“When I became speaker, the Congressional Budget Office projected $2.7 trillion in deficit over the next 10 years. Four years later, when I left the speakership, the Congressional Budget projected a $2.3 trillion *surplus* over the next 10 years."_
-Newt Gingrich, in a video announcing his campaign, May 11, 2011


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Apparently, you are correct about the quote. But you did lie in* implying he is a democrat*.


You gotta just love the perpetual Right-wing dumb act!!!


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You changed subject, but note what I said:

Unsustainable debt is considered as the debt reaching GDP.

Tax cuts increase the GDP, they don't just increase the debt.

Your argument didn't flow.

We have a spending problem.  And no, Trump is doing nothing about that.  But the tax cut was not the problem.

Furthermore, our companies were severely hampered by our corporate tax structure.  Trump made it more even, which is great for jobs.  Not having jobs does not help with either deficits or GDP.

You have to look at the whole picture.  You can't argue like you're doing one factoid and just assume everything else will stay the same


----------



## charwin95 (Mar 12, 2018)

IM2 said:


> What this shows is Trump walked into a healthy economy with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent because of Obama.



But for some reason Trump followers forget all of that. It really doesn’t matter who is the POTUS Graham, Cruz, Hillary, Sanders, Paul, etc etc....... The economy still be this good.
I’m still waiting MAGA start working.


----------



## charwin95 (Mar 12, 2018)

basquebromance said:


> TRUMP: "We're saving the steel and a lot of steel mills are now opening up because of what I did... steel is back. It's gonna be back."



That is a big lie...... That dumb and stupid about tariffs has NOT even started yet. Even his own party 100 GOPs signed and rejected it. 
This is the problem with followers like you believing everything coming from fake messiah.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Beyond stupid.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


You're an idiot. And that's not a lie either.

_WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?_​
That is not a lie. Someone claimed anything less than 300,000 jobs added per month was "sub-par job growth" and I challenged him/her/whatever on it. What you're idiotically calling a lie is me mistakenly typing "300,000K" instead of either "300,000" or "300K." My intent was clear since I was responding to someone posting about 300K monthly jobs.

_Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is still around 40% as we now have over 100 million people who are not working._​
You're right that 40% unemployment is a lie -- Donald Trump said it was 42% when it was about a point higher than it is now and I was mocking him.

_Unemployment is a totally phony number._​
You're right, that is a lie -- Donald Trump said it and I was quoting him.

_The numbers are phony. These are all phony numbers. Numbers given to politicians to look good._​
You're right, that is a lie -- Donald Trump said it and I was quoting him.
_
Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real._​
That is not a lie. Folks on the right were calling the falling unemployment rate, "phony numbers." See my Trump quotes above as an example. Now those folks call the unemployment figures real.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Unemployment numbers vary depending on how they are calculated.

What's the 'Real' Jobless Rate? - FactCheck.org

You lied when you posted 300,000K.  I would have written it off as a stupid error, but you repeated the same 300,000K in a later post.

You lied when you said all unemployment rate numbers are phony.  They are phony.  They are calculated in at least 4 different ways.  

Then you lied about your own lie by saying the Obama's good numbers were being attacked as phony.  Both of these cannot be true.

Spin as you wish.  You lied. You lie when it fits your narrative.  That is expected of liberals.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


You remain an imbecile. Again, I was quoting Trump when I said the unemployment numbers are phony. And there's only one official unemployment rate. And of course Obama's good numbers were attacked as phony -- hence, the Trump quote.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 13, 2018)

Faun said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Yet, you keep coming to my thread. Why?


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 13, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 14th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 14th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.33% in January to 4.31% in February 2018.
> ...



I guess the bureau of labor statistics is lying as well. This is the average unemployment rate that each President had in office regardless of what you think about each President and their role in the economy. It also reflects what life was like in terms of getting a job while each of these Presidents was in office. It is 100% factual! Your opinion about it is not.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 13, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Your failure to identify whom you are quoting in a lie is merely a repeat of the lie.  It is rather stupid to do so and then later claim you were quoting someone else.  You are a disingenuous, liberal liar.

He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers. Charles Peguy


----------



## asaratis (Mar 13, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Again, you did not acknowledge that you were quoting anybody.  You merely repeated lies.  It is you that is the imbecile here.  That is scary in that you appear to be among the small group of liberals here that have the higher intellect within the group.


----------



## Faun (Mar 13, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You keep repeating your bullshit — so I keep pointing out it’s bullshit. Who knows why that’s above your comprehension level?


----------



## Faun (Mar 13, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


What’s predictable, and not scary, is how you conservatives lie, lie, lie. No wonder the right elected Lyin’ David Dennison.

You _claim_ I didn’t acknowledge I was quoting anyone — but that’s false. That’s just you, lying yet again.

In that same thread you pulled those quotes from... I said, _*”I was quoting Donald Trump. He said that.”*_

Now say you’re sorry.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 13, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Posting the latest figures from the Bureau of labor statistics is not bullshit. Its simple fact as is the list. Claiming someone is dumb or suffers from dementia is an opinion and not a very polite one that does not contribute anything to the discussion. *Mod edit: NO Family*


----------



## Faun (Mar 13, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Who said posting the latest BLS figures is bullshit? Not I. I've more than clarified the bullshit you hurl in the way you abuse those figures.

Don't forget, according to you, Obama did a better job than Reagan when it comes to employment. I know that's retarded; but that's who you are.


----------



## asaratis (Mar 13, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I'm not sorry.  Saying that you are quoting Trump in one post does not translate to quoting Trump in all posts thereafter...and I do believe your claim was after the fact.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 16, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not. Its simply a fact. 

According to the BLS, Obama had a lower average unemployment while in office than Reagan. That's not "retarded", that's just a fact. A fact that you refer to as "Bullshit". 

Then on top of all that, you decide to refer to me as being "retarded" or suffering from "dementia". Again, I ask you, did your mother raise you to behave toward other individuals like this? Are you capable of being polite, respectful and objective?


----------



## Faun (Mar 16, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


No, it’s a simple number, but breaking it down by presidential terms is meaningless.

And my mother tried, but she failed in that department. I believe in treating idiots like idiots.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 16, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Do you know what an average measures?  Over 8 years, an average takes monthly numbers, adds them together and then divides by 96.  If (which was the case), thus:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data





One need not be a rocket scientist to evaluate this graph ^^^ and comprehend Obama's term of  eight years not only reversed the trend, but continued to add jobs for his entire 8 years in office.  Posting an average when jobs were disappearing per month during his first year in office, is misleading and a lie by omission.

On his first day in office, UE was at 7.8, and grew to 10.0 by Oct of '09; by his last day in office the UE rate was down to 4.8, and continued to fall until it stabilized at 4.1 in Oct. 2017, where it remained through Feb. 2018.

Of course Republicans and their fellow travelers believe Obama was responsible for the first 10 months of 2009, and Trump is to be applauded for the first 10 months of 2017.

Q.  How is that?

A.  Because lies and magical thinking drives their rhetoric.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 26, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



1. Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.
2. Students are evaluated by by GPA, Grade Point Average, because simply looking at the first test and the last test would leave out way to much important information. 
3. Every President in the list is evaluated by the exact same criteria. No special treatment for anyone. 
4. For most of Obama's time in office, Unemployment was very high and the average man on the street struggled to get a job. That's just a fact. 
5. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low, and the average man on the street had good job prospects. That's just a fact.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 26, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its what the average man on the street faced in terms of getting a job while a certain person occupied the White House. Its very relevant. 

Most mature, honest, professional, and objective people don't engage in name calling. Most left that behind in childhood if they ever engaged in it. It adds nothing to your point of view and if anything weakens it.


----------



## Faun (Mar 26, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


As has been explained to you repeatedly, averaging the unemployment rate doesn't provide any insight whatsoever to the job a president is doing in terms of employment on their watch.

Case in point -- according to your nonsense, a president with an average unemployment rate based on this....






is doing just as good of a job as the president with an average unemployment rate based on this....






Now do you understand why you look like such an idiot?


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 26, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




That's a far too narrow an interpretation of the data. Typically, unemployment rises and falls many times in a single administration let alone two. Your selecting an outlier in an attempt to undercut the raw data. But it actually does not do that. 
The fact, is, on average, either way in the examples you listed above, the man on the street faced high unemployment levels on average while either President was in office. You would miss all that data if you only looked at the first month and the last month which is what you suggest doing.

The average considers ALL THE DATA and shows what it was like for the man on the street, on average, while a certain person was in the White House. That is why it is relevant. 

1. You obviously think it is relevant because you keep coming back to this thread. 
2. Name calling is childish and irrelevant to what is being discussed. 
3. Name calling only undermines the person engaging in it.


----------



## Faun (Mar 26, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


I keep coming back because you keep lying.

Name calling isn't childish when it fits.

It's your own premise which undermines your argument.

While this produces the same exact average unemployment rate....






... as this ...






... a president with the former would have added millions of jobs while the latter would have lost millions.

Your attempt to equate two polar opposite movements in the unemployment rate remain utterly ridiculous.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not.* Its simply a fact.*


A worthless useless incomplete "fact."


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 26, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. *Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.*


So you are saying that the first and last month is just as worthless and incomplete as the average without the overall trend line.
Actually no you are not, you are too STUPID to see the impotance of the overall trend line!


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.30%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 35 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, down from 63% in February 2018.

This is the longest period of time that the unemployment rate has been at 4.1% or lower, 6 months now, since the 15 month period it was at that rate or lower during the Clinton administration, October 1999 through December 2000. Before that, you have to go back to the late 1960s and the early 1950s to find unemployment this low for months on end.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


And still as meaningless as it was last month.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Most 96 month periods see the Unemployment rise and fall many times. That is why the average is taken. *Looking at ONLY the first month and the last month leaves out way to much data.*
> ...



Unemployment goes up and down many times during an administration. There is rarely if ever a perfect trend line going down every month for 96 months or one going up ever month for 96 months. You typically will have multiple cycles of up and down trends over a 96 month period of time. You take the average to understand what the man on the street was dealing with typically during a particular administrations time in office, from month to month. You won't see any of that if you just look at the first month and the last month of a 96 month period. The average is important to know and is very relevant. That's why there are such things as GPA Grade Point Average for students, and other methods of assessing a workers average performance on a job. If averages don't matter as you say, then that criteria would never been used in rating students or workers. 

Finally, if you think this is stupid or I'm stupid, why do you even bother looking at the thread? The fact that you keep posting in here only undermines your claim in that regard.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.
> ...



Yet, you sit their waiting for days on end(an entire month) to post in this thread. If its meaningless, why bother even clicking on the thread? Your participation in this thread only increases its visibility to others.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > All it is, is the average unemployment rate while each President was in office according to the BLS. Your claiming that its "bullshit". But its not.* Its simply a fact.*
> ...



Averages matter, that's why they are used to assess worker performance as wells students grades.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How is posting factual data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Lying"?

Your singular argument is not typically what is seen over a 96 month period. You usually will have multiple up and down times over such a long period. But even in the rare situation you describe, its still important to know what the average was from month to month because that is what the man on the street was dealing with. Yes a students who's grades gradually got better as time went on would have the same GPA as a student who's grades got gradually worse as time went on. Does that make GPA an irrelevant measure of student performance? No, absolutely not. Would it be important in that case to go beyond a students GPA and reward the student who got gradually better over time? Yes, of course. But again, that is not a disqualification for using the average in an assessment of performance. 

Again, Unemployment is just one metric in looking at the economy. Its important to know the average and consider it.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The lie is you assigning a value to a president as though it reflects on the job they did regarding employment; which, as you’ve been shown over and over again, it does no such thing.


----------



## AntiTrump (Apr 6, 2018)

President Obama created 17.267 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 12.8 percent increase. There were 152.111 million people employed at the end of his term. That's compared to 134.844 million working at the end of the Bush Administration.

But that doesn't give the total picture. The economy lost 8.7 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until January 2010. Since that low point, Obama created 22.309 million jobs, a 17.2 percent increase. 

Obama attacked the Great Recession with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It created jobs through public works. Many of those jobs were in construction. That successfully reduced the unemployment rate. But that meant Obama increased the debt by $7.9 trillion, a 67 percent increase. That drove the debt to GDP ratio to 104 percent.

It didn't stimulate demand as much as creating the same number of better paying high-tech jobs. In fact, jobs created after the last few recessions have led to greater income inequality, as re-hired workers became willing to take jobs that paid less. The high level of long-term unemployed and underemployed meant that trend only continued. 

Job creation would have been stronger during Obama's term if Congress hadn't passed sequestration. In his last FOMC meeting, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke noted that these austerity measures forced the government to shed 600,000 jobs in four years. In the prior recovery, the economy added 400,000 jobs during the same period. 

Obama outline his job creation strategies in his State of the Union Addresses and the American Jobs Act.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Using your analogy with a GPA, by the end, one student flunks out while the other makes the dean’s list. But then here comes some schmuck trying to say they both did equally as well because they both had the same average GPA.

Now do you see why your position is ridiculed for its absurdity?


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where is the value that I have assigned to each President? I've gathered data on one important metric that should be looked at and considered.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 6, 2018)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



LOL look up Mean and Average.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Well if the student who started with bad grades flunked out, then he wouldn't be around to make any good grades. The other student who started with good grades would have been around much longer and completed most of his education before he , according to you, flunked out. 

Does not matter. Do we still use GRADE POINT AVERAGE as a metric to assess students? Yes. Why? Because the average is an important metric to consider!

But hey, maybe you want to do away with GPA at schools. Perhaps you should become an advocate. What do you think?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



There is no polite way to respond to this ^^^ rant, and nothing will ever convince you of the facts.  Have a good day.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

AntiTrump said:


> President Obama created 17.267 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 12.8 percent increase. There were 152.111 million people employed at the end of his term. That's compared to 134.844 million working at the end of the Bush Administration.
> 
> But that doesn't give the total picture. The economy lost 8.7 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until January 2010. Since that low point, Obama created 22.309 million jobs, a 17.2 percent increase.
> 
> ...


What fucking bullshit. Did you really think you could come on a forum like this and pass off such utter nonsense? You’re actually posting from two separate surveys to serve up your bullshit.

Your starting figure of 134K employed comes from the BLS’s payroll data but your ending figure comes from the BLS’s household data. *Two separate surveys.* . Shit, someone as dishonest as you could flip the two surveys and claim Obama started with 142K jobs (household survey) and finished with 146K (payroll data), adding only 4 million jobs in total. Of course, that would be equally as retarded as the bullshit you posted.

Here are the actual figures (in thousands)...

*BLS: Household Data* (+9.9 million)
1/2009: 142,152
1/2017: 152,076

*BLS: Payroll Data* (+11.6 million)
1/2009: 134,055
1/2017: 145,696


----------



## my2¢ (Apr 6, 2018)

Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:

Bill Clinton 
Barack Obama 
Ronald Reagan
Lyndon B. Johnson 
Franklin D. Roosevelt 
Richard Nixon
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
George W. Bush 
Which President Created the Most Jobs?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


mean  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   average


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Where have you assign a value to each president? Don't you pay attention to what you post? Are you not the person who posted this...?


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Nope, not really. Because unlike a GPA which measures only a students own efforts, the unemployment rate and employment conditions are inherited from the previous president, greatly affecting the numbers of the incoming president.

So to rectify your GPA quandary, one student is given the gift of a 4.0 GPA when they start. Soon after, they end up on academic probation and eventually flunk out. The other student is saddled with a 1.0 GPA to start with. They're allowed to stay in school because their grades are improving and they ultimately make the dean's list.

Is any of this penetrating your skull?


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

my2¢ said:


> Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:
> 
> Bill Clinton
> Barack Obama
> ...


^^^ that's more bullshit. And that link you gave is an utter mess.

First of all, they keep changing the numbers they published, which they claim come from the BLS (they don't)

First they say Clinton added 23.2 million jobs. Then further down, they say he added 21.5 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 22.9 million jobs (link is below).

Then they say Reagan added 15.9 million jobs. In reality, the BLS shows he added 16.1 million jobs. In fact, they got most of their figures wrong.

Even worse, they're unbelievably comparing nominal figures in an ever growing population. Their list actually compares the job growth in number of jobs added under Obama in 2016, with a civilian noninstitutional population (CNP) of 254 million -- with Gerald Ford, with a CNP of just 155 million. Worse still, they go all the way back to FDR. I can't show the CNP from then because the BLS does not post such numbers from that long ago.

That's why we use rates to compare, not nominal figures.

Lastly, who the fuck knows where they get their figures on Obama. They actually claim he added 17.3 million jobs. 

Nowhere near that. Obama's actual job growth was 11.6 million.

Then they ridiculously calculate he added a whopping 22.3 million jobs, placing him second behind Clinton, *if you ignore the jobs lost in Bush's Great Recession.* WTF?? You can't cherry pick dates you find convenient just so you can move Obama up the ladder.  And again, their numbers are bullshit because even if you start counting from the lowest point in Feb., 2010, it's still only 16 million jobs, not 22.3.

Really lastly. It looks like your link also dishonestly intermingled payroll data with household data. That's why their figures are all fucked up.

Looking at the actual figures (in millions) posted by the BLS (and only going as far back as Carter since the population growth factors in too heavily, even that far back, we see...

```
1. Clinton ... 22.9
2. Reagan .... 16.1
3. Obama ..... 11.6
4. Carter .... 10.3
5. Bush41 .... 2.6
6. Bush43 .... 1.3
```

But those numbers are skewed because not all presidents served the same number of years. Breaking that down on an average by year...

```
1. Clinton ... 2.9
2. Carter .... 2.6
3. Reagan .... 2.0
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.7
6. Bush43 .... 0.2
```

And then if you factor in population growth, using January, 2017 as a base, annual averages in millions looks like this...

```
1. Carter .... 3.9
2. Clinton ... 3.4
3. Reagan .... 2.8
4. Obama ..... 1.5
5. Bush41 .... 0.9
6. Bush43 .... 0.2
```

The one thing that stands out above all others is what an absolute fucking mess George Walker Bush was. There was barely any job growth on his watch at all. In fact, ALL of the job growth on his miserable watch was in public sector jobs as he became only the second president behind Herbert Hoover (of Great Depression infamy) to leave office with fewer jobs in the private sector than when he started.

All data used in this post comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Do you think schools should use GRADE POINT AVERAGE in assessing a students performance?

A previous President may or may not have impacted unemployment numbers for the next President, and if so to what degree and for how long. That's another debate. Here were just looking at the average unemployment rate while each President was in office which you say should never be looked at all, considered, or is irrelevant etc. But like any metric from students grades to workers performance, knowing what the average is, is an important metric to look at. 

You obviously thought it was important otherwise you would never have clicked on a thread with the title:
"The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?"

You could take any statistic, issue, or problem and make claims that its not so, does not matter, because of the previous President etc etc. Presidents terms begin and end at specific times, and naturally, one is going to group data during a Presidents time in office when making various assessments about a whole range of things. The average of data on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, poverty rate, crime rate, murder rate, etc. is going to be looked at to see things were during a certain administration. 

Your fretting over a situation that does not happen. Where one Presidents unemployment goes down every month and another Presidents unemployment goes up ever month for the duration of their time in office. That never happens, and even if it did, taking the average for the time period is still relevant in many ways. Its the only way to look at all the data on a particular time period and accurately compare it with other administrations. Just looking at the first and the last month of an administration leaves out more than 90% of the data does not give you a real idea of what it was like from month to month, year to year for most people out there while that President was in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



 Its a statistical average of the data from the bureau of labor statistics. Its not some randomly assigned value, its a FACT! You can fret about it all you want to, but it will never change. 

You obviously think its important, otherwise you never would have clicked on a thread with this title.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 6, 2018)

Which economy was better?

The one Bush left Obama?

Or the one Obama left Trump?


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:
> ...



Job growth is not as high when the economy is at or near full employment. That was the situation for most of W's time in office until 2008.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

deanrd said:


> Which economy was better?
> 
> The one Bush left Obama?
> 
> Or the one Obama left Trump?



Certainly the situation was better when the Obama administration transitioned into the Turmp Administration. But that's just a snapshot in time, and does not tell the full story of what things were like during a particular administration, especially when these administrations last 96 months or eight years. You need to look at a lot more than brief moments in time when fully assessing conditions good or bad during each administration.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 6, 2018)

my2¢ said:


> Most jobs created during their Presidential terms:
> 
> Bill Clinton
> Barack Obama
> ...



Job creation is typically easier during or just after a time of very high unemployment in contrast to times when the economy is at or near full employment.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Of course they should.



U2Edge said:


> A previous President may or may not have impacted unemployment numbers for the next President, and if so to what degree and for how long.


Utter nonsense.

ALL presidents have an impact on employment and ALL incoming presidents, for better or for worse, inherit what they start with. I do agree that the duration of what they inherit varies from one administration to the next.



U2Edge said:


> That's another debate. Here were just looking at the average unemployment rate while each President was in office which you say should never be looked at all, considered, or is irrelevant etc. But like any metric from students grades to workers performance, knowing what the average is, is an important metric to look at.
> 
> You obviously thought it was important otherwise you would never have clicked on a thread with the title:
> "The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?"


As I've told you before, and I'll tell you again when you raise this issue -- I post here to expose the lies you're telling. Your stat is unimportant but your lies are not.



U2Edge said:


> You could take any statistic, issue, or problem and make claims that its not so, does not matter, because of the previous President etc etc. Presidents terms begin and end at specific times, and naturally, one is going to group data during a Presidents time in office when making various assessments about a whole range of things. The average of data on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, poverty rate, crime rate, murder rate, etc. is going to be looked at to see things were during a certain administration.


All meaningless tripe as you've been shown repeatedly, it's a meaningless stat since it doesn't reveal job performance. 

Two presidents, each serve 1 term. One starts at 10% unemployment and lowers it to 2%; while the other starts at 2% and raises it, at the same rate the other lowered it, to 10%.

The former gets easily re-elected to another term while the latter is booed out of office. Yet they would have the same average unemployment rate.



U2Edge said:


> Your fretting over a situation that does not happen. Where one Presidents unemployment goes down every month and another Presidents unemployment goes up ever month for the duration of their time in office. That never happens, and even if it did, taking the average for the time period is still relevant in many ways. Its the only way to look at all the data on a particular time period and accurately compare it with other administrations. Just looking at the first and the last month of an administration leaves out more than 90% of the data does not give you a real idea of what it was like from month to month, year to year for most people out there while that President was in office.


Yet another example of how flawed your notion is....

It places Bush over Reagan and Obama. Reagan added 16.1 million jobs in 8 years and Obama added 11.6 million

..... bush added 1.4. That's a measly 169K jobs a year. By far, the worst jobs performer since Herbert Hoover. Yet you place 7th on your list.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > my2¢ said:
> ...


Bullshit.

You show the average unemployment rate under Bush was Bush: 5.27% ... he added 1.4 million jobs in 8 years. 169K per year on average.

The average unemployment rate for Clinton was nearly identical at 5.2% ... yet he added 22.9 million jobs in 8 years. 2900K per year on average.

The average unemployment rate under Obama during his final year in office was 4.86 -- lower than Bush's 8 years. Yet Obama added  2.2 million jobs over that period. More in that one year than Bush in 8 years -- and with an average unemployment rate lower than Bush's.

Same with Trump. The average unemployment rate during his first year was 4.29% -- a full point *lower* than Bush's. Yet he added 2.1 million jobs

So no, full employment doesn't necessarily mean fewer new jobs added. Bush just sucked as bad as a president can. Your figures hide that. That's what's wrong with your position.


----------



## asaratis (Apr 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for March 2017 was 4.1%. This is the 15th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 15th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.31% in February to 4.30% in March 2018.
> ...


It is not meaningless to those who have just found jobs after years of being unemployed.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Knowing just how STUPID your average without a trend line is, you created something I never said, a "PERFECT trend line" as the Straw Man of someone who knows he is wrong.
Thank you.

Obviously a trend line NEVER has to be ALWAYS up or down to be valuable in understanding what the man on the street is dealing with over any period.
But your Straw  Man proves you knew that already.
Thank you again.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Averages by themselves are WORTHLESS!


----------



## asaratis (Apr 6, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


83.6% of statistics are made up....including 'averages'.


----------



## Faun (Apr 6, 2018)

asaratis said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Who’s been unemployed for years? We’ve been at full employment since 2015.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Which economy was better?
> ...


Because the stock market when from 7,000 to 20,000 in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

Because Unemployment went from 10% to 5% in the last two weeks of the Obama administration.

It's all about those fuking snapshots.

And if you believe that, I have a man you can vote for who stiffs his workers, uses his charity foundation's money to buy stuff for him and his family and whose entire cabinet lives like Russian Oligarchs.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 7, 2018)

asaratis said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Trump said 80% of immigrant women have been raped.  Are you calling him a liar?


----------



## asaratis (Apr 7, 2018)

deanrd said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Those things happened because Donald J. Trump was elected President.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Its not about jobs added, its about the average monthly situation for the man on the street in terms of finding a job! Obama had lots of good job growth when the unemployment rate was at 9% and 10%. Adding jobs when the unemployment rate is high is easy. But that does not make it easy for the man on the street. Their situation does not get easy until the unemployment rate is at low levels. 

For most of Bush's time in office, the unemployment was very low, near full employment. Enough jobs were being created to keep up with population growth and economic growth. It was relatively easy to find employment for the majority of the the months Bush was in office. Not so while Obama was in office. 

As for your little narrow example that you keep repeating without end. Yes, when there is good economic news near to election time, it benefits the candidate in office. When there is not, it benefits its challenger. Most voters vote on what their feeling at the moment, not how well a President did over the course of their entire term. So, naturally if Bush had been up for re-election in 2008 he would have lost as did McCain the Republican challenger. Had the election occurred with the economic news of just one year earlier, he likely would have won. The focus there though is on a year or two by most voters. But when you accurately rate a President, you look at everything they did while they were in office, not just what they did at the very end which is what your doing. As if the only thing that matters is what a student does in his last month in school. 

The average looks at everything a President did. Your method leaves out most of what a President did on that issue. 

All the data I have presented is accurate and from the bureau of Labor Statistics. If you think its a lie, take it up with them. 


Thanks for your continued interest in my thread. Your reading and posting helps keep it active and relevant within the forum and beyond.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



                 It often does mean job growth will be slower. George Bush had a higher labor force participation rate than either Obama or Trump. In fact, under Bush, the nation had one of the highest average labor force participation rates in history. The labor force participation is smaller now which means the unemployment rate today does not have the same impact it did when Bush was in office and labor force participation rate was HIGHER. Plus, Bush's job creation numbers are unduly impacted by his last year in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you think a students Grade Point Average is worthless?

Thanks again for continuing to keep this thread, its topic and major points alive and well in this forum and beyond!


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Your argument doesn't even work if you get your perfect trend line.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


As you’ve been shown, it’s also easy to add jobs during times of full employment. Clinton did it and now Trump is doing it. The one who sucked the most was Duhbya, who couldn’t add jobs during full employment and lost millions upon millions of jobs when the economy tanked.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Job growth was abysmal under Bush even before his Great Recession; though it did get much worse after it started.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You’re still lying by using your GPA analogy. As you’ve been shown, that is not comparable to the unemployment rate since one student’s GPA doesn’t transfer to another. You’ve also been shown a GPA, unless it’s 4.0, doesn’t indicate if a student’s grades are getting better or worse.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It was enough to keep up with economic growth and job growth during that time. The Unemployment was low for most of that time, and for most of that time, people had a relatively easy time getting a job.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Better grades move a GPA up, bad grades lower it. Each grade has an impact. Presidents don't necessarily have an impact on the next President and their unemployment levels. That is up for debate, just as the impact a President himself has on his or her own unemployment levels while in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think most of the job growth during Clintons time in office happened prior to 1999. But hey, if you have figures that prove its easier to add jobs when the unemployment rate is 4% rather than 8% or 10%, lets see it.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...


Actually, the unemployment rate rose steadily during his first few years from about 4% to over 6%. It came back down to mid 4’s when the housing bubble took off like crazy and then skyrocketed when the housing bubble popped.

Still, with an average unemployment rate lower than Bush’s, Clinton and Trump were both able to add jobs. Whereas the only jobs added under Bush were government jobs.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


While bad grades lower a GPA and good grades raise it, that doesn’t tell you if their grades are getting better or worse. If I show you a student with a 3.0 GPA, you can’t possibly tell me if they’re grades are falling or improving based on their GPA.

What that does is it hides their performance. You don’t know if they started off strong and are now barely making it; or if they started off on the short bus but now they’re on the dean’s list.

Which is the lie you’re telling and why you’re telling it. When it comes to jobs, Bush ranks among the worst presidents. He started with a 4.2 unemployment rate and ultimately crashed the economy and handed his successor a 7.8 (and growing) unemployment rate. Even worse for the lie you’re telling, the unemployment rate ultimately went as high as 10% *due to the recession he walked into*. By hiding performance as you do, you hysterically ding Obama for the high unemployment rates which resulted from the recession.

But again, that’s why you lie.


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Now you’re even lying about what I said. <smh>

Show me where I said it’s easier to add jobs when the unemployment rate is 4% versus 8 or 10%? I’ll help you — I didn’t.

Clinton averaged about 2.8 million jobs per year. Duhbya? A couple of hundred thousand. Abysmal. And Clinton’s average unemployment rate was lower than Bush’s. Trump’s unemployment rate is also lower than Bush’s and he added 2 million jobs during his first year. And Clinton added almost 3m in 1999, close to another 2m in 2000.

But ya know how you cane hide all of that so no one will know? You average out the unemployment rate.


----------



## U2Edge (May 4, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 16th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 16th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.30% in March to 4.28% in April 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.28%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 34 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.8%, down from 62.9% in March 2018.

With the monthly unemployment rate dropping to below 4%, at 3.9% now, it marks only the 6 month since 1970 that the monthly unemployment rate has been this low. The only other time since 1970 was back in 2000 when the unemployment rate was at 3.8% in April of that year as well as 3.9% from September to December 2000. 

If the unemployment rate continues to stay this low or around this low for the next several months, Trump will probably move to the top of the list in terms of having the lowest average unemployment rate of any President in history. But it will be very difficult to stay at the top for the rest of his term.


----------



## Dschrute3 (May 4, 2018)

President Trump just scored a 3.9% Unemployment Rate. Lowest in 17.5 years. YUGE.


----------



## U2Edge (May 4, 2018)

Dschrute3 said:


> President Trump just scored a 3.9% Unemployment Rate. Lowest in 17.5 years. YUGE.



If it eventually drops to 3.7%, that would be the lowest since 1969, the lowest in almost 50 years! The record is 2.5% set in 1953 when IKE was President.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 1, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2018 was 3.8%. This is the 17th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 17th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.28% in April to 4.25% in May 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
*02. Donald Trump: 4.25%*
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 34 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it. 

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, down from 62.8% in April 2018.

Donald Trump moves up from #3 to #2 on the all time list of Presidents for the best average unemployment in history passing Harry Truman! But it remains to be seen if Donald Trump can keep the unemployment rate this low. His trade tariffs threaten to ruin the economy which will shift unemployment back up higher. But, in the meantime, if the unemployment rate were to drop just a little more, he could wind up at #1 on the list by the end of the summer. The question is how long will he be able to stay there. 

If the monthly rate falls from 3.8% to 3.7% or less, it will be the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969 when it was 3.5%. The lowest monthly unemployment rate ever in history on record is 2.5% back in May and June of 1953 while IKE was President at the end of the Korean War.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
*02. Donald Trump: 4.23%*
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 33 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9%, Up from 62.7% in May 2018.

Although the Unemployment rate came up a little in June to 4.0% from 3.8%, Trumps monthly unemployment rate average still dropped from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June. At the rate it is dropping, Trump will overtake Lyndon Johnson for the #1 spot by August or September.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2018)

These good numbers are based on the Obama economic recovery.

Hail the Great Obama.


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Given that the method for determining the UE rate is continually fiddled with, how are they comparable over long periods of time?


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2018)

JWBooth said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.
> ...




Regardless of criteria, it is an attempt to accurately estimate the monthly unemployment rate each month. Most economist consider the data accurate enough since 1948 to be able to make comparisons.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jul 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Average rate of unemployment is a joke figure....

Does the team who win the Super bowl be the one who had the average highest score during the game? NO...
It is how much did you score during the game...

A President has a time of lets say 9 months before anything he does affects unemployment figures ( it usually between 6 - 12 months)
So lets look at Obama, 9 months after he took office unemployment was at 10%, 9 months after he handed back it was 4.1%...
So Obama gets a +5.9%... Good score...

Now in fairness Trump has a lot lower because of Obama so He obviously can't get +5.9% but we figure full employment around 3.5%... So getting there or even under 4.0% would be a fair achievement as long as he is not borrowing and is actually paying back...

So Trump has brought it under 4.0% but he borrowing $1tn a year... That is the clause... What happens when the economy turns and the economy needs money pumped into it? Trump would have to borrow even more money....

Trump should be concentrated on the Deficit, unemployment is fine, mainly because of Obama...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



loser

Trump & The Congress have done nothing to earn this praise.  Jobs were in free fall from Jan. '09 until late in '10.  Using an average is both stupid and dishonest.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 6, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



lol


----------



## Pilot1 (Jul 6, 2018)

That is what happens when you elect a government worshipping, Community Activist as President.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2018)

the UE has nothing to do with Trump or Congress (dem or pub)


----------



## KissMy (Jul 6, 2018)

Trump is now Increasing the Unemployment Rate & Lowering GDP


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2018)

The GDP has certainly not exceeded the last two years of Obama's annual rate.

Trump is a loser.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> the UE has nothing to do with Trump or Congress (dem or pub)



Government policy has always impacted the countries economy as well as its unemployment rate. Its not the only thing that does, but it does have a major impact and must be looked at.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2018)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for June 2018 was 4.0%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.25% in May to 4.23% in June 2018.
> ...



No its a fact and shows what the average man on the street had to deal with while a certain person was sitting in the oval office. The numbers are real as well as the people impacted by those numbers. What's up for debate is how much the person in the oval office at the time impacted the numbers.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 6, 2018)

The biggest factor in the decline of the Unemployment rate since Obama came to office is likely the retirement of the babyboom generation and the impact on the labor force participation rate. With immigration NOT at record levels and the retirement of the boomers, labor shortages are starting to appear across the country. Continued growth in the economy and no recessions has also helped too, but its likely the bigger factor is the boomers retiring.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 3, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 19th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 19th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.23% in June to 4.22% in July 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
*02. Donald Trump: 4.22%*
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 32 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% for July 2018, the same as it was in June 2018.

Trumps average continues to drop. At the current rate, he will top the list in September or October. The question will be how long he'll be able to stay at the top of the list.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2018)

Yup, Barak was down to 4.8% after Bush's debacle.

Hail, Obama.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
*02. Donald Trump: 4.20%*
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 31 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7% for August 2018, down from 62.9% in July 2018.

If September's unemployment rate is 3.9% or lower, Trump will top the list next month.


----------



## easyt65 (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Obvious evidence of being mentally unable to carry out his duties as President, requiring butt-hurt Democrats to attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment,  stopping this _vicious, unstable cycle_ of *WINNING*.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...




So, when you come into office with a 7 + percent  in the midst of it heading to 10%, it is your fault?

Really?

How about we consider thongs like Bush taking office with a  4% rate & leaving with a 7.7 losing 800,000 jobs a month. Dores that count?

Or  Obama taking office with losing 800,000 jobs a month with a 7.7% on the way to 10% & leaving with a 4.9?

Which did better?????

Dumbass.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The biggest factor in the decline of the Unemployment rate since Obama came to office is likely the retirement of the babyboom generation and the impact on the labor force participation rate. With immigration NOT at record levels and the retirement of the boomers, labor shortages are starting to appear across the country. Continued growth in the economy and no recessions has also helped too, but its likely the bigger factor is the boomers retiring.



Really.  They are no longer retiring?


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...


That has been explained to this idiot repeatedly. You can’t cure chronic stupidity.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Imagine if Trump had won in 2008. Would his unemployment record be so good?


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



Its not about a particular moment in time, the beginning months, the last months etc. Its about EVERY MONTH all 96 of them. That's what the man on the street experiences. You have to look at every month during the time a person was in office. For most of the time Bush was in office, unemployment was low and it was relatively easy to get a job. You won't see or understand that if you just focus on his last 3 months in office and leave at the other 93 months. Also, Bush had a rise in unemployment while he was in office to 6.3% in 2003. He got that back down to 4.4% though by 2006. Another thing you don't see when you just look at the first month and last month of an administration. 

Its great that Unemployment was down to 4.7% when Obama left, but that does not remove the fact that it was often above 8% unemployment for many years while he was in office. The man on the street suffered unemployment of 8% or more for some time, and getting it down to 4.7% does not remove that fact.


----------



## kaz (Sep 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Stupidity, racist, is how you idiots get that only when it benefits democrats


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest factor in the decline of the Unemployment rate since Obama came to office is likely the retirement of the babyboom generation and the impact on the labor force participation rate. With immigration NOT at record levels and the retirement of the boomers, labor shortages are starting to appear across the country. Continued growth in the economy and no recessions has also helped too, but its likely the bigger factor is the boomers retiring.
> ...



Nope they are still retiring which is helping Trumps numbers to. Someone born in 1953 is 65 now. The last year of the babyboom is 1963. So we probably have 10 more years of this having a significant impact on the unemployment rate.


----------



## kaz (Sep 7, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



Funny how you only get that when it benefits democrats


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You mean you posted your whiny propaganda.  Obama inherited an economy that had just past the rebound point of a recession.  The only way it could go was up.  The best thing he could do was nothing.  Nevertheless, he stuck his fingers in it and caused the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

Bush, on the other hand, was handed the collapse of the tech bubble.  He also had 9/11 to deal with.  Economic ignoramuses like you always ignore these facts.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It wouldn't be smart to rate a President simply on the first month of office and the last month of office which you suggest. There are 94 other months in there which you are not considering. This is also simply looking at what the man on the street is experiencing while said person is in the White House. Who are what is responsible for the unemployment rate at a particular time is more complicated.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



Unlikely, but it does not mean it would be the same as what Obama had. Could be worse or better than Obama's record.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



*"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"  This post qualifies as a damn lie using a single statistic which  also qualifies as a lie by omission.

Thanks once again to the author for proving that his/her hate effort to mislead the reader is sophomoric and a total failure, as well as a typical form of idiot-gram, Trumpanzee variety!

Thanks for sharing.      *


----------



## Care4all (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


thanks!  Good info!

but I must say on LBJ's unemployment rate being the best, I'm not so certain that's a fair number, though admittingly accurate...  we were near full fledged in to the Viet Nam War during his term weren't we?  

And wouldn't that bring unemployment down because of the 100's of thousands over the years being drafted and pulled out of the private workforce and given jobs in the Military, leaving fewer in the workforce for the private sector to hire, and thus a reduction in unemployment rates???


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



Just for the record, I am NOT a Trump supporter. I'm a Republican who voted for Hillary Clinton. This November I'll be voting only for DEMOCRATS because of Trump. I believe the 25th amendment should be used now and Trump removed from office. 

The statistics I'm using are from the bureau of labor statistics. There is no lying or misleading. When you average each monthly unemployment rate for each President, this is what you get. Its basic math using factual numbers from the bureau of labor statistics. Its a factual truth, no dishonesty.


----------



## deanrd (Sep 7, 2018)

Gee,  I wonder if it’s the same president the Republicans had the worst possible economy?


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2018)

Care4all said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



This is a very good point that I think might be true. You also see a bit of it in the numbers during the Korean War. The lowest monthly unemployment rate of 2.5% was during the Korean War, early 1950s. The late 60s had a lot of months where unemployment was around 3% or 3.5%. 

Either way, Trump is on track to top it next month or soon after.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The inference in you post is Obama is the 11th worst President since Ford, and Trump is the second best since LBJ.  That is why I posted what I posted.  If your effort to not have this inference as the takeaway, you needed to explain some very fuzzy math to the reader.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...


yes it would have been.  He wouldn't have regulated jobs out of the country.  He would injected an entirely different mindset.  I know you hate 3.9% unemployment you'd prefer the 7% but real americans don't.  you can whine all fking days the hand obammy was handed, it was his job to correct it.  never did.  participation rate was way down by the end of his two terms.  that sucks.  pisses me off actually, and is why trump won.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Wow, you really are this fucking stupid.  Top consider their impact on the economy as a whole?  To enter with a good economy & leave with a bad economy is far worse that entering with a bad economy & leaving with a good economy.


What is NOT fair is you trashing someone like Obama  by totally ignoring what they inherited.  In Obama's case he inherited the worst recession on 80 years, losing 800,000 jobs a month, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown, two quagmire wars. mounting debt, a shrinking economy.  It took over two years to get the unemployment rate back under 9%.   This was NOT Obama's fault even if you Trumpettes say so.  Gee I wonder what that does to your average unemployment rate?   You call that fair?

Most smarty people understand that some of the worst effects of a recession  happen after the recession is almost over.  The Bush recession started 4th quarter of 2007 yet the unemployment rate did not max out until June 2009.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



What, EXACTLY, has Trump done to reduce unemployment?  And why has he not magically too raised the paycheck of working men and women?

For the record, the rise in the average wage falls short of inflation.  And the tax bill passed by the leadership of Ryan & McConnell, signed by Trump into law, is a fraud.

It is not reform, it is voodoo economics for a third iteration.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You people really are such a bunch of ignorant people.  

OMG OMG OMG the participation rate!!!!!!!!!!  OMG OMG ONG

This is how fucking stupid you are.

A lot of people work & their spouse stayed home with the kids.  The one income is plenty.  The economy turns bad & employers close or lay off & the only job that  can be found is one that pays significantly less.  The spouse has to get a job too to help  financially.

Guess what, you'd be parading in the streets because you were such as dick to think that the now higher participation rate meant a better economy.

A year later, the economy improves, the one spouse gets a job that supports the family & the other spouse quits that job to stay at home.

You'd be here having a freaking fit.  

" OMG OMG ONG the participation rate fell  OMG OMG OMG"

I wish the fuck you people actually had brains & could think.  Then we would not have such a fool like Trump as President.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


ahhhh it's the true unemployment stat.  as usual, you have no idea about our country.  Thanks for admitting such.


----------



## CowboyTed (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> 
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Hey idiot... We have been telling it is what you get at and what you leave it...

Look at your list, Bush is considered a disaster but you list has been very acceptable...

He got unemployment at 4.3% and a surplus, he handed it back at 8.3% ( and sky rocketing) and $1Trillion+ deficit... 

Trump inherited economy with deficit $585bn  unemployment 4.7% (and dropping 1% a year).
So for Trump to continue Obama unemployment decreases he has to:

Increase deficit to $1 trillion a year
Triple inflation
Cut services 
Income gap is widening


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 7, 2018)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


/——/ President Hillary Clinton after she won the popular vote.....oh wait. Never mind


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I posted what Obama inherited from Bush & the Republicans.  You ignore that stupid shit done under Bush like all the unfunded spending & his made up war in Iraq that killed 4500 US soldiers.

But hey, you keep electing Republicans because they have a really shitty track record on the debt & the economy as he ghead towards another trillion dollar deficit.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 7, 2018)

Here is what I don't get about the current Republican Party, their track record really sucks. Especially on the national debt.  Their policies of deregulation gave us the near financial meltdown.
I bet these same asshole Trumpettes were so proud in 2008 when Bush had to tell the American people that we had to spend billions to bail out the banks or the United States of America could go bankrupt in a downward spiral of a financial meltdown.  Really,  Were you assholes really Proud then????

Trump as the debt growing.  Prices are going up.  ( Remember when Trump said a tax cut would lower prices????).

US manufacturers pricing is going up because the ignorant fuck Trump put on tariffs?  Yep, that helps exports.do nothing for the middle class except throw a few morsels while you load up the wealthy with more money.

Republicans that support them are just too fucking stupid to get it.  I;ll take the econopmies underr Bill Clinton & Obama any day over Bush's & this Pillsbury Doughboy moron that sits in the Oval Office.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Here is what I don't get about the current Republican Party, their track record really sucks. Especially on the national debt.  Their policies of deregulation gave us the near financial meltdown.
> I bet these same asshole Trumpettes were so proud in 2008 when Bush had to tell the American people that we had to spend billions to bail out the banks or the United States of America could go bankrupt in a downward spiral of a financial meltdown.  Really,  Were you assholes really Proud then????
> 
> Trump as the debt growing.  Prices are going up.  ( Remember when Trump said a tax cut would lower prices????).
> ...


/-----/ *"Remember when Trump said a tax cut would lower prices????"*
You are being redirected..._*At least 120 utilities have lowered electric, gas, or water rates due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act*_


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Or  Obama taking office with losing 800,000 jobs a month with a 7.7% on the way to 10% & leaving with a 4.9?
> .



Obama was anti business socialist so had slowest recovery since FDR! Without Republicans holding him back Obama  would have been as bad as FDR!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 7, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Republicans that support them are just too fucking stupid to get it.  I;ll take the econopmies underr Bill Clinton & Obama any day over Bush's & this Pillsbury Doughboy moron that sits in the Oval Office.



well, Clinton was conservative and driven toward capitalism by Newt when Republicans took over House for time in 40 years so he had good economy. Obama, an open Solyndra, cash for clunkers,  socialist, had slowest recovery since Great Depression. Bush was mostly a liberal and Trump is doing Great as a conservative.

Your comparison is apples and oranges at best. Do you get these basics? Why not stick to just asking question in future?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 7, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Unlikely? Impossible.

No, it doesn't mean it would have been exactly the same. But we don't know if it would have been higher or lower, or better or worse in the long term.

That's the very point. Trump claiming credit when nobody can tell if there's any credit due, because he didn't make this economy.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 7, 2018)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You seem to have no idea how the economy works. 

Under your logic, Reagan would have seen a massive, MASSIVE drop in unemployment. He didn't. In fact unemployment for every Republican president since WW2 was higher as they left office than when they entered, except for Reagan.

Why is that? Why do Republicans end up with higher unemployment if their policies are designed to make lower unemployment?

And why is it that all Democratic presidents since WW2 have had lower unemployment when leaving office than when they entered except for Carter who had the same level?


----------



## AntonToo (Sep 7, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Trump explains it this way:


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



But that would mean what makes a President good or bad is based only on monthly unemployment. I never said or indicated that. Also I agree that it is open to debate how much of each Presidents unemployment record they may be responsible for, good or bad. But regardless of those things, these are the hard facts.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You need to look at unemployment throughout a Presidents term, not just the first month and the last month. Unemployment can go up and down many times during any administration. That's why taking the average, which considers EVERY MONTH, is the best way to look at the figure.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



They are facts, but statistic too.  To repeat my early point, there are liars, damn liars and statistics.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The old first month vs the last month is too small in terms of data to rate a President. There are 94 other months. A President does not deserve and F when his first 7.5 years he gets an A+ on unemployment in then suddenly in the last 3 months there is a shake up which sends unemployment sky rocketing. Its like failing a graduating student with a 4.0 grade average because they flunked their last test.

I did not trash Obama or anyone with the list. I only reported the facts from the labor statistics department. This list does not go into who was responsible for the recession in 2008/2009 or Obama's progress or lack of in getting out of it. It simply looks at what the man on the street experienced on average while each President was in office in terms of unemployment. Many people also consider the recession of 2008/2009 to be not as bad as the 1981/1982 recession. Also, the war in Iraq was going well when Obama entered office in early 2009. Casualties both civilian and military had dropped enormously from just two years before. Obama messed the Progress up though when he completely withdrew all troops too early at the end of 2011, resulting in him having to send them back in 2014.

Again, who is at fault for the "Bush recession" is another debate as is the work done by Obama to get out of it. The monthly unemployment rate is a fact. This is the record for each President in office since the monthly unemployment rate started being recorded in 1948. 

There is also the retirement of the Baby Boomers which is helping Obama and Trump with their unemployment numbers. Without the retirement of the Baby Boomers, its likely Obama would be at the bottom of the list and Trump would not be anywhere near the top.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Participation rate does impact the unemployment rate. With the Baby Boomers retiring, its helping the unemployment rate to drop and stay low. Its greater for employee's and those entering the work force for the first time. Its not a great time for employers though looking for workers.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Your spin won't turn.  Get you facts correct, the Great Recession lasted two years:  2007 - 2009.   Granted, there were less deaths and life long wounds once GWB stop listening to Cheney and the Neo-Cons, however, the troop removal date had been decided by Iraq when GW was still in office.

BTW, no one above rated a president, other than you in your covert manner.  IMO you post is an effort to mislead the biddable and those who hate Obama.  You might as well have questioned his place of birth, too.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Maybe it's time to establish a new and revised Bracero Program; the hate and fear of immigrants has done nothing but harm people and our nation's image.

Bracero program - Wikipedia


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

CowboyTed said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.22% in July to 4.20% in August 2018.
> ...



Bush is considered a disaster by some Democrats. But if you look at the actual facts, unemployment for one, it tells a different story. The unemployment rate under Bush for 7 years was generally fantastic as far as history goes. George Bush won re-election in 2004 with the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. He did that based on his record which was not considered a disaster by most people. The recession the last few months of his administration does not nullify the 7 years of a good economic record prior to that. 

The fact is, for most of the 96 months that Bush was in office, the unemployment rate was low and the man on the street had a job or an easy time finding one. What happened in the last few months of Bush's administration in 2008 CAN NEVER erase that.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


/—-/ Agreeed. Let’s open the floodgates for White, Western Europeans. They can be pursued to vote Republican


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Here is what I don't get about the current Republican Party, their track record really sucks. Especially on the national debt.  Their policies of deregulation gave us the near financial meltdown.
> I bet these same asshole Trumpettes were so proud in 2008 when Bush had to tell the American people that we had to spend billions to bail out the banks or the United States of America could go bankrupt in a downward spiral of a financial meltdown.  Really,  Were you assholes really Proud then????
> 
> Trump as the debt growing.  Prices are going up.  ( Remember when Trump said a tax cut would lower prices????).
> ...



The greatest act of deregulation happened under Bill Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I don't get about the current Republican Party, their track record really sucks. Especially on the national debt.  Their policies of deregulation gave us the near financial meltdown.
> ...


Can you say dotcom


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



The troop removal date was something that could be adjusted at any time. It was not set in stone. Obama just decided to let it go and it was a mistake even he admits too now. No President was rated in the thread. The only thing looked at is the monthly unemployment rate.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I don't get about the current Republican Party, their track record really sucks. Especially on the national debt.  Their policies of deregulation gave us the near financial meltdown.
> ...



That legislation names after its authors :  Gramm - Leach  - Bliley Act.   If you were not such a dumbass, you know those three men were REPUBLICANS.  The bill was put on Clinton's desk by REPUBLICANS.  It was a compomise bill that Clinton signed where the REPUBLICANSgot their Glass SteagalrepealL & Clinton got what he wanted.

You assholes should really grow a fucklng pair & quit blaming Democrats for not stopping your own party's  actions.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



When you borrow money & hand it to the public, it helps the economy.

Unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded expansions to Medicare.

I mean really what kind of fucking idiots do tax cuts at a time of war?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 8, 2018)

40% still ain't working thanks to Bush & the Republican DISASTER & you retards claim victory. Clinton had the BEST employment record in History! Trumptard Repubtards are Destroying this Country withe RECORD DEFICITS & DEBT!!!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2018)

KissMy said:


> 40% still ain't working thanks to Bush & the Republican DISASTER & you retards claim victory. Clinton had the BEST employment record in History! Trumptard Repubtards are Destroying this Country withe RECORD DEFICITS & DEBT!!!


/----/ 40% of Americans aren't working??? Link please. 
Household Survey Data
Employment Situation Summary
The unemployment rate remained at 3.9 percent in August, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 6.2 million, changed little. (See table A-1.)


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI (Sep 8, 2018)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


I remember when it changed.  When Obama inherited a high unemployment, it was all on him.  Then, as it dropped,  pathetic little fucktards decided it had nothing to do with a president.  Now, the same fucktards are attributing the unemployment level to ************ Donnie shitstain


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2018)

CHAZBUKOWSKI said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


/----/
*





AUGUST JOBS: +201K...

ECONOMY ON FIRE...

GREAT AGAIN: Construction Worker Wages Rise...

BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT NEAR RECORD LOW... 

120 Utilities Have Lowered Rates After Tax Cuts...*


----------



## KissMy (Sep 8, 2018)

Cellblock2429 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > 40% still ain't working thanks to Bush & the Republican DISASTER & you retards claim victory. Clinton had the BEST employment record in History! Trumptard Repubtards are Destroying this Country withe RECORD DEFICITS & DEBT!!!
> ...


Quote from your own link!!! 
_"the employment-population ratio, at 60.3 percent, declined by 0.2 percentage point in August."_


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2018)

KissMy said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


/----/ I see what you mean. To reach 100% employment every man woman and child in the country would have to be working - from the age of 1 day to 114 years old. Do you honestly think that will ever happen?


----------



## KissMy (Sep 8, 2018)

Cellblock2429 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


Clinton had 65% working before the Great Repubtard Bush Depression slashed it to 58%!!!
Clinton had 75% of Working Age Population Working!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, that's still a simplistic view of things. People try and quantify what presidents do, but often the impact of their policies takes a long time. 

Take Bush and his wars. Yes, the impact started in 2008, but it may well take decades before it wears off. The whole of the recession period and then the subsequent rise are as a consequence of his actions. Okay, he's not responsible for all of it, and the rise wasn't carried out by him, but it was inevitable. And then next drop could be quite bad too. He's potentially set up a much more violence boom and bust situation.

At the same time presidents aren't responsible for the whole economy. Congress plays a part. Individuals play a part too.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Nothing you just said changes the facts. Greatest act of deregulation happened under Bill Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Dress it up all you want to. It won't change that fact.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



I never agreed with Bush's tax cuts for people making more than $100,000 a year. As for the wars, the annual cost of both per year was a fraction of the total Defense Budget. Plus as a percentage of GDP, less was being spent on Defense(including expenses for the wars) while W. was President than during the peace time of the 1980s. Spending on Defense as a percentage of GDP averaged around 6% during the 1980s, while it averaged around 4% during the 2000s.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

KissMy said:


> 40% still ain't working thanks to Bush & the Republican DISASTER & you retards claim victory. Clinton had the BEST employment record in History! Trumptard Repubtards are Destroying this Country withe RECORD DEFICITS & DEBT!!!



The highest labor force participation rate in the economy was 67.3% under Bill Clinton. It was still at 66% percent during Bush's last year in office. Still a historical high although not as high as Bill Clintons best. The major drops in the labor force participation rate happened in the Obama years. This largely due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, one of the largest generations in history.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The point here is that there's a reality, and there's statistics. Things will impact statistics, but you have to be able to read and understand what's happening in real life when you look at the statistics. 

It's like saying the county has 100% employment rate, but 50% of those people are working 10 hours a week and don't earn enough money to even pay their rent compared to 94% employment rate where 93% of people are able to pay their rent, buy food and have a little extra.

100% doesn't mean it's better than 94%.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Its far more simplistic to just be looking at the first month and the last month of a Presidency. The list looks at the facts about the monthly unemployment rate while each person was President. Certainly who is responsible for the good and bad in those numbers is open to debate, but the numbers are solid facts.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Oh, totally. 

However on a forum like this, it's the sort of games you play. 

However it does show something, that Democratic presidents are often bring unemployment down and Republican presidents causing something. 

We can look at Carter He had high unemployment. The unemployment rate dropped during his time in office, but was rising when he left. 

We can look at Reagan who had rising unemployment when he entered office and stayed high for a long time. Unemployment dropped in his last years in office, but then rose once he'd left.

Bush snr oversaw that rise, but it was more Reagan's rise and Bush lost an election over it.

Clinton came in and unemployment went down and saw a level of prosperity. There was an inevitable rise in the 2000s but it wasn't actually that large in comparison. 

Bush W. came in and pushed unemployment down but this then led to the second worst recession.

So, in all this time we've got presidents who have overseen problems for the economy, except Clinton, though potentially Clinton had an impact on the 2008 recession, though Bush and Congress had 8 years in order to rectify some of those problems.


----------



## RealDave (Sep 8, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


  You blamed Clinton for a Republican effort.  That is what you lied about.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 9, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > 40% still ain't working thanks to Bush & the Republican DISASTER & you retards claim victory. Clinton had the BEST employment record in History! Trumptard Repubtards are Destroying this Country withe RECORD DEFICITS & DEBT!!!
> ...


That is a bold face Lie!!! - Bush Destroyed 18 Million Jobs down to 60.3% of people working before he left office!!! Obama halted Bush's jobs disaster at 58.2% 10 months later. Obama first Fiscal Year started October 2009 halting the fall 2 months later! Bush & Republicans crashed Clinton's 74.3% employment rate of Working Age 15-64/yrs down to 65.2%


----------



## jc456 (Sep 9, 2018)

KissMy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


Can’t make this kind of garbage up! You obviously know nothing


----------



## KissMy (Sep 9, 2018)

jc456 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


More bullshit from Idiot jc456 throwing a tantrum after being smacked down with pure facts!


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 10, 2018)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Its more than just a Republican effort when Bill Clinton's signature on a document is the key to repealing it. More importantly, W. was not involved at all with Glass-Steagall.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 10, 2018)

KissMy said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Labor Force Participation rate peaked at 67.3% in January 2000 while Clinton was in office.

At the start of Bush's last year in office, January 2008, the Labor force participation rate stood at 66.2%. It was still at 66% in November 2008. On average, W. has the highest average monthly labor force participation rate of any President since 1948 with the exception of Bill Clinton and Bush Sr.

Obama started with 65.7% labor force participation rate in January 2009. This declined to 62.3% by September 2015 and marks the largest decline in history of the labor force participation rate since numbers started being recorded in January 1948. The September 2015 labor force participation rate of 62.3% was the lowest seen since 1977!

Millions of people over the age of 64 work and impact the economy heavily. Sudden and sustained losses in their numbers, like the Baby Boomers, is having the largest impact on unemployment and labor force participation rate.

The biggest reason though for the decline in the labor force participation rate is the retirement of the baby boom generation. Its also the biggest reason why the unemployment level has dropped and continues to stay low. Right now its an employees market which is great if your looking for a job. Not great if your an employer trying to find people to work for you.

Average GDP growth under Obama was slow by historical standards. An average of 1.7% per quarter. Too slow to reduce unemployment to these levels by itself. Again, the chief reason for low unemployment these days is the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 5, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2018 was 3.7%. This is the 21st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 21st month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.20% in August to 4.18% in September 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.18%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 27 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7% for September 2018, the same as it was in August 2018.

*September's 3.7% unemployment rate is the lowest monthly unemployment rate in 48 years and 9 months. It is the lowest monthly unemployment rate since December 1969 when it was at 3.5%.*

*Donald Trump now has the lowest average monthly unemployment rate for any President since World War II! If the unemployment rate goes back up though, his time at #1 on this list will be short. But, if the monthly unemployment rate continues to hover just below 4% for many more months, he may be at #1 on this list for a very long time. *


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 2, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2018 was 3.7%. This is the 22nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 22nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.18% in September 2018 to 4.16% in October 2018.


The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.16%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 26 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% for October 2018, up from 62.7% in September 2018.


*Last month Trump set the record for the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969. If the unemployment rate in the next few months were to drop more to 3.3%, that would be a new record low not seen since 1953!*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2018)

KissMy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


nothing factual in your post.  What I see is that in 2009, obammy didn't do a thing.  He used government money to bail out private companies.  tanked the employees.  I can't read that graph any other way.  2008.was 70% and 2010 down to 65%.  Down 5%.  tell me if I miss read your graph.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 2, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> This is the 21st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 21st month recorded for this list.


But only 20 of them were reports covering the time while the pathological liar was in office. Like you did for Obama, you gave Bush's last UE report to Obama to make his higher and Obama's last report to Donnie Dirtbag to make his lower. The incoming president has only about a week of January in office, yet you dishonestly give him the whole month.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 2, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > This is the 21st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 21st month recorded for this list.
> ...



I did that for every President from Truman to Trump. Nothing dishonest about it at all. If I were to give January 2017 Unemployment report to Obama, it would lower Trumps average even lower than it is now. Trump already has the lowest average unemployment rate since World War II to this point, yet it appears you want me to make that average even lower by giving January 2017 to Obama.

Finally, even if January 2009 was given to Bush and January 2017 given to Obama, it would not Change where Obama is on the list. He would still be near the bottom at #11. Your getting upset about one month out of 96. 

I chose to start each Presidents first unemployment rate with the month they start in office which is January. I did that for every President.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 2, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> I did that for every President from Truman to Trump. Nothing dishonest about it at all.


Just because you were equally dishonest to all the presidents does not mean you were NOT dishonest at all.


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > I did that for every President from Truman to Trump. Nothing dishonest about it at all.
> ...



I did not hide or cover up which months were counted for the Presidents. There is no dishonesty here except in your imagination.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 3, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Counting a previous president's results in the results of the next president IS dishonest even if you are honest about your dishonesty.


----------



## deanrd (Nov 3, 2018)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Which one of those presidents started at 10%?











Amazing what "FACTS" can do.


----------



## deanrd (Nov 3, 2018)

Lakhota said:


>


I know, right?  There are many times I believe what Republicans say.
It's not like they love this country.  They just love to rip off it's citizens.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2018)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2018 was 3.7%. This is the 23rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 23rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.16% in October 2018 to 4.14% in November 2018.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.14%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 25 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% for November 2018, the same as it was in October 2018.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 7, 2018)

The President with the highest average quarterly real GDP growth since World War II is:

John F. Kennedy with 5.31%. Although, it should be mention he was unable to serve a full term because he was murdered while In office. The highest for serving two complete terms would go to Bill Clinton with 3.82%. 


01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
*08. Donald Trump: 2.83%*
09. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
10. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
11. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
*12. Barack Obama: 1.90%*
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%


*It should be mention that despite the recession that occurred while George H.W. Bush was President, his last year in office saw quarterly GDP growth of over 4% each quarter. That's the last time the United States EVER had four consecutive quarters of 4% GDP growth. 
1992 Quarter One: 4.88%
1992 Quarter Two: 4.41%
1992 Quarter Three: 4.01%
1992 Quarter Four: 4.24%
George H.W. Bush had the economy moving strongly again and definitely deserved to be re-elected President for this and many other reasons. He would have been re-elected had it not been for the 3rd party run of the wealthy Billionaire Ross Perot who took away many of Bush votes, people who would have voted for Bush in a two way race, allowing Clinton to win. George Bush's economic growth and new tax increases set the stage for the Budget Surpluses that were achieved at the end of the 1990s. Without George H.W. Bush, its likely those surpluses would not of happened, the first Budget surpluses since 1969. *


----------



## easyt65 (Dec 7, 2018)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 7, 2018)

deanrd said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



YEA just think what it would have BEEN if Dumb bell Obama hadn't made dumb ass comments like these and instituted policies like ACA that CAUSED employers not to hire full time people!
I mean people... YOU don't seem to comprehend that what OBAMA did was try to stifle the economy any way he could!
He is a "WORLD Citizen"  FIRST... Not an American first.
He apologized for America.  He promoted other countries over America.  He hates America.  And he proved it when he made statements and policies like below!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 24th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 24th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.14% in November 2018 to 4.12% in December 2018.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.12%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 24 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.1% for December 2018, up from 62.9% in November 2018.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 4, 2019)

During Ford it was hard times...


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 1, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for January 2019 was 4.0%. This is the 25th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 25th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.12% in December 2018 to 4.116% in January 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.116%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 23 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for January 2019, up from 63.1% in December 2018.


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 8, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2019 was 3.8%. This is the 26th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 26th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.116% in January 2019 to 4.10% in February 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.10%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 22 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for February 2019, unchanged from January 2019.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for February 2019 was 3.8%. This is the 26th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 26th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.116% in January 2019 to 4.10% in February 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



So why do you still hate Trump?


----------



## U2Edge (Mar 8, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for February 2019 was 3.8%. This is the 26th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 26th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.116% in January 2019 to 4.10% in February 2019.
> ...



I don't have time to fully answer that here, but the unemployment rate is only one factor in evaluating the President.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



It must be very important to you as you take the time to post it!  I think you have a man-crush on Trump but cannot deal with your feelings, so you repress them and make people think you are a libtard.


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 8, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Let’s think...U2 and Edge are well known TX evaders, so anyone who admires them must hate people such as Trump who doesn’t evade paying his taxes.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Al, I see is you being a total asswipe for ignoring the Bush recession..

What the fuck do you think is done to fight a recession ???  

If McCain would have won, what would he have don?  A stimulus package.

You people are dumber that shit,


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


To fight a recession you stop doing what caused it.  Doing anything more is counter productive.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


 Can you get any dumber????? Seriously. 

Did you to school to get stupid or was it natural?

The ACA did not create part time jobs.

Obama is far far far far more of an American than the piece of shit you put in the White House.  Obama didn't need the Russians to help him win.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


right, so your approach is to spend more of what you don't have and go further into debt.  No logic.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 So, we needed to quit fighting the wars, reverse Bush's tax cuts, Dump the expansion to Medicare?


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You help lessen the effects & shorten the length of a recession by puttying money into the economy.


----------



## ptbw forever (Mar 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 24th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 24th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.14% in November 2018 to 4.12% in December 2018.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


So Obama sucked?......


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You're deluded about what causes recessions.  I will agree with the last one, however.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Not government money.  Every dime the government spends is taken from a taxpayer.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


If it was money not borrowed but what would you know!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Exactly, reach out to the private sector and ask them what they could do. Give a tax break for hiring more employees. Work/jobs.


----------



## Faun (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Rightards are such morons. That’s why America elects Democrats when there’s an election during a recession or depression.

The private sector was drowning and taxes were already near record lows with no room to drop them further. You don’t save a drowning person by letting them swim their way out from drowning — you throw them a lifesaver.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


The ACA about bankrupted the country!! good thing the mandate was called off.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2019)

So why do you still hate Trump?

For all his faults Trump is a GOD compared to Green New Deal .Want to see your 401k after the DIms get elected??


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, borrowing is what makes it work.

Where else would you get it.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So why do you still hate Trump?
> 
> For all his faults Trump is a GOD compared to Green New Deal .Want to see your 401k after the DIms get elected??



 Trump is shit.  Period.

Ask your children about their future when  Trump trashes the NGD.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


 The ACA was FUNDED you God damn asshole.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Jobs to make what???No body is buying anything.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

ptbw forever said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2018 was 3.9%. This is the 24th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 24th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.14% in November 2018 to 4.12% in December 2018.
> ...



Obama started with two months with over 800,000 monthly job loses in the midst of the Bush Recession.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It is borrowed money.

I have news, assfuck, when the taxes are paid, it is then the government's money.


----------



## ptbw forever (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Check his quarters, most of them range from bad to terrible.

Trump’s range from good to great in every single one so far.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


No, no it isn’t


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Funny you think the whole world went broke!


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

ptbw forever said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ptbw forever said:
> ...



Lying fuck.

First of all, Obama had some really great quarters & Trump has had some not so good ones.


Obama fought the effects of the Bush recession.  Trump was handed a much stronger, growing economy.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well, whose is it?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


The people’s


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


What was trump’s lowest ?


----------



## ptbw forever (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Obama had negative numbers in almost every year.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

ptbw forever said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ptbw forever said:
> ...


And his average is most likely lower than trump’s worst


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Starting at the bottom of a recession is the best possible place for a president to start his term.  The only way for the economy to go is up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Whether it's borrowed or confiscated, it still comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.  Resources devoted to government projects can't be used for other projects, no matter how they are paid for.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 8, 2019)

RealDave said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > So why do you still hate Trump?
> ...





Rashy!  

20 years from now a lot of currently rashy democrats are going to look back on all this blockheaded hysteria like a yearbook photo with a bad haircut and bell bottoms.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Starting at the bottom of a recession is the best possible place for a president to start his term.  The only way for the economy to go is up.



very true. Obama had great opportunity for huge v shaped recovery to break all records but  being  an anti-business socialist killed it for obvious reasons!!


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Why don't you just go get some?


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ptbw forever said:
> ...


1.8


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Starting at the bottom of a recession is the best possible place for a president to start his term.  The only way for the economy to go is up.
> ...


 The worst recession in 80 fucking years.  Any assfuck knows the recovery would be as difficult as the recession was deep.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




20 years from now, so many adults will be looking back & asking how their parents could possibly have been that fucking stupid to deny AGW & voted for Trump.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ptbw forever said:
> ...


 It could have continued downward & it could have lasted longer.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2019)

RealDave said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Only when Democrats are in charge. Normally, the deeper the recession, the bigger the bounce back.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 11, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Not if Obama had kept his fingers out of it.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

S tatistics for the dumbass Trumpettes to consider.

Obama started with an economy shrinking at a rate over 6% & ended with an economy growing at 1.8%

Obama stasrted with a  us lopsing 800,000 jobs a month & left with us gaining 1215,000 jobs a  omnth/

Therefore:

Obama increased economic growth by nearly 8%
Obama increased monthly job gains by over 1,000,000 a month.

I mean you Trumpettes keep blaming Obama for those bad numbers his first year & include them in all of your "OMG OMG OMG Obama" statistics.

I'll include the above in mine.

Let me know when your orange buddy does that.


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Gained 8% economic growth..  Does that count?


----------



## RealDave (Mar 11, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 Oh fuck off.  Obama & the Democrats did ecxactly what McCain & the Republicans would have done.

Even a fucking jackass like you would know that.  Republicans had a 500 billion plan in the works in December of 2008, Romney said it was way too small.

You Trumperttes are the dumbest people on the fucking planet.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 11, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Rashy


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Obama started with an economy shrinking at a rate over 6% & ended with an economy growing at 1.8%
> .



Obama had worst economic record in American History with not one year of 3% growth which is exactly what you would expect from anti-business socialist.

With capitalism he would have had huge V shaped recovery in year one or two with 10% growth. The socialist Solyndra recover never happened here or in USSR.

Let's review:  A recession is the time its takes a capitalist economy to recover from liberal interference.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Oh fuck off.  Obama & the Democrats did ecxactly what McCain & the Republicans would have done.


Don't forget,  Obama was a standard libcommie. He and Van Jones dreamed of  "green jobs of the future". That libcommie Solyndra approach made things worse not better and was opposite to Republican free market solution. Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2019)

RealDave said:


> The worst recession in 80 fucking years.  Any assfuck knows the recovery would be as difficult as the recession was deep.


 I like the male liberal violence and lack of sense in your posts. You may be better suited
for liberal Antifa street violence.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Obama started with an economy shrinking at a rate over 6% & ended with an economy growing at 1.8%
> ...


Trump had not had a year over 3%.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2019)

Faun said:


> Trump had not had a year over 3%.


The libcommies won't let Trump build his wall either.


----------



## Faun (Mar 12, 2019)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Trump had not had a year over 3%.
> ...


The non-sequitur thread is over there —>


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 5, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2019 was 3.8%. This is the 27th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 27th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.10% in February 2019 to 4.09% in March 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.09%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 21 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63% for March 2019, down from 63.2% in February 2019.


----------



## U2Edge (May 3, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2019 was 3.6%. This is the 28th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 28th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.09% in March 2019 to 4.075% in April 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.075%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 20 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.8% for April 2019, down from 63% in March 2019. 

With the Unemployment rate for April at 3.6%, it is again the lowest rate recorded since 1969. If in the next few months the unemployment rate were to drop further, down to 3.3%, it would be the lowest recorded monthly unemployment rate since 1953 which was during the Korean War.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 7, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2019 was 3.6%. This is the 29th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 29th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.075% in April 2019 to 4.06% in May 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.06%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 19 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.8% for May 2019, the same as it was in April 2019.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 7, 2019)

Useless statistic


----------



## miketx (Jun 7, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Useless statistic


You are indeed.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2019)

miketx said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Useless statistic
> ...


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 7, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Useless statistic



Especially since Obama pulled us out of a GOP induced recession and a record job loss administration....

Now trump is trying to sink the economy he was gifted.


----------



## miketx (Jun 7, 2019)

JimH52 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Useless statistic
> ...


Fakest news yet.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

JimH52 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Useless statistic
> ...


Obama drove the economy into ground with his energy policy.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And his anti business rhetoric, tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, healthcare mandate, etc.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

miketx said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So you missed the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? Hilarious LOL aaarrrggghhh hhhh. You live on an imaginary planet stupid.


----------



## miketx (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Missed it by a mile.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Yep seven and a half years straight of growth, best economy in the world. Just horrible, super duper. Watch now as your con man orange clown idiot screws it up...


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

miketx said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Try some real news someday, read a newspaper. Unbelievable super duper. Only cost the Obama Administration about 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown selling apples GOP Great Depression and to provide unemployment and welfare etcetera to the victims.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Obama = 1.6% average GDP growth.  Worst of any modern President.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


The housing market thing was a correction. Obama kept the economy in the hole by driving energy prices up.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


that's what happens when you are no longer in a full-blown GOP economic meltdown LOL


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Two Trillion dollar stimuli, the Fed lowering interest rates to near ZERO, to historic lows, and he still had an average GDP growth of 1.6%.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


the middle class lost something like 50% of their wealth, Wall Street went down 70%, 9 million people lost their jobs. Thanks deregulating GOP fools and crony regulators. I'm sorry but if you're listening to Fox Rush etc etc, you live on an imaginary planet.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Two Trillion dollar stimuli, the Fed lowering interest rates to near ZERO, to historic lows, and he still had an average GDP growth of 1.6%.


Which was the best economy in the world. Consider the problem when half the world is ina Great Depression.  your greedy idiot Heroes wrecked the world economy and you brainwashed functional moronsdon't even know about it....


----------



## Third Party (Jun 7, 2019)

I started work under LBJ. You could get a job in one day.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Obama = 1.6% average GDP growth.  Worst of any modern President.


2.1 by the time he was finished, better than either of the bushes. Trump got a bit of a bump from adding a trillion to the debt. Great job. And now he's wrecking it....https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BBAB&usg=AOvVaw2JHu0WrJ9hbH0p6bpIV0Ab&ampcf=1


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

Third Party said:


> I started work under LBJ. You could get a job in one day.


A lot of people cannot get a job since computers took over...


----------



## Faun (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > I started work under LBJ. You could get a job in one day.
> ...


That's why I'm a software engineer. Even through 3 recessions, I've never been without a job.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


No. Just as the 1987 crash was a blip. Lower energy prices kept the economy rolling. All the way through Clinton.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


The middle class lost phantom wealth. We’re middle class. We put no faith in inflated values. What hurt us was energy price increases trickling up through all consumer goods prices, courtesy Obama.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Two Trillion dollar stimuli, the Fed lowering interest rates to near ZERO, to historic lows, and he still had an average GDP growth of 1.6%.





RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Ever notice how the corrupt crony GOP has a corrupt bubble and bust every time they get eight years in office, and regular people pay for it? Just a little correction eh? absolutely ridiculous. 9% cut in gdp


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Trillion dollar stimuli, the Fed lowering interest rates to near ZERO, to historic lows, and he still had an average GDP growth of 1.6%.
> ...


No, I didn’t. 
A big correction. Especially for those who put too much into inflated values and out-of-reach loans.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Sure that's why he had basically 0% inflation the whole time. You didn't lose your job you're lucky. 9% Cut in GDP.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...


Great job of regulating real estate by crony GOP regulators. You didn't? 1929 1989 2008 the only times the GOP had GOP president  for 8 years. and the middle class has been going to hell ever since Reagan- wake up and smell the coffee, super dupe. The GOP only Cuts taxes on the rich and giant corporations, and services and benefits for everyone else. Well at least you are in the white party right?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


I’m not republican.
1989 had little to no impact on middle class. Energy spikes in 1973, 1979, 1991 and the self-inflicted one in 2009 did the damage.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

This is from the end of the Carter term...


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


What is an energy Spike? The prices went way down after the meltdown. Then the recovery of course brought higher prices. No mystery or conspiracy by Obama. The fact that you don't know so much and you blame Obama with no evidence means I think you've been listening to the wrong station. The GOP propaganda one.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 7, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> This is from the end of the Carter term...


Carter was totally obstructed mainly by Teddy. He wanted to cut taxes like Reagan. Teddy and some Democrats wanted to spend money on social programs.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Yeah no crony capitalism with Obama with the likes of the Solyndras of the world, GM, Wall Street, Banks too big to fail and other CORPORATE WELFARE but only for his friends and financial bundlers.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


The prices went down _before_ the housing market issue as a result of extraction restrictions being lifted, allowing American resources to potentially flood the market.
Obama’s first order of business was to reimpose those restrictions and that immediately drove prices back up. That screwed the economy.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 7, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > This is from the end of the Carter term...
> ...


Carter failed to stifle the Iranian revolution before it got out of hand. He then threw gasoline on that fire by giving the shah asylum.
That interrupted Iranian oil flow and we had gas lines and doubled gas prices.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Thankfully Trump has helped to end our dependence on foreign oil.  We are now the world's largest oil producer.


----------



## protectionist (Jun 8, 2019)

JimH52 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Useless statistic
> ...


Obama didn't pull anything.  His first 7 years were a natural Economic recoil, and his last year was an economic failure.  Trump pulled us out of the Obama 2016 recession (2.3 GDP to 1.8)


----------



## Faun (Jun 8, 2019)

protectionist said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


*"2016 recession"*







*Even the NBER laughs at idiots like you...*

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 11, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



When it comes to deregulation, nobody tops Bill Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 11, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Obama = 1.6% average GDP growth.  Worst of any modern President.



Its actually 1.90% a little ahead of George W. Bush at 1.87%.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 11, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama = 1.6% average GDP growth.  Worst of any modern President.
> ...



George H.W. Bush's last year in office saw FOUR consecutive quarters of REAL GDP Growth at or above 4%, the last time that every happened in this nations history!


----------



## miketx (Jun 11, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama = 1.6% average GDP growth.  Worst of any modern President.
> ...


It amazes me how we repeat what the media tells so easily.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 11, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Thankfully Trump has helped to end our dependence on foreign oil.  We are now the world's largest oil producer.



The Price of oil, regardless of where it is produced or purchased is impacted by the global market price, or overall worldwide demand. So no, the entire world is still very dependent on the Persian Gulf when it comes to economic stability. The world uses 50% more petroleum today than it did 30 years ago and the numbers continue to rise. A cut in oil supply from the Persian Gulf will have a drastic effect on the global economy as well as the U.S. Economy.


----------



## Likkmee (Jun 11, 2019)

From 1999 through 2013, inflation dropped to its lowest levels *in* the country since the late 1980s, and *unemployment* dropped drastically, following many years of increases before *Chávez* was elected. *In*1999, when *Chávez* took office, *unemployment* was 14.5 percent; for 2011 it had declined to 7.8 percent.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 11, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully Trump has helped to end our dependence on foreign oil.  We are now the world's largest oil producer.
> ...



More U.S. supply helps to keep energy costs LOW.  It is a global market, but more supply from anywhere helps keep prices down.  Trump's Energy Policy is helping to maximize U.S. its energy production which is good for everyone.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 12, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


That combined with CRA and you’ve got a recipe for a housing market disaster.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 12, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Clinton signed the bill it was a Republican bill. Democrats have not been able to do what they wanted for 50 years..it was GOP deregulation and crony oversight as always every time they get the chance. A corrupt bubble and bust....


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 12, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Clinton signed it. Just shows you how self-focused he is. Sellout to a shitty crony repub bill and voila.
I’m no repub.
None of this qualifies irresponsible consumers nor nefarious Obama energy policy.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 12, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...





RoshawnMarkwees said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


None of this means anything unless you have corrupt GOP deregulation and oversight by cronies. The same thing happened with corrupt GOP oversight with the oil companies and the following BP oil spill. Halliburton Cheney scandalous parties with the regulators and the lobbyists etc etc etc. The GOP is a disaster and disgrace always. Only garbage propaganda makes it possible.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 15, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



There were Democrats supporting the Bill and Clinton signed it. There is nothing that will ever change or absolve this fact.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 15, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Unlike the goose-stepping bought off GOP, there are always Democrats that go along with compromise. the next time the Democrats get in they should use the nuclear option for everything and pass tax hikes on the rich and giant corporations and tax cuts on the rest, Healthcare, help for day care paid parental leave living wage great vacations and infrastructure, cheap public universities and training etc etc. And then let the GOP take them back. See how that works out for them, the scumbag greedy idiot pieces of s*** and their silly doups like you.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 17, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



I support all those policy ideas. Hopefully BIDEN will be able to implement some of them when he becomes President.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jun 17, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



IF. He must garner the nomination first and then beat the incumbent during a hot economy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



*Yep seven and a half years straight of growth*

Yup, very weak recovery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*Thanks deregulating GOP fools and crony regulators.*

And then Obama regulated the shit out of us for his crappy recovery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Trillion dollar stimuli, the Fed lowering interest rates to near ZERO, to historic lows, and he still had an average GDP growth of 1.6%.
> ...


*Consider the problem when half the world is ina Great Depression. *​
How did the rest of the world have a depression without Republican policies?


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...


LOLOL

16 million jobs gained during Obama's last 7 years is weak?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Yes, Obama had a weak recovery.
But at least he added $9.3 trillion to the debt.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You're truly fucked in the head if you think 16 million jobs over 83 consecutive months of job growth was a weak recovery.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


80% at least to avert a full-blown depression and unemployment and welfare for the victims, super duper. Read something instead of showing off your ignorance and misinformation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



_The U.S. economy has only grown 2% a year since it bottomed out in June 2009. That's far below the typical growth in rosy times of over 4% a year that the U.S. has experienced since World War II. It's even below the rather sluggish rebound during President George W. Bush's tenure of 2.7%. _

Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII

CNN....fake news?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*80% at least to avert a full-blown depression*

You mean the recession that ended in June 2009? DURR......


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The recession that technically ended, with nine million fewer jobs, dumbass, and half of the rest of the world also totally screwed up. Great job! And half the GOP doesn't even know it happened. At least.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Obama needed to add another 100,000 pages of regulations.
And Cap & Trade......that would have really given a boost to the economy.

Maybe he could have outlawed gasoline? Or at least added a $2 a gallon tax, eh?


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It was also the deepest recession since WWII.

Regardless,  I note you just pulled a bait and switch with your argument. You went from it being a "weak" recovery to a "slow" recovery.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I thought it was the slowest recovery ever.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, you're wrong. The Great Depression took longer. But I always get a kick how the right bitches and moans that the left takes too long to clean up their messes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yup, weakest, slowest recovery since WWII.

CNN agrees.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that's what happens when the GOP screws up the entire world economy instead of just ours like usual.... We had the best economy in the world under Obama.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope, they said slowest, not weakest.

If truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like you do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Nope, they said slowest, not weakest.*

What are the 3 biggest differences you see between "slowest recovery" and "weakest recovery"?

*If truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like you do.*

If truth was on my side, CNN wouldn't agree with me, eh?
​_Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest._​
Economic recovery is weakest since World War II

Or the AP.....

_Economic growth is now tracking at a 1% rate in 2016—the weakest start to a year since 2011—when combined with a downwardly revised reading for the first quarter. That makes for an annual average rate of 2.1% growth since the end of the recession, the weakest pace of any expansion since at least 1949._

U.S. GDP Grew a Disappointing 1.2% in Second Quarter

Or the WSJ.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Well of course.

 Just as FDR prolonged the Great Depression with dumb policies, BO did the same with Great Recession. 

The difference is at least FDR offered jobs to the working class. BO offered bailouts to the richest Americans.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL

Here we see a rightwingnut posted a link to backup his claim -- but that failed him as his link didn't say what he was saying. So now what does the rightwingnut do? He post other links he found that do agree with what he's saying.

Rightwingnut.... your first link disagrees with your second link and your third link is unrelated to your argument. I'll leave it to you to do battle with your conflicting links.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


So you say, but being elected an unprecedented 4 times to office says otherwise. Needless to say, as I said, I always get a chuckle when righties bitch & moan how the left takes too long to clean up their messes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Weakest recovery, slowest recovery. Synonyms.
Both describe Obama's economy.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope, your CNN article says the economist wouldn't declare it was the weakest recovery. You're losing your battle to untangle your conflicting links.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Obama had the weakest recovery....no he didn't, it was the slowest!

DURR


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Despite your ignorance, "weak" and "slow" are not synonyms...

Synonyms of weak | Thesaurus.com
Synonyms of slow | Thesaurus.com

You posted two contradictory articles. Deal with it.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So much wrong with that. 

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. Plus all politicians lie and FDR may been the biggest liar. The media covered up his numerous lies, as they do for all big government statists. Duping millions of Americans. 

The mess you ignorantly refer to was caused by a criminal ruling class that has near complete control of the government and media.  Dummies think one party or the other is solely responsible.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOL

Ah, yes, when you can't win an argument about an election, accuse the American people of being stupid. 

As far as liars, there is none bigger than trump. There is almost nothing he doesn't lie about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Weakest recovery, slowest recovery.

*You posted two contradictory articles. *

Of course, Obama didn't have the weakest recovery....it was the slowest!

Victory!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Despite your ignorance, "weak" and "slow" are not synonyms...*





Weak recovery.
Anemic recovery.
Feeble recovery.
Fragile recovery.
Frail recovery.
Hesitant recovery.
Powerless recovery.
Shaky recovery.
Sickly recovery.
Sluggish recovery.
Uncertain recovery.

Hmmmmmmmm……….​


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


None of which were the word you used ... "weak".


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


FDR was an enormously arrogant egotistical jackass. He did some good things, as all presidents do.  Mostly bad though.

You think Americans who voted Donnie are dumb, but now you laud the American voter.

If you would study FDR, you would know of his many lies and deceptions. In the 1940 election, he lied repeatedly that no American boys were going to war. All the while feverishly trying to get the Germans to sink American shipping. In 1944 election he couldn’t walk or talk, but that didn’t stop the arrogant prick. The media covered for him throughout his presidency, keeping the American people in the dark. Just like they did with BO.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And yet, all good descriptions for Obama's slowest recovery since WWII.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


I never said folks were dumb because they voted for trump. In fact, most voters voted for Hillary.

Sadly, your argument was such a failure, you thought you could defeat my position by ascribing your position to me. 

Regardless, despite your delusions, hysterics, and revisionism, FDR is lauded as one of the greatest presidents we ever had. Four electoral victories supports that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Says you, but then you posted one link that said one thing and another link saying the opposite.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Oh brother.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Weakest recovery is not the opposite of slowest recovery.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He is arguing the difference between weak and slowest. LOL.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You posted one article that said it was the weakest and another that said it wasn't the weakest.

Try to pay attention to what you post. Meanwhile, it's your job to reconcile your inconsistent articles, not mine.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

gipper said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Aww, you poor thing. I kicked your ass so hard, now you're trying to glom onto others.


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes you did.  LOL


----------



## Likkmee (Jun 23, 2019)

Nick Maduro !


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And don't forget the ones that said it was the slowest.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOLOLOL

Yeah, that's what you changed your argument to when I pointed out the article you posted actually said it was the "slowest" -- while you posted a link to that article thinking it corroborated your claim that it was the "weakest."

That's when you lost your argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Obama had the slowest recovery.
Obama had the weakest recovery.
No inconsistency in sight.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Not according to you. According to what you posted, one article said it was the weakest and the other said it wasn't. That you keep lying reveals much about you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


*Not according to you.*

Absolutely according to me. 
And according to the economic stats.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOLOL

You switched your argument from "weakest" to "slowest" when your original argument crumbled like a cupcake. Then you tried to salvage it by falsely claiming "slow" is a synonym of "weak." And you posted a link to an article that wouldn't say it was the weakest after you claimed the article said it was the weakest.

What is weakest is you -- you're the weakest link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*You switched your argument from "weakest" to "slowest" *

When discussing Obama's recovery, those terms are interchangeable.




Why This is the Worst Recovery on Record

Robert Reich says it's the worst recovery.

Do you feel that disagrees with weakest or with slowest?


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I feel you already lost this argument when you pulled your bait and switch when you posted an article that disagrees with your later articles. Ad I said earlier, it's your problem to reconcile your conflicting articles,  not mine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Argument? LOL!

If you're going to say Obama's recovery wasn't the weakest, it was the slowest, or vice versa, go right ahead.
I'll use either, or both. Or maybe I'll use worst?


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Who cares what you call it? You already defeated your original argument yourself when you claimed it was the  "weakest" but then posted a link to an article which stated it wouldn't call it the "wrakest." You been stuttering ever since.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Obama had the worst recovery on record.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL 

You said "weakest"... until you posted a link that said it wouldn't say "weakest."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I said weakest. I said slowest. I said worst.

They all apply to Obama's recovery.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOLOL

You're still gumming my ankles like this?

No, you said "weakest." Your posts are still here. You only switched to "slowest" and "worst" after your own link blew up your argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, Obama's recovery really stunk.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL 

I always get a chuckle when righties bitch & moan about how it takes the left too long to clean up their messes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Such a weak recovery. Why was it so weak?


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Bush & Republicans utterly decimated the economy. It takes a long to recover when the economy sheds 8 million jobs to E-3 unemployment statistics, 12 million jobs to E-6 unemployment statistics, negative 8.4 GDP, a crater where our housing markets once stood, where our stock market once stood, and where many folks could no longer borrow money because our credit markets locked up. Thanks to the policies of George Bush and Republicans, they left a recession that swallowed up between $20-$30 trillion of wealth.

Like I said, you righties crack me up when you bitch and moan that the left takes too long to clean up your messes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


*Bush & Republicans utterly decimated the economy.*

How'd they do that?


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Their policies...

_"*Thanks to our policies*, homeownership in America is at an all time high!" ~ George Bush, 2004 *Republican* National Convention_​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Which ones? Implemented when?

_*Thanks to our policies*, homeownership in America is at an all time high!_

Sounds awful! So which new ones did he put in place that Clinton didn't already have?


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You'll have to ask him as he didn't list which policies caused it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I asked you to back up your claim.

*Bush & Republicans utterly decimated the economy.*

Is your claim that high home ownership decimated the economy?


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I backed it up. I quoted George Bush himself taking the credit with Republicans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He took credit for homeownership.

You've failed to show how, "*Bush & Republicans utterly decimated the economy"*

You seem more confused than usual.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL 

You must be demented to not be aware that the bubble he created burst and left a crater in its wake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's always sad when you make a claim and can't provide backup.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Even sadder when you're incapable of recognizing a claim was made. Bush said he and Republicans created the bubble which then burst and cratered the economy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Bush said he and Republicans created the bubble *

Excellent, another claim you've made with no backup.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOLOL

Sure, except for that quote I posted where he took credit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When you get deeper than a soundbite, be sure to post your proof that 
*"Bush said he and Republicans created the bubble*" or that "*Bush & Republicans utterly decimated the economy"*​


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I already quoted him. It's not my fault you can't retain information. He said it was thanks to his and Republican policies that we had all time high homeownership. That's what drove up housing prices which was the bubble. His bubble bursting is what caused the Great Recession which utterly decimated the economy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

Faun said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes, your soundbite was awesome. LOL!


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 7, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 30th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 30th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.06% in May 2019 to 4.05% in June 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.05%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 18 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.9% for June 2019, up from 62.8% in May 2019.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 30th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 30th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.06% in May 2019 to 4.05% in June 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...




Lol! This opinion misses so many things.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 8, 2019)

LordBrownTrout said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...



Obama was handed an economy on the verge of a depression and you republicans want to ignore this because your party made the mess.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*Obama was handed an economy on the verge of a depression *

The recession ended June 2009.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for June 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 30th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 30th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.06% in May 2019 to 4.05% in June 2019.
> ...



There is no opinion you there. Just facts from the bureau of labor statistics.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 9, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The facts seem to miss that Trump inherited a 4.7 unemployment rate. They also don't mention that Obama inherited a failing economy of historic proportions.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



Actually it didn't.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 9, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



It did end at that time. Economist define a recession as two consecutive quarters of DECLINE in real GDP growth. Real GDP grew in the the third quarter of 2009 signifying the end of the recession. The previous four quarters to that had all seen declines in real GDP growth.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 9, 2019)

IM2 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



But this is not looking at one month this President or that President entered office. Its looking at the whole time a President was in office and what was the average unemployment rate while they were in the White House. Its the same for each President for which monthly unemployment data is available. There is no opinion involved here. Its just* average unemployment rate while a President was in office. 
*
Its true that the unemployment rate before Trump came into office was 4.7% and that real GDP growth declined in the last two quarter's of 2008 before Obama entered office as well as the first two quarters of 2009 and Obama's Presidency. 

The question of why these were the numbers while someone was President or during a particular month of someone's Presidency is a matter that is up for debate and where opinion starts to come in.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 9, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



When you are handed 4.7 percent unemployment as opposed to 9 and rising upon arrival, that must be considered. You're giving Trump a ranking that has not been due to any of his policies. And you are quick to rank Trump number 1, but he hasn't served a full term.


----------



## IM2 (Jul 9, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually it didn't and that still doesn't discount the fact than when Obama was handed the presidency we were still near depression. Not recession.  If the 4 quarters before June there was a decline the recession did not just suddenly stop because an increase in GDP started to rise no matter how it's defined.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2019)

IM2 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



* the recession did not just suddenly stop because an increase in GDP started to rise no matter how it's defined. *

That's exactly when/why a recession stops, rising GDP.

You really don't know much about economics. Neither did Obama.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 9, 2019)

IM2 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




I can't say with certainty or that it is a FACT that Trump's current ranking is not due to any of his policies. I don't like Trump or his policies, but regardless, he is currently #1 when it comes to having the lowest average unemployment rate, and his position at #1 continues to improve. Its an opinion that his policies over the past 2.5 years have not impacted the unemployment rate. As to serving a full term, there is still a chance that Trump won't complete is term. John F. Kennedy did not serve a full term and neither did Ford. Some Presidents have spent more time in office than others. Regardless have how much time they spent in office, the ranking is determined by the* average monthly unemployment rate while they were in office. 
*
                    As of right now, I think Trump will probably remain at #1, on the list, for a long time. 1. I actually think Trump will not be re-elected in November 2020. 2. With only 18 months left in this term, I also think he is likely to complete it and that the unemployment rate will follow the general trend seen the last several years. 3. The next administration starting in January 2021 will likely experience a recession causing the unemployment rate to rise. But Trump will miss that because I don't think he will be re-elected solidifying is position at #1 on this list for years if not decades to come.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 2, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 31st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 31st month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.05% in June 2019 to 4.04% in July 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.04%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 17 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63% for July 2019, up from 62.9% in June 2019.

If the average Unemployment rate of the last 17 months continues for the remaining 17 months of Trumps term, by the end of Trumps term, his average unemployment for his time in office will be down to 3.95%. Since Trump will likely be voted out of office in November 2020, and the next President at some point will be faced with a recession in the early 20s, Trump's record and position at the top of the list could remain for a very long time.


----------



## Billiejeens (Aug 2, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 31st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 31st month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.05% in June 2019 to 4.04% in July 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...




Very unlikely that President Trump will not win a second term,  actually.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 2, 2019)

Billiejeens said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for July 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 31st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 31st month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.05% in June 2019 to 4.04% in July 2019.
> ...



President Trump has the worst average approval rating of any President in history so far at 40%. He has been defeated in every match up poll with Joe Biden. He actually lost to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes in the popular vote. His electoral college victory consisted a very slim margins of victory in three states, just 77,000 votes combined. He is less popular now, than he was at the time of the election. No President has ever been re-elected with less than 48% approval in the Gallup poll the week before the election. The highest Trump has ever been in the Gallup poll is 46%. Most Presidents are re-elected with an with approval ratings well above 50% in the week before the election.


----------



## Billiejeens (Aug 3, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




There is no "popular" vote for President.
There is no "national election" for any position in the country.

He is not less popular than he was -
He is fulfilling all of his promises - even with the Dems a solid block of Obstruction.

He is a person that I think under polls, except on election day.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 5, 2019)

Billiejeens said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Billiejeens said:
> ...




Trump won by a slim margin in 2016. On average his disapproval rating has always been higher than his approval rating for his Presidency to this point. If he did win in 2020, which I think is very unlikely, it would be by the same slim margin that he won in 2016. 

Its true that you don't win the election with the popular vote, but it is embarrassing to win without at least having a the majority of the population voting for you and is indeed considered to be slim or marginal victory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



*but it is embarrassing to win without at least having a the majority of the population voting for you and is indeed considered to be slim or marginal victory. *

What do you call the guy who wins the EC while losing the popular vote?
Mr. President.


----------



## Billiejeens (Aug 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




He beat the woman that the elites had already cheated for to ensure that she be coronated.
He beat the Main Stream Media
He beat Social Media
He beat the Establishments of each party.
He beat the Intelligence agencies who were determined to have Hillary keep the status quo.

Remind me, where is the embarrassment?


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 6, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.03%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 16 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for August 2019, up from 63% in July 2019.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



Averages don't mean shit.  Obama was in office less than a month in Jan 2009 when 900,000 + or - jobs were lost.

When you copy and post (echo) something without thought, it is embarrassing.  No?


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



And remember under Obama this was how he approached business!


----------



## Third Party (Sep 7, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.
> ...


Obama was king of the jerks-what a train wreck.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 7, 2019)

Third Party said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...





U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



Keep pushing this BIG LIE, it only make what credibility you might have had to zero.

Compare Today's Unemployment with the Past

Anyone who looks over this ^^^ link ought to understand the BIG LIE you've posted; it fails for those with the ability to read, comprehend and understand how desperate trump supporters have become.


----------



## Third Party (Sep 7, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Tell us why-we are listening, but it looks good for now!


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 7, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Maybe you should look at that page again and do what I did... actually calculate based on your link...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...



Maybe you need to take a remedial course in basic arithmetic.


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 8, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Unlike you I use a computer and excel and the averages of the president term(s) in office i.e. Reagan 8 years, Carter 4, Ford 2 years, is what was used.  Excel has an "average" function.  So once again dummies like you probably don't comprehend that.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for August 2019 was 3.7%. This is the 32nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 32nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.04% in July 2019 to 4.03% in August 2019.
> ...



Averages mean everything because they consider EVERYTHING, as opposed to some narrow picture of a few months or a year of one Presidents term!


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...




My figures come from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics. The averages are based on the monthly unemployment rate while each President was in office from January 1948 to the present. These averages are FACT. Sorry if you don't like them, but its the truth.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...



I use the monthly rate as reported by the Bureau Of Labor Statistics which is more accurate than simply looking at the annual figures which are rounded. Another reason its more precise is that it looks at individual months which is important especially for Presidents Johnson and Ford who picked up the office during the middle of another Presidents term. The Bureau Of Labor Statistics only has the monthly rate going back to January 1948 and that is what the list is based on. More accurate than using the annual figures which are rounded and don't account for Presidents who started in the middle of another Presidents terms because they were murdered or resigned.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 8, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Ford actually served 2 years and 5 months and when you average out the 29 months of monthly unemployment figures, it comes out to 7.77%. When you just use 1975 and 1976, you'll obviously get a different average because your only using 24 months and basing it on two numbers which are rounded annual averages for 1975 and 1976. My figure uses 29 data points, one for each month Ford was actually in offices, adds them up, and takes the average. Its the more accurate and precise figure.


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Well if you want to be accurate.. you should have each President's term which BEGINS on 1/20, i.e. in the case of Ford..
8/8/1974 to January 20, 1977 which is 896 days...
Can you tell me what the unemployment rate was for each of those 896 days and then what the average was?
Putz... you also seem to ignore the fact that ...

There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state.
Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed for more than 4 consecutive months. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. As a result, approximately 75 percent of the sample remains the same from month to month and 50 percent remains the same from year to year. This procedure strengthens the reliability of estimates of month-to-month and year-to-year change in the data.

Each month, highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees contact the 60,000 eligible sample households and ask about the labor force activities (jobholding and job seeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month). These are live interviews conducted either in person or over the phone. During the first interview of a household, the Census Bureau interviewer prepares a roster of the household members, including key personal characteristics such as age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, veteran status, and so on. The information is collected using a computerized questionnaire.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

So your while your crude accuracy i.e. you didn't take the exact period served i.e. Ford's 896 days...
it is more accurate than mine.
But neither YOUR inaccuracy or mine deems your dumb ass comment regarding.."..._understand how desperate trump supporters have become".  _ My supporting Trump has nothing to do with Gerald Ford's unemployment record!
Jimmy Carter had the WORST misery index and I felt it unlike a putz like you who probably wasn't born yet and still live in your
parents basement.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



You really are stupid.  But, you support trump so I'm not surprised.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 8, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...



"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"
Anon


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I have NEVER supported Trump and want him impeached and removed from office as soon as possible.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 4, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 33rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 33rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.03% in August 2019 to 4.01% in September 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 4.01%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 15 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for September 2019, the same as it was in August 2019.


----------



## Third Party (Oct 7, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


----------



## Third Party (Oct 7, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for September 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 33rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 33rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.03% in August 2019 to 4.01% in September 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Nothing you posted, especially name calling, is worthwhile


----------



## U2Edge (Nov 5, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for October 2019 was 3.6%. This is the 34th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 34th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.01% in September 2019 to 3.997% in October 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.997%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 14 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.3% for October 2019, up from 63.2% for September 2019.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2019)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.98%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 13 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for November 2019, down from 63.3% for October 2019.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


/—-/ President Trump will complete his term. DemocRATs are shooting blanks.


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 6, 2019)

Average means nothing...

What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 6, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> Average means nothing...
> 
> What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...


/——-/ The President doesn’t control spending, borrowing or tax cuts. Your post is stupid.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



Why do you keep posting this information which conflicts with your deep-seated hatred of all things Trump?  You destroy every other anti-Trump post you make by your extreme hypocrisy. It is a strong sign of schizophrenia.  Have you sought professional help?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> Average means nothing...
> 
> What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...



1.6% growth in 2016 was very impressive...….


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Average means nothing...
> ...



It is impressive to those with room temp IQs like the OP.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 6, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> Average means nothing...
> 
> What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...


 Hankie?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> Average means nothing...
> 
> What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...



Its not that simple. The Unemployment rate will often go up and down many times over a 4 year or 8 year period. Simply looking at the first month and last month of a 96 month span of time tells you virtually NOTHING about what happened during that time. The Average takes into consideration ALL THE DATA and every month while the President was in office. Your missing the vast majority of the picture when you only look at two months of data, the first and the last. 

Its as absurd as a Student getting D's the first quarter of his Freshman year and then getting A's the last quarter of his Senior year and claiming the students performance should be just based on those two quarters from the first and 4th years. That's not how it is done. Grade Point Average is used because it looks at all the grades the student made during his time as a student. 

*So again, the last month of a 96 month Presidency does not define what happened in the previous 95 months. The picture of that is FAR more complex than what you would simply get for looking at only one or two months of data. *


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2019)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> ...



This is raw data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It does not tell you to what degree the President in office was responsible for such economic data. That is  a more complex question. While the numbers under Donald Trump are historically the best, he did come into office with unemployment already low by historic standards at 4.7%. In addition, many of Trump's policies, restricting immigration and raising trade tariffs and other protectionist policies are actually harmful to the economy. So one could claim the economy has done well, despite Trump's policies. 

In addition, much of the low unemployment rates seen during Obama's 2nd term and the current Trump term are likely do to the fall in* labor force participation rates.* The retirement of the baby boom generation along with the smaller generations that come behind it is likely heavily contributing to the low unemployment rates and labor shortages currently seen. 

Real Quarterly GDP growth so far under Trump has averaged 2.59%. While that is better than the average of the two previous Presidents, its still not spectacular and is well off the average* 3%+ growth that Trump promised in 2016. 
*


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



Hey dumbass!  Look at your thread title! 

*The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?*

If the President has nothing to do with it, why would you choose that title for your thread?  Did you set out to prove yourself a moron?  If not, you succeeded anyway!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 6, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> Average means nothing...
> 
> What you get it at and what you give it back is what matters... Trump inherited a good economy and he has increased borrowing for tax cuts for the rich...


you just don't want to know facts.  amazing.  wow.  you can't be helped.  but I will point out forever your failure at seeking out facts.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Obama blamed on Bush. The recession ended the Summer of his first year, yet his policies caused the slowest recovery in history. If you induce job producers into cutting back or moving out of the country because of high taxes, you're perpetuating high unemployment. After all......Obama said those jobs were gone permanently. Trump brought them back.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



A very major distinction between President Trump's job production and the rest of the Presidents on this list is this:
The total working age population (18 - 64)  in 2019 -   206,242,858
Total working population in 1980  -- 135,366,685
This means an increase of 7,086,173 or over 50% more people.
As a result initial plus is " 63.2% down... YET remember there are over 50% more people in the working age population.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 6, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


If you look at the pattern, you’ll see how it’s all impacted by energy supply. And, if you paid attention, you’d realize that that was all beyond the control of the president — except in the case of Obama, where he intentionally drove energy prices up.


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 9, 2019)

jc456 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Average means nothing...
> ...



What do you mean... I accepted the average but pointed out that it is pretty meaning less. Unemployment is what was it when you got (the day you implemented something) and what you gave it back at, not the average while you were getting it there...

Obama got high and going higher and gave it back real low... Obama got it while it was on the way to 10% and he turned on that when his policies started to kick in and gave it back (i.e. when Trump's policies started to kick in) at 4.0% (I could say lower as Trump did effectively nothing for the first 10 months of office on the economy). 

Today Unemployment  is 3.5%, So Trump has really only improved it by .5% while increasing borrowing to $1 trillion.


*Note:*
I will just point out that the Germany economy is meant to be going into recession, They have an unemployment rate 3.1%(US: 3.5%) and surplus of 1.2% of GDP (US: 5.5% deficit). As a recession note, the res of the world is preparing for one, it is due. Trumpnomics is trying to keep borrowing to prolong it but that just means US will just crash harder.


----------



## CowboyTed (Dec 9, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 35th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 35th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.997% in October 2019 to 3.98% in November 2019.
> ...



Thanks for showing outstanding Obama preformed... Not only did he get Unemployment from 10% to 4%... He also saw the working population jump from 196m to 206m while in office... Trump that growth has only gone up 250k in the three years in charge (wait for some lame excuse from the right)...

*But the message is even with the right's numbers Obama is much better at unemployment.

There is also the simple message here: The Right want someone to be rewarded for what he inherited and the Left want acknowledge someone for was earned...*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 9, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


what the fk are you talking about?  dude, really, it's called revenue, money in, has it gone up?  just be factual, I don't need your opinions.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 9, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



Just a reminder...There are not only MORE people in the working age, i.e. 18-64, which means it is harder to get unemployment rates lower.

Plus I don't disagree.. employment went up under Obama...back to what is was before Obama FORCED 1995 Citibank out of court decision caused poor people
to get credit for homes which they couldn't afford, hence the housing bubble burst in 2007.  
But Obama NEVER helped the economy in spite of QE1,2,3!
Proof?
Tell me these are helpful statements and policies by Obama to businesses!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...







Obama's oil policy sucked, but I need to see the calculation you used to get a 177% reduction.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 9, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...




Oil and Gas Statistics | Bureau of Land Management


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2019)

healthmyths said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



If that site mentions a 177% reduction, post a pic.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 9, 2019)

CowboyTed said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Obama’s energy policy _caused_ unemployment. No improvement began until after fracking — which Obama _opposed_.


----------



## Billiejeens (Dec 9, 2019)

U2Edge said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I laugh


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 12, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



I never said the President had nothing to do with it. I said his impact on the numbers is open to debate. The title of the thread is not inconsistent with what I stated. Its possible for the President with the worst average unemployment rate in history to not be significantly responsible for such numbers. Its also possible that his policies led to such numbers.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 12, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2019 was 3.5%. This is the 36th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 36th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.98% in November 2019 to 3.97% in December 2019.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.97%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 12 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.2% for December 2019, the same as it was for November 2019.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 12, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Why do you think Coal suffered so badly






To promote Gas you are anti Coal...


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 12, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


He just made it as safe as possible. Fracking went on like crazy under him. It's nice to have natural resources.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 12, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Gas increase came into the picture in spite of Obama resistance to fracking. Obama energy policy restricted coal before fracking took hold.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 13, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...














Pretty obvious Fracking took out Coal... 

We know you have an anti-Obama agenda, Obama made fracking as safe as possible, What is your problem with making things safer. You know when you allow a company to pollute the environment, you are basically allowing them to take something without paying for it. 

So you are for Companies to lobby the government so they can steal from the people?


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 13, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



Franco... do you believe everything Obama said was true?
Are these statements and actions what a President who loves our country, wants to see our country better off?
I mean for example Obama was all in favor of oil tankers carrying 1 million barrels of oil on the open ocean when a simple dry land pipeline carrying
700 barrels of oil per mile would be safer on the environment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 13, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...







Get rid of this bad math already.
It is impossible to reduce leases by 177%.


----------



## healthmyths (Jan 13, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



You are right!  Thanks to you I found another link that shows Obama's gross malfeasance regarding our country!
Note it is 17% reduction in federal land leases from Bush and also the article I quoted showed Obama shut down 30 coal production facilities because
he was and still is anti-business.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Obama opposed fracking! Period.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 14, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Don't let actual evidence that makes you look stupid stop you.

President Obama's climate change legacy is clouded by his support of fracking

Obama believed in responsible fracking.... It involved safe guards for protecting the water table... But fracking from an economic issues seemed to have no problem with it...

You seem to be for pollution which scientifically means you want to kill Americans or don't care if they live or die..
When U.S. Emissions Dropped, Mortality Dropped Dramatically 

*Why don't you just say it, you believe Americans should die for corporation profits.*


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 14, 2020)

Obama's great work at reducing pollution that is killing Americans.

"
Utilities had damaged the economy most through the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which can harm the lungs directly or combine with ammonia to form particulate matter. The EPA estimates that PM 2.5—the deadliest particulate matter—is responsible for 90 percent of the 100,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution annually in the U.S.

Premature death carries a significant social cost, and Azevedo and her colleagues calculated the reduction in gross external damages from air pollution across the economy. (They did not assess some other forms of economic damage, such as climate damage.)

Damage to the economy from emissions dropped from $1 trillion to $719 billion from 2008 to 2014, Azevedo said.

“This is not trivial. These damages would correspond to something like 6% of GDP in 2008. And they are down to a little bit over 4% in 2014. So the good news is that through 2014, the U.S. economy continues to be on its path to be less pollution-intensive, and with lower consequences.”"
When U.S. Emissions Dropped, Mortality Dropped Dramatically


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Obama's great work at reducing pollution that is killing Americans.
> 
> "
> Utilities had damaged the economy most through the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which can harm the lungs directly or combine with ammonia to form particulate matter. The EPA estimates that PM 2.5—the deadliest particulate matter—is responsible for 90 percent of the 100,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution annually in the U.S.
> ...



*Damage to the economy from emissions dropped from $1 trillion to $719 billion from 2008 to 2014, Azevedo said.*

Wow!

When you compare the first fake number to the second fake number, the drop is significant!!


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 14, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's great work at reducing pollution that is killing Americans.
> ...



Well it is up to you to prove them fake...

Here let me help...

Here is the peer reviewed paper published on the data collected:
Fine particulate matter damages and value added in the US economy

Now with you expertise you can give us the scientific holes which haven't been pointed out by other experts in the field.

*You see you blurt out 'fake' all you like but you are now accusing someone without any actual evidence.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



*You see you blurt out 'fake' all you like but you are now accusing someone without any actual evidence.*

Well, I wouldn't say these fake numbers were created without any actual evidence...….

_The EPA estimates that PM 2.5—the deadliest particulate matter—is responsible for 90 percent of the 100,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution annually in the U.S._

Estimates...90%
Estimates 100,000 premature deaths
Estimates 6% of GDP in 2008
Estimates 4% of GDP in 2014

Looks very rigorous to me. How could I have ever doubted?
They're right, we have to stop raising dust while farming.


----------



## CowboyTed (Jan 14, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Apart from just trying to sprinkle doubt have you got any actual evidence.  Why are you so anti-American... The story is about how US Citizens lives were saved and the Economy does a lot better because of it... Why are you so Anti-American?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


you must have missed the word 'estimates'  guess what that word means?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...



*Apart from just trying to sprinkle doubt have you got any actual evidence.*

You mean more evidence than the 4 estimates stacked on top of each other in that paper? 

*The story is about how US Citizens lives were saved and the Economy does a lot better because of it...*

Fracking is awesome!!!  I'm so glad Obama failed to kill it like he wanted.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 14, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Obama's great work at reducing pollution that is killing Americans.
> 
> "
> Utilities had damaged the economy most through the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which can harm the lungs directly or combine with ammonia to form particulate matter. The EPA estimates that PM 2.5—the deadliest particulate matter—is responsible for 90 percent of the 100,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution annually in the U.S.
> ...


When Obama energy policy took hold people in third world countries died from starvation as a result.


----------



## U2Edge (Feb 7, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for January 2020 was 3.6%. This is the 37th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 37th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.97% in December 2019 to 3.96% in January 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.96%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 11 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.4% for January 2020, an increase from 63.2% in December 2019.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 3, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for February 2020 was 3.5%. This is the 38th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 38th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 3.96% in January 2019 to 3.95% in February 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.95%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 10 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 63.4% for February 2020, the same as it was in January 2020.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 3, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.96%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 9 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7% for March 2020, down from 63.4% in February 2020.


----------



## IM2 (Apr 3, 2020)

Are you really serious? trump was handed declining unemployment, record job growth, and full employment. C'mon folks we have to be more detailed here.  Unemployment was 4.7 percent when trump took office I mean, can we get real? It fell by a point during his time and that wasn't because of anything he has done.

Obama was handed a dying economy and yet you want to contrast the numbers with trump when for most of this presidency trump has rode on Obamas economic work.

I know most of you guys here want to re elect trump, I don't know what for except for one thing, and that is just sad.


----------



## Camp (Apr 3, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


How will the unemployment rates over the rest of the year impact Rrumps average?


----------



## IM2 (Apr 3, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Manufacturing is in a recession right now and trump did not bring back manufacturing jobs. Most of those decisions were made before trump took office.

Obama did not lie over 16,000 times in 8 years much less the 4 we have had under trump., trump does not love America. But what you say about Obama fits right in with the racist narrative. He wasn't America, he hates America. You white racists don't get it because none of your asses have to live as black people. Obama loved this country more than any of you. He put his life out there on the line literally. Because there were all kinds of rumors about Obama getting shot and whites were the ones telling me this. So what kind of man would fabricate his birth to run for office in a country where he might get killed? You fucking white idiots.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> Are you really serious? trump was handed declining unemployment, record job growth, and full employment. C'mon folks we have to be more detailed here.  Unemployment was 4.7 percent when trump took office I mean, can we get real? It fell by a point during his time and that wasn't because of anything he has done.
> 
> Obama was handed a dying economy and yet you want to contrast the numbers with trump when for most of this presidency trump has rode on Obamas economic work.
> 
> I know most of you guys here want to re elect trump, I don't know what for except for one thing, and that is just sad.


And now Trump will have to deal with the numbers from an economic freeze. 

May not be his fault, but it is his economy


----------



## IM2 (Apr 3, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's great work at reducing pollution that is killing Americans.
> ...



You guys love to lie about Obama. So you go ahead and give trump a second term and watch the disaster you supported unfold to it's conclusion.


----------



## IM2 (Apr 3, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really serious? trump was handed declining unemployment, record job growth, and full employment. C'mon folks we have to be more detailed here.  Unemployment was 4.7 percent when trump took office I mean, can we get real? It fell by a point during his time and that wasn't because of anything he has done.
> ...


He's took credit for what he did not do, so he must now take whatever is coming.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Trumps numbers are headed for double digits, perhaps over 20 percent. 

Last months numbers were as of March 14, before most businesses started to shut down. There were still 700,000 job losses. In actuality, the number is over 3 million and rising. 

It may take a while for the numbers to recover as many businesses will not come back.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Regardless, he can no longer claim the greatest economy in history.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


the government shut down businesses.  you know that correct?  many manufacturers are gearing up to produce products they don't manufacture to help with this supposed crisis.  why are you always so dumb?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


wow, we have your permission?  why thanks.  I think we will.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


or obammy did this.  can't have it both ways lefty bag.  if it was obammy's market and economy, it still is.  you really are a finger pointer.  watch your eyes.


----------



## CowboyTed (Apr 3, 2020)

This whole thread title is stupid and I thin I said it before

A measure of president is what he got it (well 6 mths to 1 yr after gets office ) and what he gave back (well 6 mths to 1 yr after leaves office )... Averages are a joke because the president would get an country in the shit and give it back at a high would have only an average rating...

There are a number of measures:
Deficit - The most important
Education
Health
Unemployment
Labour Participation
Environment
Income Gap
Stock Market
GDP Growth
Crime
Homeless
Drug Addiction 

Generally speaking Trump has made this worse in every one of those except  Crime which was a tie (it has declining for 25 years and if anything it slowed a bit under Trump but not significantly).

I can hear people say what about tax cut. When you are borrowing money to fund a tax cut you are transferring the money the people paying it back to the people who got it. So the general Taxpayer gave money the the rich.  

And if you voted for him because you got Judges, was it really worth it... He has got thousands of Americans needlessly killed over being incompetent. His team are possibly is worse set of individuals running the country in modern history. 
Seriously Biden could just appoint a team and play golf  6 days a week and in 4 years the country would be better off than under Trump. 

The problem is Trump took a gamble like ignoring the CoronaVirus and putting in a travel ban thinking that would stop it. Biden at the time (and there is plenty of video evidence) was saying this will slow the virus coming but we need to use that time, Trump squandered that time. 

*I was a call a big one and Trump got it dead wrong and Biden got it right. That doesn't make Biden a genius, he read reports and had experience, but it made him right.*

*So the Democratic strategy is simple this fall, On the biggest call of Presidency, Trump got it wrong and Biden was right. The result is Americans died.  *


----------



## DrLove (Apr 3, 2020)

Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.


He may be up there with Hoover


----------



## Billiejeens (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



"not lie over 16,000 times"

I really hope, and think, that any reasonable person doesn't read past that -


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.


obammy did that, did you forget?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

jc456 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.
> ...


None of the last five Presidents have done that combined. 

Trump is on his own


----------



## Aletheia4u (Apr 3, 2020)

IM2 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 3, 2020)

Aletheia4u said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



*How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington








						How Barack Obama Has Made $20 Million Since Arriving In Washington
					

In the 12 years since Barack Obama arrived in Washington, he won the White House, reworked the nation’s laws, ended two wars — and earned $20 million.




					www.forbes.com
				




How Barack Obama Achieved a Net Worth of $40 Million*
Barack and Michelle Obama had no more than $1.3 million in net worth when Barack entered the White House as the 44th President of the United States. However, it is interesting to note that rather reliable sources now estimate them to be worth around $40 million, which is a remarkable increase over the course of around a decade’s time.








						Barack Obama's Net Worth Is $40 Million (Updated For 2020)
					

Barack and Michelle Obama had no more than $1.3 million in net worth when Barack entered the White House as the 44th President of the United States.




					moneyinc.com


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2020)

The 


healthmyths said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



The Great Obama is in high demand for his speeches and books

Who wouldn’t want to hear him speak?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> This whole thread title is stupid and I thin I said it before
> 
> A measure of president is what he got it (well 6 mths to 1 yr after gets office ) and what he gave back (well 6 mths to 1 yr after leaves office )... Averages are a joke because the president would get an country in the shit and give it back at a high would have only an average rating...
> 
> ...


This shut down is stupid


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 3, 2020)

jc456 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thread title is stupid and I thin I said it before
> ...


So how many have you and Trump killed with downplaying the problem? Great job!


Meanwhile this is a really stupid idea for a thread. Nothing is that simple. all we know for sure is that the GOP causes corrupt bubbles and busts every time they get 8 years to do it. Reagan tax rates last 30 years have wrecked the middle class and the country. No sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP rich.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 3, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Books and speeches just like the clintons and Sanders. Big f****** mystery just for dupes like you...


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 3, 2020)

jc456 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 3, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


So proud of being so misinformed...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


Not as many as the flu, cancer, gun victims, car deaths. Hmmmm


----------



## jc456 (Apr 3, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It’s who you are


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 3, 2020)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


That's what I'm talkin about the downplaying of the virus which we had some control over if our president wasn't a total incompetent....


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 3, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Trumps numbers are headed for double digits, perhaps over 20 percent.


According to Tramp's own definition of the "REAL" unemployment rate his is 63.8%, up from the 42% he calculated during Obama!!!









						Donald Trump Explains All
					

In an interview with TIME, the leading Republican candidate talks about what's wrong with the Clintons, his opponents' weaknesses and what it takes to be great




					time.com
				



Don’t forget in the meantime we have a real unemployment rate that’s probably 21%. It’s not 6. It’s not 5.2 and 5.5. *Our real unemployment rate*–in fact, I saw a chart the other day, our real unemployment–*because you have ninety million people that aren’t working. Ninety-three million to be exact.*
If you start adding it up,* our real unemployment rate is 42%.*
- Donald J Trump, Time interview, Aug. 18, 2015


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 3, 2020)

jc456 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.
> ...


Actually Obama did the exact opposite. Bush left him 12 million unemployed and Obama cut that down to 6 million. Tramp has 7+ million unemployed in todays BLS report, not counting the 10 million jobs Tramp lost last week.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Apr 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


This woman just got elected to be mayor. In the beginning she spoke against Pres.Trump. But when she walked through the neighborhood and saw that it was rats infested and ran down buildings. She secretly met with Pres.Trump and handed him a note. The Deep State didn't like that.
All of these politicians received bribes through book deals or other deals. That is how they launders the money that they receive from special interest. And Pres.Trump knows that.
And even A.O.C., a bartender received her book deal money right before she entered into office.
But now since this plague is going on. That a lot of people are buying books and watching Netflix while under this shutdown. I guess Soros found a way to get his money back from these bribes.










						Pugh hands Trump letter noting city's 'needs'
					

Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh says she has given President-elect Donald Trump a letter describing the city's need for federal money. Pugh, a Democrat, and Trump, a Republican, met Saturday afternoon at the Army-Navy football game at M&T Bank Stadium.




					www.baltimoresun.com
				














						Trump Calls For Obama's Book, Netflix Deals To Be Investigated
					

President Donald Trump claimed that instead of worrying about him, the House Judiciary Committee should investigate the Obamas instead.




					www.essence.com
				







			George Soros Is A Leading Shareholder In Netflix – Investment Watch


----------



## IM2 (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


True.


----------



## IM2 (Apr 4, 2020)

Billiejeens said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


The lies are documented.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 4, 2020)

Eh, just lose the whiners, sexual deviants, traitors and freeloaders (Democrats) and America would be sooo much better off..


----------



## CowboyTed (Apr 4, 2020)

jc456 said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thread title is stupid and I thin I said it before
> ...


 Again we as wha is acceptable number to die for the economy?

How many of your family are you giving up?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Apr 4, 2020)

Obama is the worst president ever and should be arrested..

When trump took office,  the unemployment rate was 44%-- trump took it down to 3% in just one month....



The Dow Jones was 5,761.....trump took it 35,887 in just three days


#MAGA


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 4, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CowboyTed said:
> ...


What is the difference between dying _for_ the economy and dying _from_ the economy? It should be a balancing thing. Dying should be the issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

IM2 said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Yes your lies are well documented with every thread and post you make


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Since the jobs lost are mostly in leftist run areas and it's the leftist run government's of those states forcing those businesses to close I would say the job loss is due to leftist


----------



## CowboyTed (Apr 4, 2020)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Obama is the worst president ever and should be arrested..
> 
> When trump took office,  the unemployment rate was 44%-- trump took it down to 3% in just one month....
> 
> ...



You should tell people your b eing sarcastic. Some idiots here might think your telling he truth..


----------



## Bo Didleysquat (Apr 4, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...











						Infection Trajectory: See Which Countries are Flattening Their COVID-19 Curve
					

The number of COVID-19 cases around the world continues to grow, but each country has a different infection trajectory. This chart tells the story.




					www.visualcapitalist.com
				




Not a promising trajectory.  Note the difference between our trajectory and S Korea's.  The first confirmed case of COVID-19 for both countries was on Jan 21.  S Korea's population is 1/6th of the US's.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat (Apr 4, 2020)

CowboyTed said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is the worst president ever and should be arrested..
> ...



This is America. everyone knows there's no truth.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

IM2 said:


> Are you really serious? trump was handed declining unemployment, record job growth, and full employment. C'mon folks we have to be more detailed here.  Unemployment was 4.7 percent when trump took office I mean, can we get real? It fell by a point during his time and that wasn't because of anything he has done.
> 
> Obama was handed a dying economy and yet you want to contrast the numbers with trump when for most of this presidency trump has rode on Obamas economic work.
> 
> I know most of you guys here want to re elect trump, I don't know what for except for one thing, and that is just sad.



Trump should have been removed from office on February 5, 2020.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

Camp said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.
> ...



Well, the rise in the Unemployment in March, from 3.5% in February to 4.4% in March, caused his average to go from 3.95% to 3.96%. We'll have a better picture of things in about a month when we see the unemployment number for April.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

Bo Didleysquat said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The United States response to covid-19 has been terrible. The results in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan show that.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really serious? trump was handed declining unemployment, record job growth, and full employment. C'mon folks we have to be more detailed here.  Unemployment was 4.7 percent when trump took office I mean, can we get real? It fell by a point during his time and that wasn't because of anything he has done.
> ...



Oh I'd say its definitely his fault.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.
> ...



We'll have a better picture in early May when April's Unemployment numbers will be released.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.



If the Unemployment rate averaged 10% for the rest of the year, Trump's average leaving office in January would be 5.09%. 
If the Unemployment rate averaged 20% for the rest of the year, Trump's average leaving office in January would be 6.97%.
If the Unemployment rate averaged 30% for the rest of the year, Trump's average leaving office in January would be 8.84%.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are STUPID enough to say that!


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Looks like over 5 million out of work and climbing
The number will skyrocket 

Wait till we see the GDP


----------



## harmonica (Apr 4, 2020)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


......at least Mr Trump is trying to undue the decades of the US getting fkd by China/etc..they should have put tariffs in decades ago


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Leftist controlled cities are shutting jobs down dumb ass 
Hell I haven't stopped working since the bullshit started


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm - after losing 10 million jobs in the last week, Trump may beat 'em all within the next 2-3 months.
> ...


thing is he's not leaving office in January 
Average Joe American realizes the jobs lost is not due to the President policies


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2020)

IM2 said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


They aren’t lies! Hmmmmmm


----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 4, 2020)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Of course they do! Regulations is a hue reason


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


That is because the cities are where the jobs are, and Right-wingers have no jobs, the lazy cucks!


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



If your honest and objective, you would realize that any sitting President can be defeated regardless of the situation. Donald Trump's victory in 2016 was a weak one, losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Donald Trump scraped together an electoral victory through victories by tiny margins in the 3 states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. So Donald Trump started off his presidency with rather weak support in January 1917. Since that time, his approval rating has averaged 40%, the lowest in history, and he was impeached by the House Of Representatives, and faced a trial for removal form office by the Senate. Now the current circumstances where the United States has become the epicenter for a global pandemic. Over a thousand people dying a day, and the threat that unemployment levels could exceed levels during the Great Depression of the 1930s. For a President starting out with a weak base of support, his chances do not look good for November 2020.


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



Jobs are being lost in the tens of millions and people are DYING largely because Dear Leader dithered for two months with his thumb up his butt.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


We are one of the worst in the world in responding to TRUMPvirus


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Trump closed flights from China and declared “Mission Accomplished”

What else was there for him to do?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Not exact but he did close flights coming from China while democrats in the house were creating a bill to overturn his ban


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


and Nancy was telling people to come to Chinatown because we have it all under control
and while she was doing this she was also creating a bill to overturn Trumps travel ban


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Once Trump closed the flights from China, he thought he was done

What else can happen? We have this thing beat


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You aren't being honest Trump won 30 states and the popular vote of those 30 states 
hopefully by the end of this virus blue state population will be decimated
Hows that for honesty?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Prove it? he was fighting with the house over the ban so no his job wasn't done


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


non-essential jobs don't you mean? I haven't stopped working since this shit began


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So a state with 33 million residents is equal to a state with 500,000 residents?  You have much to learn son.








						The Election Came Down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Updated)
					

Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it's fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 77,000 votes out of than 136 million ballots cast. According to the…




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

Aletheia4u said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...


_
According to *Soros Fund Management*‘s latest portfolio, as of December 31, 2017, SFM *owns 71,500 shares in Netflix*. At the current price of $285.77 per share, the total value of Soros’ shares in Netflix is a whopping *$20.43 million*._

Leading shareholder? Whopping? Hilarious!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*So a state with 33 million residents is equal to a state with 500,000 residents?*

Of course not. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes while California has 55.


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Then WTF difference does it make that Dear Leader won 30 states which included THE LEAST POPULOUS?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


The difference you idiot was the election


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


A win is a win. When you leftists realize your state government can't help you some of you morons might want to end government control of your lives lol


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean the one he lost by 3 million but squeaked in the EC by 77,774 with bigly assistance from Comey and Putin. THAT election?


----------



## Dick Foster (Apr 4, 2020)

I wish we could take some of you idiots out and burn you at the stake. The nation would be a lot better off without your kind around.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



3 million people choose not to vote for Trump or Hillary


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



WTF are you yammering about now Skippy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



*Then WTF difference does it make that Dear Leader won 30 states *

Because the 30 states he won had more electoral college votes than the 20 Hillary won.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



*You mean the one he lost by 3 million*

You mean the one he won, 304-227.

*with bigly assistance from Comey and Putin. *

Which Putin meme got you to vote for Trump? Can you post it here?


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yep - Good ol' EC ... Our Last Vestige of Slavery in which acres vote instead of people and a vote in Wyoming, Montana and Alaska carries triple the weight of a vote in New York or Texas.  








						Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars
					

A lesser-known part of the Electoral College's history: its relationship to slavery in the U.S.




					www.pbs.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


*
acres vote instead of people*

Liar.

*a vote in Wyoming, Montana and Alaska carries triple the weight of a vote in New York or Texas. *

That's not even close to true.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You've never worked a day in your life, you lazy cuck! Get a job, I'm tired of my taxes supporting your lazy ass!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


And mayor diblasio was telling his constituents to go out and party March 3.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 4, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Asshat I wished the government would stop welfare to anyone social security that also any safety net out there either you make it on your own or you die 
Does that sound like someone who has never worked a day in their life?


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


The brainwashed hater dupe.... Praying for your recovery.


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Asshat I wished the government would stop welfare to anyone social security that also any safety net out there either you make it on your own or you die
> Does that sound like someone who has never worked a day in their life?



Do we have a member at present who might translate bigrebnc1775 to actual ENGLISH?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2020)

jc456 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Mar 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.”
- Donald Jackass Tramp


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


YES! If you had actually worked and paid into SS you would want it.
Get a job you lazy cuck!


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That butthole will be FIRST in line for his big gub-ment Corona handout and SS check.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Most Americans voted against him

They will in November too


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It is exactly true
600,000 votes in Wyoming gets you 3 EVs
200,000 each

40 million in California gets you 57 EVs
700,000 each


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...



*It is exactly true
600,000 votes in Wyoming gets you 3 EVs
200,000 each*

Nope. Wyoming gets 1 EV, and 1 House member, for the 600,000 in population. 

In California, you get 53 EV, and 53 House members, for the 39 million in population.

736,000 each.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 4, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You will be glad to know that there are people who will purposely spread this virus. But you know that already. If you are a citizen, we all will be affected to some degree. This is not a contest. This is not a game. This may be survival of a nation at some point. Trump is not the dictator type.  We will get one if things go bad and stay bad.


----------



## DrLove (Apr 4, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



As expected, you are now making excuses for your Own Personal Plastic Jesus to take over the country by FIAT!! 

PS: Trump is the PENULTIMATE Prick-Tater .. Which explains why he loves the buttholes in Russia, Turkey, Philippines, NoKO, etc etc etc /
Kinda sad man


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The only recovery I want is for every leftist to die and go away


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


most Americans votes against Hillary


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

DrLove said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Prove it or you just proved that you are a liar


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


trolls going to troll 
Prove I have never worked in my life or you just proved you're a lying sack f dog shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Asshat I wished the government would stop welfare to anyone!!!!!!
> ...


Your ignorance is always showing but why make it more obvious?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wyoming gets 3 EVs. 1 Congressman and 2 Senators


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Already proved it, now get a job for the first time in your life you lazy cuck!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


We have. How does that change my previous post exactly?


----------



## DrLove (Apr 5, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



*The only recovery I want is for every leftist to die and go away*

We surely attracted our share of charmers around these parts!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


you didn't attract anything but the flies around your ass newbie 
I have been here longer than you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wyoming doesn't get 2 Senators because of their population.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No you have not proven anything. All you've done is shown just how much of a lunatic you are.
Dude, I'm an Air Force veteran AFSC 81150 SO THAT PROVES YOU ARE A LIAR


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 5, 2020)

DrLove said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


We don't need it people should have saved their money and not live above their means  like I do


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 5, 2020)

DrLove said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


 actually we're pretty much pragmatic centrist with an interest in the truth. Whereas Republicans are off the right-wing flat Earth... And totally misinformed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



*actually we're pretty much pragmatic centrist with an interest in the truth.*

How many genders are there?
How many trillions should we spend on windmills in the next 10 years?

What is your pragmatic centrist opinion?


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 5, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > DrLove said:
> ...


Joe biden's platform. Which you know nothing about of course LOL. I'll go with the psychiatrist psychologist experts. investing in alternative energy is a great idea and gives us good jobs. We need to tax the rich and invest in Americans again mainly their education training and infrastructure and low income housing which have been overlooked for 35 years. No sacrifice is too great to save greedy idiot lying GOP billionaires.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*Joe biden's platform.*

How many genders does his platform say there are?
How many trillions should does he say we spend on windmills in the next 10 years?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 5, 2020)

jc456 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


COVIDIOT Tramp's body count is now 9,528, good job Brownie!!!


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 5, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Look it up. I'm not your mother. A hell of a lot more than we do with big o oil crony corporate scumbag Republicans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 5, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



You made the stupid claim, liar.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 6, 2020)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


Obama.


----------



## otto105 (Apr 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...




Sorry, but the BLS doesn't agree with you.






						United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2020
					

A summary of U.S. unemployment rates by presidency, from Harry S. Truman to Donald J. Trump (1948-2020).




					historyinpieces.com
				




President Obama was handed a republic shit sandwich, was saddled with an idiot republic congress and still led the nation out of the Great Recession.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2020)

otto105 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...




*President Obama was handed a republic shit sandwich, was saddled with an idiot republic congress *

Dems had taken both houses of Congress in Nov 2006.
He had HUGE Dem majorities after November 2008.


----------



## Billiejeens (Apr 7, 2020)

IM2 said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




No.


----------



## Billiejeens (Apr 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




There is no contest to win any "popular Vote"
Did you even go to school?


----------



## otto105 (Apr 7, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The shit sandwich was the Great Recession.

Saddled with idiot republic congress in 2010 after the Democratic one stopped the Great Recession and created the PPACA.


Seems clear to all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 7, 2020)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



*Saddled with idiot republic congress in 2010 after the Democratic one stopped the Great Recession *

Yeah, Obama and the Dems did such a great job with the recovery, 
the Republicans won 63 (holy shit!!!) House seats in 2010.

*Seems clear to all.*

Sure was.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 8, 2020)

otto105 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



1. All of my information comes from the BLS.

2. Look at the date of the post you quoted. *IT WAS FROM JUNE 2013!* The list has been updated dozens of times since then including this month. 

3. This is the most current info for this list below:

The monthly unemployment rate for March 2020 was 4.4%. This is the 39th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 39th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.95% in February 2019 to 3.96% in March 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

*01. Donald Trump: 3.96%*
02. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 9 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 62.7% for March 2020, down from 63.4% in February 2020.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 8, 2020)

Billiejeens said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I did, and I realize there is a contest to win the popular vote in each of the 50 states. As for the national popular vote, the candidate that wins the national popular vote, wins the electoral college over 90% of the time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 8, 2020)

edthecynic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


most in leftist controlled areas works for me shitstain


----------



## Billiejeens (Apr 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...




Once again -
There is no National Popular Vote - to win or lose.


----------



## otto105 (Apr 8, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The republics won the seats because of the uncertainty over the PPACA. They don't have that uncertainty anymore.

That is clear.


41 seats trump lost in 2018.


----------



## otto105 (Apr 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



I assume you will be posting the fall of trump then too.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 9, 2020)

otto105 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Of course, why wouldn't I? I'm not a Trumper. I think Trump is the worst President the United States has ever had.


----------



## U2Edge (Apr 9, 2020)

Billiejeens said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Billiejeens said:
> ...



That's true, but it does not change the fact that the winner of the national popular vote is usually the winner of the electoral college. If your doing bad in the national popular vote polls, your unlikely to win the electoral college.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...


Pub dupes?? And supporting the Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution, open borders, free health care for entire world is smart??
Next time try college before you go public about political issues.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> I think Trump is the worst President the United States has ever had.



For all his faults,  Trump is still second coming compared to those who support Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution, open borders ,free medical care for entire world. I hope you understand?


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...
> ...


Republican voters are totally duped by the phony scandal conspiracy nut Job Fox network and Rush Limbaugh etc. Rupert Murdoch owns every newspaper and the only TV channel that agrees with your idiocy. And now Trump believes all that crap. Thursday he says closed down till May 1st at least, Friday he says liberate Virginia. Absolutely nuts.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Absolutely nuts.



Whats really nuts and treasonous is the  Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution, open borders, free medical care for entire world.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > I think Trump is the worst President the United States has ever had.
> ...


Canada already has everything Sanders and the Democrats want. And nobody wants communism or open borders. The crap you people believe....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Canada already has everything Sanders and the Democrats want.



Canada govt has total control of fossil fuel industry and is moving toward eliminating it in 8 years?? Do you think its that easy to lie???

www.cpusa.org › article › we-need-a-global-green-new...(communist party USA)
Oct 29, 2019 - It is a bold proposal to protect the environment and address the problems of environmental justice and environmental racism. As Rep. Ocasio- ...


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely nuts.
> ...


And you probably think global warming is a hoax. You're just dangerous you're so misinformed. And there's a hell of a lot of money and good jobs in the green New deal and I would like to try that. Everything by choice of course. Nothing about doing away with internal combustion cars at least.Or the other fear-mongering you've had....


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Canada already has everything Sanders and the Democrats want.
> ...


The Democrats are not for that.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Canada already has everything Sanders and the Democrats want.
> ...


Bringing up the Communist party is insane. Nobody is for communism except with a gun to their head in China North Korea or Cuba door closer


----------



## Billiejeens (Apr 21, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Canada already has everything Sanders and the Democrats want.
> ...




There is literally no upside to explaining things to that one -
You can not penetrate his bubble.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Bringing up the Communist party is insane.



Bernie has been a communist all his life, obviously!


"You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country," Sanders told John Harwood of NBC

In 1980 he[Sanders] was an “elector” in and giving speeches for the Socialist Workers Party (founded by communists expelled from Russia for supporting Leon Trotsky).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> The Democrats are not for that.



Biden supports Green New Deal Second Great Depression. What planet have you been on???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> And you probably think global warming is a hoax.



A partial hoax at least!! Although humans do contribute to climate change, many of the IPCC’s previous claims have been proven wrong. Remember, it was just 2007 when the IPCC warned that the world had only eight years to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The most recent report, released in October 2018, claims that we have 12 years to avoid the worst of climate change. When proven inaccurate, just move the goalposts. 








						The Green New Deal Is Communist Manifesto, 21st Century | RealClearMarkets
					

A 21st-century take on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Communist Manifesto was introduced in the form of a nonbinding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed...




					www.realclearmarkets.com


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> And there's a hell of a lot of money and good jobs in the green New deal and I would like to try that.



Good money in socialist dictates at gunpoint???????????????? Socialism makes us poor not rich. Ever heard of Cuba/Florida, USA /USSR,  Communist China/ Capitalist China???

Here is the list of Obama's Green New Deal! 100% failure!! Honestly, the problem with liberals is they are stupid. Sorry, but what other conclusion is possible?
Subj: Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Nothing about doing away with internal combustion cars at least.Or the other fear-mongering you've had....



Do you think its so easy to lie? Green New Deal does away with internal combustion!!! in 10 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


*
And there's a hell of a lot of money and good jobs in the green New deal*

Lots of wasted money and low-productivity jobs.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Why do you love pollution so much? And no fear mongering garbage.... The green New deal is actually high-paid tech jobs


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 21, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing about doing away with internal combustion cars at least.Or the other fear-mongering you've had....
> ...


Only the GOP propaganda machine says so oh, maybe a couple of fringe Democrats. The green New deal says what Congress and the president agrees to. They're not coming to take away your cars lol


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 21, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > And there's a hell of a lot of money and good jobs in the green New deal and I would like to try that.
> ...


Pretty good record actually. Capitalism is tough. And China was dumping everything they could. Without it we would have no clean energy manufacturing. Boy you really have memorized all the garbage propaganda....Republicans used to be the silent majority, now they are the loudmouth majority. All cable news sucks and radio demagogues internet ditto. And those are communists not socialist you f****** idiot. Goodbye


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*Why do you love pollution so much?*

Why do you hate the high standard of living that fossil fuels make possible?

* The green New deal is actually high-paid tech jobs*

Which low productivity jobs do you imagine are high-paid tech jobs? Post a list.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wyoming is 3 Electoral Votes.  It is the lowest number possible, just like DC.

California has 55 Electoral Votes.  It is the largest.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are an idiot. Each state gets two Senators regardless of population. Somebody better tell John Barrasso and Mike Enzi that one of them is NOT a Senator from Wyoming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where did I say otherwise? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Each state gets two Senators regardless of population.*

That's what I said, moron.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You said:
"Wyoming doesn't get 2 Senators because of their population."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



"Wyoming doesn't get 2 Senators because of their population."

That's absolutely correct. Double their population, do they get more than 2 senators?
Cut the population in half, do they lose any senators?

No?

Then their Senators must be independent of their population.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You were not even including them in your electoral vote totals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



My totals? 
California has 55 and Wyoming has 3.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thank you!  Be more careful next time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



I was very careful when I refuted right-winger's confusion about the weight of votes.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, you weren't, but you made a nice recovery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




*It is exactly true
 600,000 votes in Wyoming gets you 3 EVs
 200,000 each

40 million in California gets you 57 EVs
700,000 each *

Nope. Wyoming gets 1 EV, and 1 House member, for the 600,000 in population.

In California, you get 53 EV, and 53 House members, for the 39 million in population.

736,000 each. 

This absolutely refuted his claim.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I agree it is not 3 times, which was the original claim.  My apologies!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



In my mind, 736,000 is not 3.5 times 600,000


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 21, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I edited this post.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 22, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You're the idiot for thinking that's what he said or meant TORY


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 22, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nobody pulled your fucking string, dumbass!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 22, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Dumbass your total ignorance drew my attention.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 22, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


My ignorance? Feel free to point out anything I said was wrong, you incredible moron!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 22, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


I did point out your ignorance when I called you a ignorant fuck. you're so f****** ignorant you can't even realize what I was pointing out


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 22, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


So, you cannot point out anywhere I was incorrect, so that is why you are the dumbass!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 22, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Nothing about doing away with internal combustion cars at least.Or the other fear-mongering you've had....


Huh?? I thought cars produced carbon????????????????

Here's what the libcommie Sanders admits to now:

Sanders’s $16.3 trillion proposal to make the Green New Deal a reality is the largest among the Democratic contenders. The idea is to generate money from sources like selling energy via power marketing authorities, penalties on polluters, and income taxes from the 20 million new jobs created under the plan.

The timeline is aggressive too. While other candidates are aiming to make the US economy carbon neutral by 2050, Sanders’s Green New Deal aims to decarbonize transportation and power generation, the two largest sources of emissions, by 2030.


----------



## francoHFW (Apr 23, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing about doing away with internal combustion cars at least.Or the other fear-mongering you've had....
> ...


Well he lost. Maybe too bad. But only the GOP garbage propaganda machine makes people think they're coming to take your cars or your guns or any of the other stupid crap you believe....


----------



## Arresmillao (Apr 23, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


The pussygrabber inherited unemployment from Barack at 4.9%, currently near 20%, great job!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Well he lost. Maybe too bad. But only the GOP garbage propaganda machine makes people think they're coming to take your cars or your guns or any of the other stupid crap you believe....



Yes Sanders, an open communist,  lost but Biden supports the Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution too.

Maybe if you had bothered to finish HS you would know that cars have internal combustion engines!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2020)

Arresmillao said:


> The pussygrabber inherited unemployment from Barack at 4.9%, currently near 20%, great job!!!



Typical dumb dumb liberal trying to blame Trump's economic policies for  Chinese pandemic afflicting the entire planet.


----------



## LoneLaugher (May 6, 2020)

I predict that this thread will be rife with deflections and attempts to change the subject for the foreseeable future. 

Who knew that when Trump was telling his “fans” that the REAL unemployment rate was 20% or 30% or 40% back in the summer of 2016....that he was able to see into the future?


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> I predict that this thread will be rife with deflections and attempts to change the subject for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Who knew that when Trump was telling his “fans” that the REAL unemployment rate was 20% or 30% or 40% back in the summer of 2016....that he was able to see into the future?


Trumps U6 number will be close to 30 percent 

The number he insisted be used on Obama. Remember Labor Force Participation Rate?

They will never raise that one again


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Rupert Murdoch owns every newspaper and the only TV channel that agrees with your idiocy. And now Trump believes all that crap. Thursday he says closed down till May 1st at least, Friday he says liberate Virginia. Absolutely nuts.



What's nuts is Democrats supporting communists like Sanders just after communism killed 150 million. You always keep the larger context in mind.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > I predict that this thread will be rife with deflections and attempts to change the subject for the foreseeable future.
> ...



Could anything on earth be more desperate and moronic than trying to attribute pandemic unemployment to Trump??


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2020 was 14.7%. This is the 40th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 40th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.96% in March 2020 to 4.23% in April 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
*02. Donald Trump: 4.23%*
03. Harry Truman: 4.26%
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 8 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 60.2% for April 2020, down from 62.7% in March 2020. This is the lowest labor force participation rate since January 1973 when it stood at 60.0%. 

The April unemployment rate of 14.7% is the highest since 1939 when the annual unemployment number was 17.2%. So this is the highest monthly unemployment rate in 81 years. 

Trump loses his #1 position on the chart of the lowest average unemployment rates since World War II. Donald Trump may drop further down the chart over the next 8 months.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2020 was 14.7%. This is the 40th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 40th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.96% in March 2020 to 4.23% in April 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


take out effect of pandemic and Trump is number 1. Not surprising since Trump is pro business well Democrats are anti-business.


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > I predict that this thread will be rife with deflections and attempts to change the subject for the foreseeable future.
> ...


It's 22.8% under Depression Don. The highest it ever got under Obama was 17.1%.


----------



## rightwinger (May 8, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Trump is the president. 

Usually he is born on Third Base and bragging he hit a triple. 
Now he has to actually do something


----------



## rightwinger (May 8, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2020 was 14.7%. This is the 40th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 40th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.96% in March 2020 to 4.23% in April 2020.
> ...


Take out 9-11 and Bush kept us safe


----------



## rightwinger (May 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2020 was 14.7%. This is the 40th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 40th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 3.96% in March 2020 to 4.23% in April 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


It only gets worse from here


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 8, 2020)

Thanks again for this meaningless thread!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Take out 9-11 and Bush kept us safe


True enough but what is your point???????? Do you have any idea? You blame Bush for 911 and Trump for the pandemic???
 Honestly, you are at the kindergarten level which is typical of liberalism. Do you see why we say liberalism is based in  ignorance?


----------



## rightwinger (May 8, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Take out 9-11 and Bush kept us safe
> ...


The point is....

A president is judged on his WHOLE Presidency, not just the good parts


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> A president is judged on his WHOLE Presidency, not just the good parts



intelligent people judge him by what he controlled, not by what he didn't. A child, a tiny child, and a liberal would not need to learn that from others. Always so embarrassing!!


----------



## U2Edge (May 8, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A president is judged on his WHOLE Presidency, not just the good parts
> ...



The Buck stops with the President. Everything that happens, good or bad must be considered when voting this fall. The President's response to this virus, the number of Americans infected, the number of Americans dead we'll be considered as well as what happens with the economy. 

Taiwan, a country of 24 million people, only has 440 infections, 6 deaths, and at present, only 79 active cases of the virus. By June the virus may not be present anywhere in Taiwan, allowing for the economy to be more open. 

The Virus, public health, and the economy are all linked together. Proper government action like Taiwan took on January 20, 2020 putting in travel restrictions on everyone coming into the country is why Taiwan is in such a good position relative to the United States. 

Taiwan was more exposed to the virus given their greater travel and trade links with China thanks in part to their geographic proximity. Taiwan will be leaving this virus behind this summer, while the United States is in a middle of a disaster that may be getting worse with states opening up.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 8, 2020)

The blame for the virus can be assigned to New York City and the fact that it is a travel hub.  NYC, NJ ,Chicago, Seattle, and Detroit are the hot spots for COVID-19.  What do they have in common?  Lots of people from China pass through.  New Orleans had Mardi Gras which led to their high level of infestation.


----------



## rightwinger (May 9, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A president is judged on his WHOLE Presidency, not just the good parts
> ...


Absolutely
We look at how Trump responded to one of the worst crisis in American history. 

We see a response of denial, spreading misinformation, delay, working one state against another. 
We see America with five percent of the worlds population having 33 percent of the infections. 

History will not look fondly on Trump


----------



## Camp (May 9, 2020)

Trump has missed his opportunity for showing greatness and leadership in a national crisis. He has instead chosen mediocrity, incompetence, and failure. A shallow man with emotional and physiological deficiencies. Trump will be the symbol of a man child from now and forever.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> History will not look fondly on Trump


 The working man loves Trump and elected him after Democrats sent their jobs to China and invited in 30 million illegals to take the remaining jobs and bid down wages still further.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Lots of people from China pass through.


And when Trump banned travel from China the Democrats called him a racist and xenophobe. Why would anybody be a Democrat even after Bernie has demonstrated how communistic they are? Can any Democrat answer that question?


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The blame for the virus can be assigned to New York City and the fact that it is a travel hub.  NYC, NJ ,Chicago, Seattle, and Detroit are the hot spots for COVID-19.  What do they have in common?  Lots of people from China pass through.  New Orleans had Mardi Gras which led to their high level of infestation.



TAIWAN is far more exposed to China than any United States city. Because TAIWAN acted early, January 20, 2020, and restricted ALL TRAVEL into the country, they only had 440 cases and 6 deaths. TAIWAN now only has 68 active cases. 

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people and is the 12 most densely populated country on the planet with the highest exposure to China. The United States could have been like Taiwan in terms of per capita cases and deaths, but it failed to act early. That is Trump's failure, because only a Federal closing of all travel from outside the country in January would have achieved the same results as TAIWAN. 

When you prevent the virus from entering the country to begin with, or at least heavily limit any entry, you prevent the issues you see with New York City and New Orleans from happening in the first place. 

TAIWAN actually did not have its first case of Coronavirus until February 16, 2020, nearly a month after it shut down its borders. There were bound to be some leaks, but these leaks were controlled through testing, contact tracing, and isolation of the infected and those that had any encounters with the infected. It worked really well and after that first February 16, 2020 infection, there were only 439 other infections and just 6 deaths. No one has died of coronavirus in Taiwan since April 10, 2020. *Since April 10, 2020, nearly 70,000 Americans have died from coronavirus. Nearly 70,000 deaths for the United States VS ZERO deaths in Taiwan since April 10. This shows the true scale of Trumps failure. *


----------



## U2Edge (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of people from China pass through.
> ...



*The epicenter of the coronavirus spread in the United States is New York City. New York City was infected by people traveling from EUROPE, NOT CHINA! Again, in a pandemic, you only have hours to react given the nature of air travel in 2020. TAIWAN restricted all travel into the country from ANYWHERE. Trump only blocked one country, China which turned out to be useless because the pathogen spreads to people anywhere they live, so the only way to stop its entry into the United States is to block all travel from all countries, not just China. *


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > History will not look fondly on Trump
> ...


And the working man is paying a price with trade wars, tax cuts on the wealthy and 15 percent unemployment


----------



## rightwinger (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of people from China pass through.
> ...


Trump only banned people who were Chinese. Which is racist and xenophobic. He let anyone else into the country. 

Problem was, the virus didn’t care what race you were


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 11, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > The blame for the virus can be assigned to New York City and the fact that it is a travel hub.  NYC, NJ ,Chicago, Seattle, and Detroit are the hot spots for COVID-19.  What do they have in common?  Lots of people from China pass through.  New Orleans had Mardi Gras which led to their high level of infestation.
> ...



BULLSHIT!  The Chinese do not travel to Taiwan or vice versa.  That was the main cause.  The rest of your stats are irrelevant except to make you feel better.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 11, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



So not Chinese ever traveled to NYC?  Do you realize how stupid you sound?  You should, because all we hear is "DUMBASS" coming out!


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 11, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Unfortunately the left fought Trump's travel bans tooth and nail and they where the ones who took no action while celebrating Trump's impeachment.


----------



## rightwinger (May 11, 2020)

bear513 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Your timing is off
Impeachment was a done deal by the time the virus hit our shores. 
It is not hard for Trump to close our borders, he has been trying to do so since he took office. 

Block Muslims, block Mexicans, block Chinese. 
But of course, white people are OK
It was white people who brought the virus


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 5, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2020 was 13.3%. This is the 41st unemployment report with Trump in office, his 41st month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.23% in April 2020 to 4.45% in May 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.45%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 7 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 60.8% for May 2020, up from 60.2% in April 2020. 

Surprisingly, the unemployment rate went down in May to 13.3% from 14.7% in April. Most predictions were for an increase to 19.5% unemployment for May. Labor force participation rate also increased. Perhaps this reflects that many business's have held onto their employees and there was an improvement once some of the first states started to open up in May. So it looks like the re-openings in May prevented a worse unemployment rate and slightly improve things. Unfortunately when it comes to the spread of COVID-19, there has been no real improvement in the number of new daily infections and deaths since about May 10, 2020. The United States seems to be stuck at a rate that is about 50% of the worst days for the virus in April.


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 5, 2020)

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Fell in May as Hiring Rebounded 

America’s labor market unexpectedly rebounded in May, signaling the economy is picking up faster than thought from the depths of the damage from the coronavirus pandemic.




Nonfarm payrolls rose by 2.5 million after a 20.7 million tumble the prior month that was the largest in records back to 1939, according to Labor Department data Friday. The jobless rate fell to 13.3% from 14.7%.

Economist forecasts had called for a decline of 7.5 million in payrolls and a jump in the unemployment rate to 19%. No one in Bloomberg’s survey had projected improvement in either figure.

Treasury yields and U.S. stock futures jumped after the surprise report, while the dollar spiked against the yen.

The unexpected improvement wasn’t limited to the U.S. figures. North of the border, Canadian employment rose 290,000 in May, compared with forecasts of a 500,000 slump, its statistics office reported Friday.

The data show a U.S. economy pulling back from the brink as states relax restrictions and businesses bring back staff, while supporting a rebound in the stock market. At the same time, the lack of an effective treatment for Covid-19 -- which has already killed more than 100,000 in the U.S. -- means infections may persist and possibly surge in a second wave, with the potential to further shake the labor market and extend the economic weakness.

“These improvements in the labor market reflected a limited resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed in March and April due to the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it,” the Labor Department said in a statement.

The latest figures may give a boost to President Donald Trump, who has fallen behind Democratic challenger Joe Biden in polls amid the pandemic, recession and now nationwide protests over police mistreatment of African-Americans. The numbers come amid a debate over the timing and scope of additional stimulus, with Democrats and Republicans at odds following record aid approved by Congress to cushion the downturn.

Minutes after the release, Trump tweeted: “Really Big Jobs Report!” He said he would hold a news conference at 10 a.m. in Washington to discuss the report.



			U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Fell in May as Hiring Rebounded


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 5, 2020)

*The President with the highest average quarterly real GDP growth since World War II.*

As of April 2020:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
08. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
09. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
10. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
*11. Donald Trump: 1.97%
12. Barack Obama: 1.90%*
13. George W. Bush: 1.87%

          Trump has really dropped a lot on this chart. He actually peaked about 18 months ago with 2.83% average growth in quarterly real GDP growth. Now Trump has dropped to 1.97%. Most of the fall came from first quarter GDP numbers for 2020 which showed a contraction of GDP of just over 5%, the 7th largest quarterly contraction of GDP since World War II. We won't see 2nd quarter GDP numbers until the start of August, but based on the rebound in unemployment, there may be a rebound in quarterly GDP numbers for the 2nd quarter as well. Thing is, the first quarter was only negatively impacted by the pandemic and shutdown's starting in Mid-March. The rest of the first quarter, January, February, and even early March were more business as usual, so that 5% contraction is due largely to the shut downs in the last 3 weeks of March. So its hard to say what 2nd quarter figures will look like. 

Overall, the 21st century has been really a bad time for U.S. economic growth, relative to the history of economic growth in the last half of the 20th century.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 2, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2020 was 11.1%. This is the 42nd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 42nd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.45% in May 2020 to 4.61% in June 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.61%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 6 months left in Trumps first Presidential term, assuming he completes it.

The labor force participation rate is at 61.5% for June 2020, up from 60.8% in May 2020.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 2, 2020)

There will only be three more monthly unemployment reports before the Tuesday November 3, 2020 election. One in August, One in September, and One in October. Current predictions are that unemployment will continue to hover around 10% through the end of the year. Its possible that if this is Trump's last term, he will finish it out with an average of 5.28% unemployment or higher. This means that within just 10 months, he dropped from being first on the list to #8 on the list, a very rapid decline.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 7, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.74%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 5 months left in Trumps first Presidential term.

The labor force participation rate is at 61.4% for July 2020, down from 61.5% in June 2020.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...









Democrat governors are to blame for that.  Thanks for pointing out what miserable bastards they are.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


You don’t suppose the lockdowns have impacted recent numbers?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 7, 2020)

Wow! Trump is awesome! He’s third on the list! And that horrible Obummer is 11th. He sucked so bad!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 7, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> Wow! Trump is awesome! He’s third on the list! And that horrible Obummer is 11th. He sucked so bad!


I could say you’re being obtuse but really you’re just not that bright.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 7, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.
> ...



I think the failure of a proper response to the pandemic has impacted the numbers and will continue to impact the numbers unless and until the #1 priority becomes containing and destroying the virus. There is no return to normal with the virus infecting over 60,000 people a day and killing 1,500 people a day. 

Seasonal flu on average only kills 40,000 people a year in the United States. The coronavirus has killed 150,000 people in just 4 months.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 7, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> Wow! Trump is awesome! He’s third on the list! And that horrible Obummer is 11th. He sucked so bad!



Trump at one point was #1 on the list, but he is rapidly falling now. He might have to settle for #8 on the list by the time he leaves office on January 20, 2021.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You’re right. Lockdowns and their impact on delaying herd immunity as well as stifling the economy has everything to do with the bad numbers. That totally skews any legit comparisons to other admins.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...







What failure?  Trump was the ONLY politician, WORLDWIDE, to shut down air travel from China.  YOUR hero's all called him a racist for doing so.  No, the failure in dealing with the virus lies fully in the lap of cuomo and all of the other DEMOCRAT governors who have fucked over this country all to score political points.  My question is are you merely one of their operatives spewing this shit or are you too stupid to think on your own so will believe any BS they shovel down your throat?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 7, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Trump is awesome! He’s third on the list! And that horrible Obummer is 11th. He sucked so bad!
> ...



Yeah man. He earned that #1 spot. The drop isn’t his fault though.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 7, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You are lying or you are misinformed.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 7, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Here’s a link I stumbled upon referring to US policy as ‘xenophobic‘ and it’s dated three weeks before pelosi and deblasio and the LA governor were encouraging people to flood the streets for Chinese New Year and Mardi grad...





						"Something's Not Right Here Folks"? | A Look at USA 2009 H1N1 Virus Compared to China 2020 Corona Virus
					

When the United States 2009 H1N1 swine flu emerged, an international emergency, a declared global pandemic, it eventually infected 60 million and initially killed a minimum of 18,449 cases that year. But the final story of...




					www.news9.com


----------



## RealDave (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Trump is awesome! He’s third on the list! And that horrible Obummer is 11th. He sucked so bad!
> ...


 You can buy your way to lower employment through borrowing money.  Like Trump did.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 8, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Letting the virus run uncontrolled through the population in order to achieve Herd immunity would be a disaster. The United States approach has been a failure because the country has done very little to contain the virus. Its why 160,000 Americans are dead, compared to only 7 dead in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the worlds gold standard for policy on the coronavirus and what to do about it. Had the United States followed TAIWAN's lead, and sealed the country back in January, the United States would only have less than 160 dead rather than 160,000 dead and rising. No one in TAIWAN has died in nearly 3 months.


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 8, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Shutting down air travel from just one country, China, accomplished nothing. TAIWAN which was more exposed to China, shut down all air travel from every country and later only allowed people even their own citizens into the country after that had quarantined for 14 days and tested negative for the virus. Today, the United States has 160,000 dead, while TAIWAN has only 7 dead. See the difference?


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 8, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Its definitely his fault. If Trump had reacted to the pandemic the way TAIWAN did, less than 8,000 Americans would have been infected, and less than 160 would have died. The virus would be contained, and any new infections would be handled with contact tracing and selective isolation of individuals. The economy would be opened up and people would be going about their normal lives. That's the way it is in TAIWAN. TAIWAN was smart because the sealed off the country and locked down everything back in January. They got a very tiny amount of the virus thanks to their early restrictive policies. This has allowed them to go back to normal, with the less than 500 people who have been sick, and only 7 deaths in a country of 25 million people. 

      Trump had his chance and he failed and the American public will soon vote him out of office.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



*Its definitely his fault. If Trump had reacted to the pandemic the way TAIWAN did, *

Because he has dictatorial powers? LOL!


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 8, 2020)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.


That's a Democrat labor-union attitude. Donald Trump, for example, owns a lot of businesses that employ a lot of people.

Which is why poor people, or people out of work looking for jobs, cannot reasonably begrudge business owners the wealth and means to hire them for paid work.

Business owners are "too wealthy," and the Democrats want to tax them, but they use their wealth to put other people to work in a productive and profitable capacity, rather than spending lavishly on themselves.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...









It allowed the USA to get the hospitals ready.  We are the only country that didn't have a single hospital overwhelmed.

The losses we have had have been thanks to idiocy like cuomo and others forcing covid patients into old folks homes.  Tens of thousands have died needlessly because Democrat governors were either stupid, incompetent or actually wanted them to die.

You choose


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...








Oh?  If he did what Taiwan did you would have called him a dictator.   We know you love authoritarianism but don't accuse Trump of being one, when he CLEARLY is not.


----------



## WTF19 (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


dont tell the democrats---it would really fuck with their heads


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 8, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You have Democrats to thank for that.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 8, 2020)

WTF19 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Yeah! He really fucked up the economy. The unemployment rate tanked while he was president. He SUCKED!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The US is unique as a travel hub and we took steps that were trashed by democrats. Get over it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2020)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Is that why Biden wants to borrow $3 trillion when he gets into office?


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...







No, the Dems ARE fascists, sweetie.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 8, 2020)

westwall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nobody gets to call me sweetie unless they suck my cock first, Nancy.


----------



## westwall (Aug 8, 2020)

LoneLaugher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...








If it didn't require a microscope to find, you might get more action.

Just sayin...


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2020)

RealDave said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Isn't that what Biden is intending to do?


----------



## protectionist (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


UTTER TOTAL BULLSHIT. Nothing that has happened this Covid-19 year, has any business being in statistics, AND YOU KNOW IT. You guys can't win an election without fighting dirty, and pretending that the economy probkems are all Trump;s fault.

Actually I suspect it is US Democrats who colluded with China to create this killer virus, just to wreck the great economy we had , and weaken Trump;s chances for re-election. You guys are not just slimeball politicians, you're killers.


----------



## protectionist (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Its definitely his fault. If Trump had reacted to the pandemic the way TAIWAN did, less than 8,000 Americans would have been infected, and less than 160 would have died. The virus would be contained, and any new infections would be handled with contact tracing and selective isolation of individuals. The economy would be opened up and people would be going about their normal lives. That's the way it is in TAIWAN. TAIWAN was smart because the sealed off the country and locked down everything back in January. They got a very tiny amount of the virus thanks to their early restrictive policies. This has allowed them to go back to normal, with the less than 500 people who have been sick, and only 7 deaths in a country of 25 million people.
> 
> Trump had his chance and he failed and the American public will soon vote him out of office.


I already demolished this idiotic pile of bullshit.  Taiwan is of no comparison Apples and oranges. Trump has brought the mortality rate WAAAAAY down. (from 17,00/week in April, to only 1,000/week in the the CDC's latest count - August 1)

HUGE SUCCESS,






						Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
					

National Center for Health Statistics




					www.cdc.gov


----------



## protectionist (Aug 8, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Shutting down air travel from just one country, China, accomplished nothing. TAIWAN which was more exposed to China, shut down all air travel from every country and later only allowed people even their own citizens into the country after that had quarantined for 14 days and tested negative for the virus. Today, the United States has 160,000 dead, while TAIWAN has only 7 dead. See the difference?


THIS is what they need to "see", fool >>






						Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
					

National Center for Health Statistics




					www.cdc.gov


----------



## RealDave (Aug 11, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


It is what Trump did.  You stupid fucks were screaming abiout deficits & debt & your fast assed orange buddy had the deficit at a trillion in just three years.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 11, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


That's exactly what Biden is telling us he wants to do.


----------



## RealDave (Aug 11, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 Unfunded stimulus efforts should be used when in economic bad times like recessions.  

Stupid fuck Trump did it without the economic stress when he did the unfunded tax cuts and again with unfunded increases in military spending. And you cheered. You were parading up & down the stret in your fucked up red MAGA hat & waving your Trump banner.  Now you love debt.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for August 2020 was 8.4%. This is the 44th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 44th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.74% in July 2020 to 4.82% in August 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Donald Trump: 4.82%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There are 4 months left in Trumps first Presidential term.

The labor force participation rate is at 61.7% for August 2020, up from 61.4% in July 2020.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Look at your World War II history. The office of President in the United States has a large range of powers that can be used to defend the country. Franklin Roosevelt drafted half the labor force into the military and sent them overseas to fight in combat. 11 million people taken out of their jobs and houses and sent overseas. Franklin Roosevelt also enacted the Defense Production act forcing business's to produce supplies for the war effort. Franklin Roosevelt rationed certain supplies among the civilian population so as to help the war effort. Franklin Roosevelt interned or in fact imprisoned large numbers of Americans of Japanese ancestry.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


You forgot that it was the Obama Biden pesidency that paid China over 850 million dollars to study it and was released (By design IMHO) onto the world to gain political power.  This  Wuhan Virus should be renamed the Obama/Biden/China Virus..


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not true. There are multiple hospitals through out the country that were overwhelmed. Specifically there was on county in Texas near the border with Mexico that only had TEN hospital beds. Most people in that county got turned away. 

Taiwan has not had any deaths over the past three months, while the United States has had over 80,000 deaths. That shows you the scale of Trump's failure.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



What Taiwan did is what Franklin Roosevelt would have done. Franklin Roosevelt was not a dictator. Franklin Roosevelt ended the careers of dictators. Trump had an opportunity to protect this country from Covid-19 and he FAILED. There are now 192,000 dead Americans from Covid-19. If the United States had done as well as TAIWAN on a per capita basis, there would have only been around 100 dead. 

TAIWAN IS NOT A DICATORSHIP. TAIWAN IS A DEMOCRACY LIKE THE UNITED STATES!


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



TAIWAN was more exposed to the pandemic than any other country in the world due to its travel links and proximity with China. Yet, as of today, this country of 24 million people has less than 500 infections and only 7 deaths. TAIWAN is the gold standard for responding to this pandemic. Sadly, the United States has had nearly the worst response of any country on the planet in fighting this pandemic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Taiwan never had a shutdown, moron, and furthermore it's an island.  It's much easier to control your borders when they are all water.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


What did Taiwan do?

BTW, FDR certainly was a dictator.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Its definitely his fault. If Trump had reacted to the pandemic the way TAIWAN did, less than 8,000 Americans would have been infected, and less than 160 would have died. The virus would be contained, and any new infections would be handled with contact tracing and selective isolation of individuals. The economy would be opened up and people would be going about their normal lives. That's the way it is in TAIWAN. TAIWAN was smart because the sealed off the country and locked down everything back in January. They got a very tiny amount of the virus thanks to their early restrictive policies. This has allowed them to go back to normal, with the less than 500 people who have been sick, and only 7 deaths in a country of 25 million people.
> ...


Trumps push for therapeutics has also resulted in the mortality rate among those over 65 to drop from 15% to under 2%.... This means Older people are now able To survive this much better as well.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for July 2020 was 10.2%. This is the 43rd unemployment report with Trump in office, his 43rd month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.61% in June 2020 to 4.74% in July 2020.
> ...



As Harry Truman said, THE BUCK STOPS HERE! You can pretend all you want to that the problems this country has currently have nothing to do with TRUMP. That fantasy won't save Donald Trump on November 3, 2020. 

Donald Trump FAILED to protect this country as the results from TAIWAN prove when it comes to coronavirus. His failure to stop the pandemic before it penetrated into the U.S. population is not only responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, but the largest disruption of the U.S. economy since the 1930s. Donald Trump is by far the worst President this country has had, and he will be packing up to go home after November 3, 2020.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Trump is going to win on Nov 3 because the voters aren't as stupid as you believe them to be.  The only voters who blame Trump for COVID are the hysterical Dim morons like you.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Its definitely his fault. If Trump had reacted to the pandemic the way TAIWAN did, less than 8,000 Americans would have been infected, and less than 160 would have died. The virus would be contained, and any new infections would be handled with contact tracing and selective isolation of individuals. The economy would be opened up and people would be going about their normal lives. That's the way it is in TAIWAN. TAIWAN was smart because the sealed off the country and locked down everything back in January. They got a very tiny amount of the virus thanks to their early restrictive policies. This has allowed them to go back to normal, with the less than 500 people who have been sick, and only 7 deaths in a country of 25 million people.
> ...



American individuals and States have prevented this disaster from being worse than it already has been. Trump has done very little which is why there are nearly 200,000 dead Americans from Coronavirus and the worst economic contraction in the nations history. 

In the meantime, TAIWAN's economy is doing fine and the only 7 people have died and 490 have been infected in a country of 24 million people. TAIWAN has done better than any country in the world in dealing with the pandemic. But there is NOTHING that TAIWAN did, that the United States could not have done as well. Sadly, United States leadership, Donald Trump, failed to follow TAIWAN's lead on this issue. Now the United States is suffering the consequences.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Taiwan is a "compartmentalized" society.  This means there is very little travle between many regions of thier country. The populace does not posses the ability to move more than a few miles on public tansportation. that is by design.  This is why they reduced their systems of movement down. Only high priority movement was allowed. They never shut down. This is why they did not succumb to the viral infection like western countries.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Wow..

You ignore your own parties ignorance and actions to blame Trump for something YOUR PARTY DID...  Tell me again who was denying the virus was a threat by telling people to come on out for the CHINESE NEW YEAR..?


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



FDR ended the careers of dictator's and insured that democracy would not perish from the earth. You and I currently live in a world that he created with Harry S. Truman. 

Taiwan sealed off their country from all foreign travel/trade of any type on January 20, 2020. Even citizens of TAIWAN were blocked from returning to TAIWAN. Later, TAIWANESE citizens were allowed to return, but had to be locked in quarantine upon arrival at the airport or seaport and had to remain in quarantine for 14+ days and TEXT NEGATIVE for coronavirus on at least two test before they would be allowed out. 

Because TAIWAN dramatically and suddenly enforced this in January, the number and scale of their lockdowns was much smaller because the virus spread within the country was so tiny. It was also easy for contact tracers to track and isolate anyone that got infected. 

The United States can't even do contact tracing effectively because the number of people infected is too large.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I'm a REPUBLICAN. A BUSH/McCAIN REPUBLICAN! The person in charge of National Security and protecting the United States and its citizens is DONALD TRUMP. He is the commander in chief and he FAILED to do his job to protect the United States from this virus. The results in TAIWAN prove that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Until a vaccine is found Taiwan will be a time bomb waiting to go off..  All their compartmentalized lock down did was make them vulnerable to this virus for much longer. IF they get hit this fall they could experience a viral explosion like every country saw. In order to have any real advantage they must remain totally locked down until a vaccine is found and produced..


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



TAIWAN is like any western Democracy. It is a Democracy with a first world economy and was more exposed to China and the virus than any other country on the planet due to TAIWAN's close proximity to China and greater travel and trade links on per capita basis with China. John Hopkins University predicted that TAIWAN would suffer the largest number of deaths from coronavirus because of these factors. But TAIWAN beat the odds, because of effective leadership decisions from the government on what to do immediately before the virus could penetrate significantly into the country. Taiwan sealed off all travel/trade with the outside world on January 20, 2020 and isolated anyone they would later let in for 14 days. Those individuals had to TEST NEGATIVE for coronavirus before they were let out of isolation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Thats Telling...  This means your a democrat claiming to be a republican...

Tell me how you defend from a virus that was unleashed and was seeded in our nation?


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



TAIWAN is not under lock down except when it comes to foreign travel and trade. In Taiwan, schools, bars, nightclubs are all open. Everyone is working. The only restriction people in TAIWAN have is that they must wear a mask on the subway or bus. Otherwise, everything is normal. That is the benefit of acting early on January 20, 2020 to seal of the country from the outside world. Only 7 people have died in TAIWAN. By next summer, everyone in TAIWAN will have been vaccinated against Coronavirus.


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 4, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I've voted Republican, straight Republican all my life until Donald Trump became the nominee of the Republican party in 2016. I would NEVER vote for someone who was so pro-Russian, Anti-NATO, anti-U.S. Foreign policy and anti-U.S. Defense policy. Policies that had protected the United States for 70 years. 

So Hillary Clinton was the first Democrat I ever voted for in 2016. I still voted Republican down the rest of the ticket though. By the 2018 mid-Term elections, it became apparent that Trumpism had infected the rest of the Republican party and voted straight Democrat. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one true REAGAN REPUBLICAN left in congress right now and that's MITT ROMNEY. MITT ROMNEY is the only person in congress that deserves to be called a Republican. 

As for the virus, if TRUMP had followed TAIWAN's lead and sealed off the country from foreign travel and trade on January 20, 2020, we would have less than 10,000 infections instead of 6 million PLUS and only 100 dead instead of 200,000 dead. The economy would not be in recession and no one would be under lockdown at the moment except for a tiny number of infected individuals. The United States could have been like TAIWAN, but TRUMP totally FAILED.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


If Trump had tried to do that, douchebags like you would be screaming the loudest that he was xenophobic and unnecessarily destroying the economy.  In fact, that is exactly what your ilk did.

Again, Taiwan is an island.  It's very easy for Taiwan to seal off its border.  It's much harder for the US to do that, especially when Dim douchebags are trying everything possible to prevent it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...








Oh bullcrap.  You are just another progressive lying about being a Republican.  There is no doubt that you voted for obummer,  and will vote for whatever progressive politician you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> As far as I'm concerned, there is only one true REAGAN REPUBLICAN left in congress right now and that's MITT ROMNEY. MITT ROMNEY is the only person in congress that deserves to be called a Republican.



Thanks. Funniest thing I've heard all week.


----------



## westwall (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...








Okay, now we know you are a foreigner, and Roosevelts incarceration of the Japanese WAS ILLEGAL you fucking moron!  That's why we had to pay the living survivors reparations!


----------



## protectionist (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> I'm a REPUBLICAN. A BUSH/McCAIN REPUBLICAN! The person in charge of National Security and protecting the United States and its citizens is DONALD TRUMP. He is the commander in chief and he FAILED to do his job to protect the United States from this virus. The results in TAIWAN prove that.


FALSE! The results in the United States prove that he has been a HUGE SUCCESS in protecting the US from the virus, with an 83% reduction in the mortality rate.






						Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
					

National Center for Health Statistics




					www.cdc.gov
				




PS - Bush and McCain weren't Republicans. They were RINOs.


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


and if the asshole demoncrat party didnt shut AMERICA down  it would be where it was before the best in a century--DUH...so now that TRUMP is opening AMERICA, minus what prune face says,and that # is dropping...huh


----------



## protectionist (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> I've voted Republican, straight Republican all my life until Donald Trump became the nominee of the Republican party in 2016. I would NEVER vote for someone who was so pro-Russian, Anti-NATO, anti-U.S. Foreign policy and anti-U.S. Defense policy. Policies that had protected the United States for 70 years.
> 
> So Hillary Clinton was the first Democrat I ever voted for in 2016. I still voted Republican down the rest of the ticket though. By the 2018 mid-Term elections, it became apparent that Trumpism had infected the rest of the Republican party and voted straight Democrat. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one true REAGAN REPUBLICAN left in congress right now and that's MITT ROMNEY. MITT ROMNEY is the only person in congress that deserves to be called a Republican.
> 
> As for the virus, if TRUMP had followed TAIWAN's lead and sealed off the country from foreign travel and trade on January 20, 2020, we would have less than 10,000 infections instead of 6 million PLUS and only 100 dead instead of 200,000 dead. The economy would not be in recession and no one would be under lockdown at the moment except for a tiny number of infected individuals. The United States could have been like TAIWAN, but TRUMP totally FAILED.


If Democrats had not colluded with the Chinese to bring the virus here, to disrupt Trump's good economy, it would have never been here at all. And why should anybody in this forum listen to someone as idiotic as to praise Mitt Romney, and vote for a serial killer.


----------



## protectionist (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> TAIWAN is like any western Democracy. It is a Democracy with a first world economy and was more exposed to China and the virus than any other country on the planet due to TAIWAN's close proximity to China and greater travel and trade links on per capita basis with China. John Hopkins University predicted that TAIWAN would suffer the largest number of deaths from coronavirus because of these factors. But TAIWAN beat the odds, because of effective leadership decisions from the government on what to do immediately before the virus could penetrate significantly into the country. Taiwan sealed off all travel/trade with the outside world on January 20, 2020 and isolated anyone they would later let in for 14 days. Those individuals had to TEST NEGATIVE for coronavirus before they were let out of isolation.


Democrats spoke out against sealing off trade/travel from China, when Trump announced it (also in January).  They moronically called him a "racist" for doing it.


----------



## protectionist (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Trump beats all of them.* 3.98%* for 2017 - 2019.  

2020 doesn't count, because of the Democrat/China virus.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Taiwan is an island.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...




Forget it, he's rolling.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 4, 2020)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 47th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 47th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
*04. Donald Trump: 4.97%*
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%



There is 1 month left in Trumps Presidential term.

The labor force participation rate is at 61.5% for November 2020, down from 61.7% in August 2020.


*So Trump's Time in office is nearly over. One more month of data and will see where he will forever be in the history books when it comes to average unemployment while he was President. Right now he is at #4 on the list, but could fall one more place below Richard Nixon and just above Bill Clinton depending on what the Unemployment rate is for December. Amazing that Trump was in First Place back in February 2020 but may finish his term just 10 months later possibly as low as 5th place on the list. *

         It remains to be seen whether Trump will pull a Grover Cleveland and run for President in 2024 and get elected. If he does he will be limited in that run for office to just one term because of his time in office from 2017 to 2021. 

         If there is a TIE between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump after next month, I'll keep Trump in the 4th place position.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 4, 2020)

westwall said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Look it my posting history here. I believe George W. Bush was the 5th greatest U.S. President of the last 100 years. I voted straight Republican ticket in every election until 2016. In 2016, I voted Hillary Clinton for President, but voted Republican for everything else. 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat.  The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat. The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.



Sorry about your mental deterioration.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 4, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



True, but relative to China, so are the two American Continents. The two American continents are not connected to any other landmass and are separated by thousands of miles of ocean from China, far more than the 90 miles that separates China from Taiwan. Covid-19 came into the United States from several points Asia and Europe through AIR TRAVEL. It also arrived in the United States by Air Travel from South America. *There is no evidence that ANYONE walked across a land border from Mexico or Canada and spread coronavirus in the United States. *

   That shows that TAIWAN has little to no advantage over the United States in stopping covid-19 simply because of geography. In fact, TAIWAN's much greater proximity to China, greater travel and trade links, made it far more vulnerable than the United States. John Hopkins University predicted TAIWAN would suffer more than any country. Yet, after almost a year, TAIWAN has only 7 deaths compared to 280,000 in the United States. TAIWAN has had no deaths since May 2020, while the United States just the other day had 2,800 deaths in one day. 

            Most people arrive in TAIWAN through Air Travel. Most people arrive in the United States through Air Travel. Remember that! The United States had the ability to block the virus like TAIWAN did, but failed because Donald Trump never took the virus seriously.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat. The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.
> ...



On the contrary, its Republicans who chose to support Donald Trump who should have their mental health checked before anyone else. Why would Republicans choose to support someone with so many policy positions that are the opposite of mainstream Republicans for the past 40 years?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 47th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 47th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


  It helps if you inherit good job growth & a low rate.

Trump has negative job growth so averages can hide a lot of shit.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Dec 4, 2020)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


Well you invented the leftyvirus hoax to cause it so don't forget to take some credit for it yourself.  And now the stock market is over 30,000 anyway so.........


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.


Trump the businessman can put people to work, but that's not really the job of Trump the President of the U.S.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Don't believe a DAMN word as you have NO substantiation!  NO links.  What are your sources?  Nothing!


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 4, 2020)

justinacolmena said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> ...


YOU tell me.  Is it the President's job then to help lower all of our costs of living?  Is that a valid action?
Tell me what you think of a president that said:
the following and then compare to what Trump did in 4 years while 93% of the MSM was against him BECAUSE they did the following.  I'm not fabricating. Not making any of this up and yet there are many truly uninformed people that facts just don't mean anything to them!


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> YOU tell me. Is it the President's job then to help lower all of our costs of living? Is that a valid action?


Once again, there are businesses that make quite a bit of money doing just that.
Walmart, Target, Kroger, and other discount retailers by providing cheap consumer goods.
Builders and developers who provide low-cost housing.

Be proactive, cut your costs as a consumer, have a little bit left over after you pay your bills.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2020)

Trump is one of those Presidents who will leave office with a higher unemployment rate than he started with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...







Reduction of 177%? Dude.

Post your math.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Reduction of 177%? Dude.
> 
> Post your math.


They're leases. That's entirely possible if an oil field is leased over 500% with all the sub-leases and sub-sub-leases. Do you need a CPA or a professional bookkeeper?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Um, for most people its common knowledge. But if you want to research it feel free. Most people arrive in the United States from other countries through AIR TRAVEL, the same way they would arrive in TAIWAN. Even if you live in Mexico City, your going to fly to Houston Texas, not drive that distance. Same with someone who lives in Toronto and decides to got to New York City or Washington D.C. . Most people FLY, they don't drive. Then you have the other 195 countries that DO NOT border the United States. Nearly all of them arrive here by Air Travel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

justinacolmena said:


> That's entirely possible if an oil field is leased over 500% with all the sub-leases and sub-sub-leases.



Show me.
Show previous leases.....show current leases.....show the calculation that gets you a 177% reduction.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Even if you live in Mexico City, your going to fly to Houston Texas, not drive that distance.


Why not drive? Long straight desert roads, easy driving.
16-18 hour drive, 1000 miles (1600km) depends if you want your own vehicle with Mexican license plates in Houston when you get there.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Trump is one of those Presidents who will leave office with a higher unemployment rate than he started with.


That would be EVERY Republican president on record except for Reagan.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2020)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is one of those Presidents who will leave office with a higher unemployment rate than he started with.
> ...


Well unemployment may be higher but he DID slash taxes on the wealthy.

Win/Win for Republicans


----------



## AntonToo (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 47th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 47th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



Horseshit, Trump was handed off 4.7% unployment economy yet according to your stupid method that's not a factor.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 47th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 47th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Now factor in a virus and political opposition lockdowns.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


A tiny island is much more easily isolated than an entire continent that spans two hemispheres.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 4, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Taiwan is a tiny island and the Western Hemisphere is an entire _hemisphere_. 
You’re being dishonest.


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is one of those Presidents who will leave office with a higher unemployment rate than he started with.
> ...


This is why they use "average unemployment" as their metric.  It favors republicans, because they usually adopt a lower unemployment rate from the democrat leaving office, and leave a higher unemployment for the next democrat to inherit.

Have them post the change in unemployment rate, and they'll flee like vermin when you turn the lights on.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > justinacolmena said:
> ...


Under Bush Total new leases increased 3 of 8 years versus Obama 1 increase of 8 years.
Obama signed 1,896 FEWER leases than Bush...at 1,083 or 1,896/1,083  equals 175%
In 2017, Trump signed 382more leases than Obama in 2016 and  in 2018 and 1,333 leases .


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for November 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 47th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 47th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> ...


_"political opposition lockdowns??"_ Are you fucking crazy? Back in March, Trump was calling on people to stop eating and drinking out and for parents to keep their kids home from school. And for people to limit gatherings to no more than 10. And he was working with governors in "hot spots" to shut down...


Then after saying he was hoping the country could reopen in time for Easter, he announced it would continue as covid was rampaging...


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


40,000 new manufacturing jobs in one month under Impeached Trump was not an all time record.

You lie.

Carter had 27 months with 40K or more.
Reagan had 23
Bush Sr. had 1
Clinton had 8
Bush Jr. had 0
Obama ha 0
Trump had 1

And all those presidents before Trump had a smaller population.









						Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
					






					data.bls.gov


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2020)

justinacolmena said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.82% in August 2020 to 4.97% in November 2020.
> ...


Bullshit


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Looks to me, based on what you're posting, Obama had 12,275 fewer and the decrease under Obama was 52%, not 175%. How can a decrease exceed 100%?


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

Faun said:


> Looks to me, based on what you're posting, Obama had 12,275 fewer and the decrease under Obama was 52%, not 175%. How can a decrease exceed 100%?


If republicans could do math they would know that 306 is larger than 232.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



*Obama signed 1,896 FEWER leases than Bush...at 1,083 or 1,896/1,083 equals 175% *

Not even close.

If Bush signed 2946 per year and Obama signed 1277 per year, 1669/2946 = 56.6% FEWER.

Zero Obama leases would be 100% fewer.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2020)

meaner gene said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me, based on what you're posting, Obama had 12,275 fewer and the decrease under Obama was 52%, not 175%. How can a decrease exceed 100%?
> ...



306 to 232 is considered a massive landslide


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If Bush signed 2946 per year and Obama signed 1277 per year, 1669/2946 = 56.6% FEWER.
> 
> Zero Obama leases would be 100% fewer.



Republicans and math don't go together.  Neither does Republicans and science.  

If you ask a republican a simple math problem:

Start with any number.
Increase it by 50%, 
then decrease that amount by 50%.
Compare the current number with the original number.

Is it larger, smaller or the same.

Republicans are bound to get it wrong.


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > If republicans could do math they would know that 306 is larger than 232.
> ...


They also think getting 3.5 million fewer votes is a mandate from the people.

And a 306 to 232 landslide depends whether it's 2016 or 2020.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Bush signed 23,569 leases  
Obama signed 11,294 
which is 12,275 less leases than Bush signed.
Obama's share of the total leases signed in their 16 years was 32%
You are right.  I was wrong.  Bush signed. 208% more than Obama..
Bush signed 67% of the 34,863 while Obama signed 32%... which is 208% less than Bush.
Divide 67%/32% equals 208%!


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Why on Earth do you keep playing with numbers?

If Bush was 208% more than Obama, it's not true that Obama was 208% less than Bush.

Again I ask, how can you have a decrease of more than 100%?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

meaner gene said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If Bush signed 2946 per year and Obama signed 1277 per year, 1669/2946 = 56.6% FEWER.
> ...



How many years until the planet is destroyed, or we're doomed, according to AOC math?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Bush signed 67% of the 34,863 while Obama signed 32%... which is 208% less than Bush.



Would you fucking stop already? Obama's decrease couldn't be more than 100%.


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

healthmyths said:


> Bush signed 23,569 leases
> Obama signed 11,294
> which is 12,275 less leases than Bush signed.
> Obama's share of the total leases signed in their 16 years was 32%
> ...


You were doing O.K. until you said:  which is 208% less than Bush

Just because something can be 200% more, doesn't mean something can be 200% less.

As they say, the skys the limit, but when you fall, you can only go as far as the ground.  100% less, is the limit.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2020)

Well this thread is not going well for healthmyths.


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

Faun said:


> Well this thread is not going well for healthmyths.


It involves math.  That's their worst subject, along with science, logic, and ethics.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 4, 2020)

meaner gene said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Bush signed 23,569 leases
> ...


This applies only to things that cannot be measured in negative values, such as temperature and atmospheric pressure.

-30deg is 200% less than 30deg (for Fahrenheit and Celsius scales)

...and this ^^^ applies to all but the Kelvin scale, where ABSOLUTE ZERO is as low as it can get.

...and if you fall into the sea from an altitude of 100 feet, you may reach an altitude of -100 feet AMSL.


----------



## meaner gene (Dec 4, 2020)

meaner gene said:


> As they say, the skys the limit, but when you fall, you can only go as far as the ground.  100% less, is the limit.





asaratis said:


> This applies only to things that cannot be measured in negative values, such as temperature.
> 
> -30deg is 200% less than 30deg (for Fahrenheit and Celsius scales)
> 
> ...and this ^^^ applies to all but the Kelvin scale, where ABSOLUTE ZERO is as low as it can get.


True.  But we are talking about oil leases.

The least number of oil leases granted is ZERO.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2020)

meaner gene said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Well this thread is not going well for healthmyths.
> ...



Leave AOC alone.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 5, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  According to AOC, we have a time frame after which we will not be able to reduce the global temperature rise to prevent reaching the point where is becomes very destructive.
This is in agreement with the science.

One day you might actually get a fucking brain.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 5, 2020)

I love it how the right wing dipsticks blame Obama for the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  This led to a moratorium on leases.

Maybe if the oil companies did not lie that they had a plan to fix any blowout.....


----------



## protectionist (Dec 5, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Look it my posting history here. I believe George W. Bush was the 5th greatest U.S. President of the last 100 years. I voted straight Republican ticket in every election until 2016. In 2016, I voted Hillary Clinton for President, but voted Republican for everything else. 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat.  The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.


You are entirely backwards of reality. In 2016, you voted for a serial killer to be POTUS.
In 2020, you voted for a China pawn, traitor to America for POTUS.  Both times you voted against the greatest president* in US history*.

1. RECORD positive numbers on the economy, stock market highest *in US history*, even right now, despite Covid shutdowns
2. stopped the absurd practice of giving China unrestricted access to our valuable market, and reduced the amount of imports coming from China.
3. holding China accountable for cyber theft,-unique* in US history.*
4. taking Mexico and Central American countries to task for illegal immigration,
5. created 10 million jobs in 4 months, created over 400,000 manufacturing jobs, best *in US history.*
6. unemployment claims hit 50 year low,
7. lowest unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and disabled *in US history*, 8.lowest unemployment for women in over 70 years,
9. lowest unemployment rate* in US history*, for Americans without a high school diploma,
10. 4 million Americans off food stamps,
11. vocational training topped 4 million - highest ever *in US history*.
12. highest median wage *in US history* .
13. Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE,
14. FDA approved most affordable generic drugs than ever before i*n US history*. > drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases,
15. reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars,
16. Signed Right-To-Try legislation, first* in US history*.
17. $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic ( most *in US history*),
18. Signed VA Accountability Act, - first* in US history*.
19. expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care (I got surgeries and benefits from this myself),
20. United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957,
21. withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord,
22. pressured NATO allies, and they're spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016,
23. made the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces,-first *in US history*
24. withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal, 25. moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
25. protected Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court,*-first in US history*
26. issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay,
27. MCA deal,-first* in US history*
28. reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports
29. highest GDP growth* in US history*, in 3rd quarter of 2020 (33.1%)
30. net exports increased $59 Billion in 2018,
31. improved vetting and screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement,
32. we are BUILDING THE WALL.- first *in US history* of this dimension.
33. provided quality detention centers for migrant children in Southwest Key Programs
34. created 8,700 Opportunity Zones with investment incentives for companies to invest in distressed communities
35. Got Israel/UAE/Bahrain agreement (the Abraham Accord), establishing Middle East peace-first *in US history*
36. Defeated ISIS and killed their leaders incl. # 1 al Baghdadi. - unique *in US history*
37. Killed Iranian terrorist leader Sulemani.
38. Stopped domestic terrorist mobs by sending federal troops & National Guard
39. highest number of regulations cut *in US history*, further boosting the economy
40.  opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines thereby making America # 1 energy producer in the world (first *in US history*)
41. rebuilt the US military to a $721 Billion/yr budget
42. increased wages for military personnel
43. We found out when we expected President Trump to lead us through a COVID pandemic, as our Covid mortality rate was REDUCED from over 17,000/week in April. to about 2000/week in October, as a result of the many smart things that the president has done. > it's a HUGE SUCCESS. Unique* in US history*
44.  Massive production of Ventilators - These were left in short supply after the Obama/Biden admin (we now have so many we're exporting them),
45. the Navy hospital ships sent to New York,
46. the stimulus checks,
47. The Task Force advice (ex. social distancing),
48. opposition/criticism of New York's dumb nursing home policies,
49. federal aid to hospitals, rapidly expanding production & distribution of medical supplies
50. travel bans (which Democrats called Trump a "racist' for),
51. Trump's advocacy of Hydroxychloriquin (now proven to be effective, despite criticism from Democrats), and Regeneron.
52. fast, continual development of a vaccine with operation Warp Speed. Fastest development* in US history*
53.  Created & signed the MISSION ACT, replacing the failed Obama Choice Act


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I love it how the right wing dipsticks blame Obama for the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  This led to a moratorium on leases.
> 
> Maybe if the oil companies did not lie that they had a plan to fix any blowout.....



*I love it how the right wing dipsticks blame Obama for the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  This led to a moratorium on leases.*

He didn't want to end leases.......the situation demanded it.
He really wanted to increase leases and increase domestic oil production, right?
Just look at everything he did to increase oil production.....umm.....err.....what did he do?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I love it how the right wing dipsticks blame Obama for the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  This led to a moratorium on leases.
> ...


 Oil production was fine under Obama. 

I guess you like pumping oil into the seas.   You don't care that oil companies lied.

Lets talk about how Trump hurt US oil producers.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 6, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Look it my posting history here. I believe George W. Bush was the 5th greatest U.S. President of the last 100 years. I voted straight Republican ticket in every election until 2016. In 2016, I voted Hillary Clinton for President, but voted Republican for everything else. 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat.  The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.
> ...


Trump led us into a recession & had negative job growth & added 6 trillion to the debt in  just one term.

Only a fucking moron would call that a success.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Actually $7.5 trillion (and growing) but who's counting?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Look it my posting history here. I believe George W. Bush was the 5th greatest U.S. President of the last 100 years. I voted straight Republican ticket in every election until 2016. In 2016, I voted Hillary Clinton for President, but voted Republican for everything else. 2016 was the first time in my life I had ever voted for a Democrat.  The 2018 elections were the first time I voted straight Democrat. The 2020 elections were the 2nd time I voted straight Democrat.
> ...



Most of the economic data you post was achieved or nearly achieved under the Obama administration. Unemployment was already at 4.7% when Trump entered office. It got down to 3.5%, thanks largely to baby boomers entering retirement and decreasing the labor force participation rate. 

Currently, Donald Trump's Average Quarterly Real GDP growth rate for his time in office is *1.79%. *The worst of any of the Presidents from Harry Truman to today. Donald Trump's final quarter of GDP growth will not be known until January. Its likely though that it will not improve his average by much and he will remain at the bottom of the list of all the Presidents since World War II. 

Donald Trump is easily the worst President in U.S. history. He colluded with the Russians, blackmailed a U.S. Ally Ukraine while they were fighting the Russians in order to dig up dirt on a political opponent, got impeached for doing that, and failed to do anything relevant to prevent COVID-19 from killing 287,000 Americans. 

Only 7 people in Taiwan have died, and none since May 11, 2020. The United States had the capability to be like TAIWAN in terms of number of infections and deaths. But Trump essentially did nothing, and now the country is currently stuck with nearly 3,000 deaths a day from Covid-19. *THINK ABOUT THAT! That is one 9/11 death total every DAY now!* 

 Meanwhile, people in Taiwan are living life like they did before the pandemic. The only people who show up infected in TAIWAN with Covi-19 are citizens re-entering the country from abroad. Every Taiwanese citizen entering Taiwan, infected or not, has to quarantine for 14 days minimum before they are allowed out into Taiwan. The United States never had a quarantine policy for people entering the country. Taiwan had one starting on January 20, 2020. It did not matter what country you were coming from. ANYONE entering Taiwan had to quarantine for 14 days minimum. Had the United States done the same, we wouldn't be living this current Nightmare.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


_*"Currently, Donald Trump's Average Quarterly Real GDP growth rate for his time in office is 1.79%."*_

Why average it out?

Annualized real GDP under Impeached Trump is: *1.0%*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*Oil production was fine under Obama. *

Yeah, Obama was awesome!!!

What did he do to increase our domestic production?

The list must be long, eh?


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 6, 2020)

LordBrownTrout said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Considering he was given an economy losing 700k jobs/month and he turned it around in 9 months, at which point  UE was at 10.3%, the pub outlook is gibberish.
> ...


17 TRILLION, where the f have you been.  The debt was 23 trillion in March before the democrat congress voted to increase it by 10%. and currently it stands a 27 trillion and is moving up by the nano second.  China owns around 50% of our debt and that is why we are in trouble.  If they own your debt---they own you!  But we want to see you get you money's worth (rolling my eyes).  Don't believe me?  Check for yourself.  https://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*China owns around 50% of our debt and that is why we are in trouble. *

Closer to 4%.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 6, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



China doesn't own 50 percent of our debt. 2-3 percent and they own pedo joe.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 6, 2020)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You get more data points. 15 data points instead of just 3. Once the last quarter is in, you have 16 data points vs 4. 


Average Quarterly Real GDP Growth since World War II by President:

As of October 2020:

01. John F. Kennedy: 5.31%
02. Lyndon Johnson: 5.18%
03. Harry Truman: 4.87%
04. Bill Clinton: 3.82%
05. Ronald Reagan: 3.62%
06. Jimmy Carter: 3.32%
07. Richard Nixon: 3.06%
08. Dwight D. Eisenhower 2.65%
09. Gerald Ford: 2.28%
10. George H.W. Bush: 2.24%
*11. Barack Obama: 1.90%*
12. George W. Bush: 1.87%
13. *Donald Trump: 1.79%*


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


Wrong as always
15.5%

*China* takes the second spot among foreign holders of *U.S. debt* with $1.07 trillion in Treasury holdings in April 2020, just behind Japan. 2 *China* has trimmed its holdings and this is the lowest amount held in the last two years. It currently holds 15.5% of the foreign *debt*.Apr 27, 2020



Investopedia › markets-economy
*5 Countries That Own the Most U.S. Debt - Investopedia*


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


The pedo Joe thing is not worthy of answer brainwashed functional cretin.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


And of course Obama would be nowhere near that low if George Bush hadn't left him with 800,000 people losing their jobs a month because of another if you can believe it corrupt GOP deregulation bubble and bust economic meltdown like they have every time they get 8 years.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Of course the Democrats needed two votes and those two nice GOP ladies from Maine voted for it-it could not have been more obviously necessary. Just like we should have had a stimulus by now. Not to mention Trump and company had the worst reaction to a pandemic in the history of the world by far . Republicans on the whole don't even know the least thing about it period Rupert Murdoch should be thrown out of the country like he is everywhere else. Otherwise the GOP would have led us into another great depression by not reacting at all. no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...



*Wrong as always
15.5%*

Thanks for the link.





Wait, your link says China holds a bit over $1 trillion.
Do you think our total debt is $1.07 Trillion/0.155 = $6.9 trillion?


----------



## untrodden (Dec 6, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



  You can't believe any of those unemployment rates.  There are many people who gave up on even trying to find a basically nonexistent job.  They aren't counted.  And then there are all those who are underemployed.  Being listed as employed isn't much of a help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

untrodden said:


> There are many people who gave up on even trying to find a basically nonexistent job. They aren't counted.



They aren't part of the labor force.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 6, 2020)

Biden is going to destroy this economy like no one could ever imagine...


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wow, you took the short bus didn't you?  In 2019 the trade deficit with China ended at about 616B.  This year the trade deficit stood at 639B--that adds up to 1.4T about--in less than two years.  Given we have had a trade deficit with China for over 30 years, your numbers don't add up.  I don't know where you get your numbers but you better research "critical thinking" and think for yourself because you are being led down the garden path.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Wow, you're a fucking twat, aren't you?

* This year the trade deficit stood at 639B--that adds up to 1.4T about--in less than two years.  Given we have had a trade deficit with China for over 30 years, your numbers don't add up.  *

Those aren't my numbers, they're from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve.



			https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
		


Where did you get your 50% number?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


As my link says that is the percentage of debt owed to foreigners God damn it.

*5%*
The amount of U.S. debt that is held by Chinese entities.
China took the top spot among foreign creditors, following Japan, at $1.2 trillion.1


Japan and China own about 5.2% and 4.6% 
ff the U.S. debt, respectively. Japanese-owned debt doesn't receive nearly as much negative attention as Chinese-owned debt, ostensibly because Japan is seen as a friendlier nation and the Japanese economy hasn't been growing at a 7% clip year after year.


Glad to hear it. Proves even intelligent people are swayed by China fear-mongering GOP propaganda.....


----------



## untrodden (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> untrodden said:
> 
> 
> > There are many people who gave up on even trying to find a basically nonexistent job. They aren't counted.
> ...



  But they're human beings who exist.  Now slam them with all of your capitalistic - elitist might.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

Canon Shooter said:


> Biden is going to destroy this economy like no one could ever imagine...


Experts and Moody's of Wall Street believe you are a brainwashed functional moron. America does much better under Democrats than Republicans since world war II and before. every time the Republicans get eight years they cause a financial meltdown through corrupt deregulation bubble and bust. Democrats usually are given a mess to clean up and that counts against them yet they still do better than your brainwashed idiocy believes.... The rich do great out of these bubbles and that led regular people pay the bill. No sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*As my link says that is the percentage of debt owed to foreigners God damn it. *

So what? The claim was 50% of all debt. When it's closer to 4% of all debt.

Learn to read, moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

untrodden said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > untrodden said:
> ...



*But they're human beings who exist.  *

Yup. But they aren't part of the labor force.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Which is stupid. You'll note at the end of every year, the BEA doesn't simply average out the 4 quarters, they show the annual difference for the year.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 6, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I never said 50%, I went for the link and misread it. I said 15% like the link. I am happy that it is only 4.6%. now f*** off LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*I never said 50%,  *

If you could read a thread, you'd see that Concerned American said 50% and I gave him 
the correct number, 4%.

And then you showed up spreading your errors, as usual, silly twat.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Dec 6, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Biden is going to destroy this economy like no one could ever imagine...
> ...



Eat a bag of dicks, asshole...


----------



## RealDave (Dec 7, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 So, you dodge the question.  Typical chickenshit answer.

You claim he hurt production yet production was good.

Why was that?  Could it mean that you are full of shit once again?



			U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*So, you dodge the question.  *

What question?

*You claim he hurt production yet production was good. *

What did HE do to help production? You have a list?

Or are YOU a chickenshit?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 7, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  See, you are still dodging the question.   You claim Obama was anti-oil yet oil production did good under Obama.  Obama did nothing to restrain the production.  Since it was going good, why would he need to do anything to help?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 7, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*See, you are still dodging the question. You claim Obama was anti-oil  *

Was Obama anti-oil?
Or was he pro-oil?
*
Obama did nothing to restrain the production. *

You admitted he stopped offshore leases.
He also greatly reduced leases on federal lands.

*Since it was going good, why would he need to do anything to help?*

If he was pro-oil, why wouldn't he help?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bill Clinton and his de-regulation efforts takes a bigger slice of that pie than Bush.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2020)

untrodden said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



That is the same every year with each President. There are people that are not counted and are not participating in the labor force for whatever the reason and not being able find work is far from being the only reason. So the above figures are accurate because the criteria each year is the same.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 13, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Just because he signs things doesn't mean they weren't Republican ideas. He tried everything like Obama to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the rich so we could have a fair healthy economy for a change....


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2020)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This is a look at average quarterly real GDP growth across an entire time an administration is in office. Trump has 15 quarters of data in with one more left to go. We'll see if he is still at the bottom of the list after his last quarter becomes apart of the average.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Were talking about Presidents here, how they performed, and what they did or did not do, not about what one considers to be standard Republican ideology or thoughts about a particular policy.


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Again, averaging has no basis of validity here. That's why the BEA uses annualized data, not averages. And annualized the data includes all the quarters measured between start and finish.

Annualized real GDP growth under Trump is just 1% so far with one quarter remaining. That's the worst performance since Herbert Hoover. 

Trump's in good company.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 13, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Bill Clinton and his de-regulation efforts takes a bigger slice of that pie than Bush.


Stupid Democrats blanket us with a nationwide lockdown for months, and then blame the resulting economy on Trump. They think they can take away Trump's great success on the economy.

 Nobody fell for the ruse, and everybody voted for Trump.  Phony Biden votes were really Trump votes, that evil Democrats stole from Trump.   Biden couldn't even fill a parking lot.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 13, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Just because he signs things doesn't mean they weren't Republican ideas. He tried everything like Obama to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the rich so we could have a fair healthy economy for a change....


----------



## protectionist (Dec 13, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> This is a look at average quarterly real GDP growth across an entire time an administration is in office. Trump has 15 quarters of data in with one more left to go. We'll see if he is still at the bottom of the list after his last quarter becomes apart of the average.


If the numbers you are talking about include 1st & 2nd COVID quarters of 2020, thy are invalid, at least as being attributed to Trump, AND YOU NOW IT.

This has been the Democrat strategy . Destroy the good Trump economy, all year long with lockdowns, refuse to grant stimulus checks (as Pelosi has refused), keep the economy down, and take away Trump's # 1 selling point.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 13, 2020)

Faun said:


> Again, averaging has no basis of validity here. That's why the BEA uses annualized data, not averages. And annualized the data includes all the quarters measured between start and finish.
> 
> Annualized real GDP growth under Trump is just 1% so far with one quarter remaining. That's the worst performance since Herbert Hoover.
> 
> Trump's in good company.


HA HA HA. Idiot Democrats still think they can pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.  Trump's record votes showed they were wrong.  Trump's economic numbers were the best in US history, and they have nothing to do with the moronic Democrat numbers.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 13, 2020)

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Just because he signs things doesn't mean they weren't Republican ideas. He tried everything like Obama to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the rich so we could have a fair healthy economy for a change....
> ...


Another intelligence dupe comment period do you have any actual argument because those are the facts. We have a flat tax system if you count all taxes, us scam from the GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. Change the channel read something listen to your betters. You are an ignoramus. That's the only way you can get so brainwashed with baloney. The entire world and law enforcement agrees you're nuts technically LOL


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Again, averaging has no basis of validity here. That's why the BEA uses annualized data, not averages. And annualized the data includes all the quarters measured between start and finish.
> ...


LOLOL 

Dumbfuck, America just evicted Impeached Trump from the White House.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Dec 14, 2020)

Lakhota said:


>


communist propaganda---if you do anything to try to stop us from abusing taxpayers ---you are the enemy.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 14, 2020)

Turtlesoup said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 a communist believes in a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. You are a brainwashed functional moron, there are no communists except those with a gun to their head in North Korea China and Cuba. Idiot whoops brainwashed functional idiot. Change the channel to any news media in the world not owned by Rupert Murdoch d u h.


----------



## KissMy (Dec 14, 2020)

Trump economy is worse than Carter!

Democrat President Carter added 10.4 million jobs in 4 years.

Republican President Trump only added 6.6 million jobs prior to Covid, Now a -4.1 million jobs deficit.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 15, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Another intelligence dupe comment period do you have any actual argument because those are the facts. We have a flat tax system if you count all taxes, us scam from the GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. Change the channel read something listen to your betters. You are an ignoramus. That's the only way you can get so brainwashed with baloney. The entire world and law enforcement agrees you're nuts technically LOL


That describes you. Just another information-deprived, victim of liberal OMISSION/DISTORTION media. Change the channel - watch Newsmax, OAN, the Blaze, the First, America's Voice, and find out what your MSM has been hiding from you.

And you can take one of my Quizzes for liberals if you wish to find out how much you don't know, ignoramus DUPE.  I specialize in deprogramming brainwashed liberals. No fee.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 15, 2020)

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, America just evicted Impeached Trump from the White House.


Dumbfuck, what are you going to do when you suddenly realize Trump isn't going anywhere ? And he got biggest landslide vote in US history. The contrived thing is meaningless, except to DUPES like you, and franco fool.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 15, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> a communist believes in a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. You are a brainwashed functional moron, there are no communists except those with a gun to their head in North Korea China and Cuba. Idiot whoops brainwashed functional idiot. Change the channel to any news media in the world not owned by Rupert Murdoch d u h.


A communist is an INTERnationalist, redistribute wealth, confiscate guns, anti-religion lunatic.  US Democrats come to mind.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 15, 2020)

KissMy said:


> Trump economy is worse than Carter!
> 
> Democrat President Carter added 10.4 million jobs in 4 years.
> 
> Republican President Trump only added 6.6 million jobs prior to Covid, Now a -4.1 million jobs deficit.


Moron, we just had 33.1% GDP growth (3rd quarter 2020).  Double what was the record (1951) before that.  
And you don't get to blame earlier 2020 economy on Trump. Democrats are who caused it all, by Obama funding the Wuhan lab, the Democrat lockdowns, and Pelosi refusing to send out the stimulus check$$$.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 15, 2020)

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > a communist believes in a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. You are a brainwashed functional moron, there are no communists except those with a gun to their head in North Korea China and Cuba. Idiot whoops brainwashed functional idiot. Change the channel to any news media in the world not owned by Rupert Murdoch d u h.
> ...


Only on the GOP propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron period no one is talking about gun confiscation except for criminals and the insane. The Republicans have been redistributing to the greedy idiot GOP Rich for 40 years now, that's how we got the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. Keep voting against your own interests, hater dupe. Yes super religious conspiracy nut Job ignoramuses are Republicans..... Whether you like it or not the age of information and transportation is going to make the world smaller and more internationalist if you like. Our problem is do not invest in our people and country anymore because no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP mega rich from paying their Fair share. Only the brainwash makes this mess possible. Everything you know is wrong.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 15, 2020)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Data that is averaged is always valid and it is here to. Whether its grades, murders, accidents, real quarterly GDP growth, monthly unemployment, the data can be averaged and offer good points for comparison between different time periods.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 15, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton and his de-regulation efforts takes a bigger slice of that pie than Bush.
> ...



So do you plan to leave the country?


----------



## Rambunctious (Dec 15, 2020)

Even with Covid Trumps economy kicks Obama and Obidens ass....


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 15, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > This is a look at average quarterly real GDP growth across an entire time an administration is in office. Trump has 15 quarters of data in with one more left to go. We'll see if he is still at the bottom of the list after his last quarter becomes apart of the average.
> ...



This is the data regardless of who you think is really responsible for how or why it happened. Trump is President and this happened on his watch. I'm sure the supporters of every President in history would like to erase data like this, but that is not how it works.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 15, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, America just evicted Impeached Trump from the White House.
> ...



We'll return to this post on January 21, 2021 and see what you have to say then.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 16, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Only on the GOP propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron period no one is talking about gun confiscation except for criminals and the insane. The Republicans have been redistributing to the greedy idiot GOP Rich for 40 years now, that's how we got the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. Keep voting against your own interests, hater dupe. Yes super religious conspiracy nut Job ignoramuses are Republicans..... Whether you like it or not the age of information and transportation is going to make the world smaller and more internationalist if you like. Our problem is do not invest in our people and country anymore because no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP mega rich from paying their Fair share. Only the brainwash makes this mess possible. Everything you know is wrong.


Only among information-deprived, victims of liberal OMISSION media do we hear such amazing blather as >>_ "no one is talking about gun confiscation except for criminals and the insane."_

No one except for Joe Biden who has mentioned during the campaign months, that he would impose a $200 tax on every gun owned by an American, a $200 tax on every magazine in gun owners' possession, + taxes$$ on engraving and other requirements.
This is the jist of the so-called "Gun Buy Back" idea ( a false names, since the govt never owned these guns in the first place)

The goofy idea that >>_ "Republicans have been redistributing to the greedy idiot GOP Rich for 40 years now"_ is just that - Goofy.  The reality is that the working class and poor have never been better off than during the 4 years of Donald Trump's administration.  This is when we got the LEAST INEQUALITY, and the MOST UPWARD MOBILITY.

Under Trump's administration, unemployment claims hit 50 year low, most Amerians were employed than any time in US history, unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and disabled was lowest in US history, lowest unemployment for women in over 70 years, lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma, 4 million Americans off food stamps, vocational training topped 4 million - highest ever, and we had the highest median wage in US history.

Liberals carelessly throw around the _"Republicans are for the rich" _narrative relentlessly fed to them by the leftist media and politicians, but the facts show a completely different picture, which liberals either are oblivious to (since their media does not report these facts) or they just are too deep in brainwashing to be objective.

Speaking of being for the rich, it is they who will not be bothered by Biden's gun CONFISCATION plan which propose to confiscate every gun and magazine on which a $200 tax per item, is not paid.  Clearly, it is the poor who will not be able to pay this insane (unconstitutional) tax, and will lose their guns (which they paid good money for).

It is also the poor who need their guns the most, since it is they who live in high crime areas, where they need to defend themselves much more than the rich, who live in low crime areas, and enjoy fences and gates around their homes, and other security protections.  So much for Biden and Democrats caring about the poor  .


----------



## protectionist (Dec 16, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> Most of the economic data you post was achieved or nearly achieved under the Obama administration. Unemployment was already at 4.7% when Trump entered office. It got down to 3.5%, thanks largely to baby boomers entering retirement and decreasing the labor force participation rate.
> 
> Currently, Donald Trump's Average Quarterly Real GDP growth rate for his time in office is *1.79%. *The worst of any of the Presidents from Harry Truman to today. Donald Trump's final quarter of GDP growth will not be known until January. Its likely though that it will not improve his average by much and he will remain at the bottom of the list of all the Presidents since World War II.
> 
> ...


Lots of fallacies in this post >>

1.  Referring to Trump's _"his time in office"_ includes most of 2020, the economic condition of which is attributable to Covid, not to Trump.  The pandemic is more associatable with Democrats than with Trump. Obama funded the Wuhan lab, Democrats supported the lockdowns (and still do), and Pelosi refused to allow $1200 Stimulus checks to be sent out, despite Mnuchin's offer to authorize them and deal with the other stuff later.
Overall, including the 33.% GDP growth (3rd quarter 2020), with the Covid months excluded, Trump's economic success is the* best in US history.*  Under Trump's administration, unemployment claims hit 50 year low, more Americans were employed than any time* in US history,* unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and disabled was lowest *in US history*, lowest unemployment for women in over 70 years, lowest unemployment rate* ever recorded *for Americans without a high school diploma, 4 million Americans off food stamps, vocational training topped 4 million - *highest ever*, Stock Market reached highest points* in US history*, helping not only the rich, but middle class stock owners, and employees of those companies rich & poor alike, and we had the highest median wage *in US history.*

2.  HA HA HA.  Can you believe it ? Even after the PROP Robert Mueller showed the Russian collusion farce to be what it was, on national TV, liberals still return to this stupid scam job, when in fact there WAS Russian collusion, but it was Hillary Clinton who was involved in that, in the dossier deal.

3.  Trump did not blackmail any US ally and his conversation with the Ukranians was mellow and OK. Not the case with Biden, WHO DID BLACKMAIL the Ukranians, and later bragged about it on video, which went viral and millions of people saw and know it.


4.  Trump did MANY things to prevent COVID-19 from killing Americans. As a result of his great actions, the US Covid mortality rate was REDUCED 90% from April to October/November.  The Operation Warp Speed vaccines (praised by liberals too) aren't the only thing Trump did.  Covid deaths have sharply declined since April, because of Trump's quick and decisive actions regarding *the Task Force, ventilators* (we now have so many we're exporting them), the* Navy hospital ships*, the *stimulus checks, social distancing, opposition/criticism of New York's dumb nursing home policies*, federal *aid to hospitals*,  ramped up* production of medical supplies*, *eliminated govt restrictions* on manufacturing medial supplies, *travel bans* (which Democrats called Trump a "racist' for), Trump's advocacy of* Hydroxychloriquin (*now proven to be effective, despite criticism from Democrats), and* Regeneron*, and Trump's* Operation Warp Speed *fast development of a vaccine, now going out for distribution*, with unprecedented speed.*

5.  Taiwan's death rate is not really known, since goverment reports both in Taiwan and in the US are faulty, to say the least. In the US, the 287,000 number you cited is ludicrous, and everyone knows that, other than  information-deprived, victims of liberal OMISSION media, whose information intake is confined to only what the liberal establishment allows to be disseminated.
The true number of US Covid death is probably no more than about 10,000. The liberal media has done a good jib of falsifying the mortality numbers to ridiculous levels, knowing them to be false, from hospitals reporting any and all deaths as Covid deaths whether they were or not.  2 hospitals I checked with, both said the got money from the US govt relative to how many Covid deaths they reported. The more Covid deaths reported, the more money they got.  People killed in car accidents have been getting reported as Covid deaths.  Deaths WITH Covid, have been reported as deaths FROM Covid.  Mind boggling how ignorant, brainwashed liberals are.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 16, 2020)

Faun said:


> _*"Currently, Donald Trump's Average Quarterly Real GDP growth rate for his time in office is 1.79%."*_
> 
> Why average it out?
> 
> Annualized real GDP under Impeached Trump is: *1.0%*.


Another dopey post trying to attribute the Covid economy to Trump.  Sure, that's been the Democrat lying plan all this year.  That's why we have the lockdowns, and Pelosi wouldn't let the $1200 Stimulus checks go out. She didn't WANT to stimulate the economy, and make it better. Just the opposite, She wanted to keep the economy DOWN, to weaken Trump's best campaign issue. Same idea being used by liberals in this forum.  Ho hum.  Yawn********   What else is new ?


----------



## protectionist (Dec 16, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> 17 TRILLION, where the f have you been.  The debt was 23 trillion in March before the democrat congress voted to increase it by 10%. and currently it stands a 27 trillion and is moving up by the nano second.  China owns around 50% of our debt and that is why we are in trouble.  If they own your debt---they own you!  But we want to see you get you money's worth (rolling my eyes).  Don't believe me?  Check for yourself.  https://www.usdebtclock.org/


America will NEVER owe a penny of debt to China. China will always owe the US.  Whether anyone wants to acknowledge this or not, we own debt from other countries, whose asses we saved in World War 2. Without the* hundreds of thousands of lives we sacrificed/lost *in the Pacific war, China would not exist today. It would have been a colony of Japan, if the Japs had not wiped them out entirely.

European countries are along the same line - England, France, Denmark, etc

The idea of America owing anything to China is preposterous, and that is without even looking at the damage China has done to America from the man-made Covid virus.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 16, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > 17 TRILLION, where the f have you been.  The debt was 23 trillion in March before the democrat congress voted to increase it by 10%. and currently it stands a 27 trillion and is moving up by the nano second.  China owns around 50% of our debt and that is why we are in trouble.  If they own your debt---they own you!  But we want to see you get you money's worth (rolling my eyes).  Don't believe me?  Check for yourself.  https://www.usdebtclock.org/
> ...


I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that we've been selling ourselves to China for years by buying all their shit and not selling an equal or greater amount to them.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 16, 2020)

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Only on the GOP propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron period no one is talking about gun confiscation except for criminals and the insane. The Republicans have been redistributing to the greedy idiot GOP Rich for 40 years now, that's how we got the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. Keep voting against your own interests, hater dupe. Yes super religious conspiracy nut Job ignoramuses are Republicans..... Whether you like it or not the age of information and transportation is going to make the world smaller and more internationalist if you like. Our problem is do not invest in our people and country anymore because no sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiot GOP mega rich from paying their Fair share. Only the brainwash makes this mess possible. Everything you know is wrong.
> ...


Fear mongering bologna from the GOP propaganda machine. The criminals and the insane only.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> So do you plan to leave the country?


Nope.  And right now, it isn't a "country".  Not until the Democrats leave.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

Rambunctious said:


> Even with Covid Trumps economy kicks Obama and Obidens ass....


Yup. 33.1% GDP growth (3rd quarter of 2020). Best ever (by far)


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> This is the data regardless of who you think is really responsible for how or why it happened. Trump is President and this happened on his watch. I'm sure the supporters of every President in history would like to erase data like this, but that is not how it works.


"The data" as you call it, is invalid by referring it to Trump. The_ "on his watch" _BS is a fabricated Democrat propaganda, part of the whole scheme to destroy the economy in 2020, in time for the presidential election.

How this _"works"_ is nothing but a SCAM.  You thought you could fool us . That failed.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

U2Edge said:


> We'll return to this post on January 21, 2021 and see what you have to say then.


We'll do that.  But if Biden slithers in with a stolen presidency on Jan 21st, he could be ousted a month, 2 months, 6 months later.  We'll see about that too.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Fear mongering bologna from the GOP propaganda machine. The criminals and the insane only.


This is the pathetic, lying left, doing what they do.  Responding to FACTS with ridiculous, empty rhetoric.  Disgusting.  A cancer in America, that we need to get out of the country. Send it away.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that we've been selling ourselves to China for years by buying all their shit and not selling an equal or greater amount to them.


Yeah. But that was with the 4 defeatist ex-presidents (Clinton, Obama, both Bushes). Trump stopped giving China unrestricted access to our stores (economy), and put us back on the right track.  Globalist idiots are stealing the election now, and if Biden becomes president, we'll be right back to selling out to China again.  All the good Trump did, will be reversed.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 17, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that we've been selling ourselves to China for years by buying all their shit and not selling an equal or greater amount to them.
> ...


 all Trump's achievement are total b******* propaganda. How is Hong Kong doing, or is there a news blackout on that on the propaganda machine? All he's done is screw our farmers and others with this ridiculous trade wars and tariffs. China is laughing at his incompetence.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 17, 2020)

Allow me to sift through all the bull shit here.

The president cannot create jobs but he can create an effect the economy and it is the economy that creates jobs. Bill Clinton didn’t create jobs but he also stayed out of the way while the economy did. Specifically the new tech industry.

Obama didn’t create jobs but he did stifle the economy. Yes, it recovered under his watch but that was despite his efforts.

Trump didn’t create jobs but he enabled the economy by eliminating most of the regulations that Obama and others put in place.

The only thing a president can do is affect the economy.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> all Trump's achievement are total b******* propaganda. How is Hong Kong doing, or is there a news blackout on that on the propaganda machine? All he's done is screw our farmers and others with this ridiculous trade wars and tariffs. China is laughing at his incompetence.


YOU are total b******* propaganda.  Even flaming liberals like Geraldo Rivera and Jake Tapper (CNN) have congratulated President Trump on his magnificent Operation Warp Speed accomplishment. 
Even the Obama-friendly BEA (even after they cooked their books against Trump) still show GDP growth %s highly favorable to Trump, such as the infamous "V GRAPH" showing Obama's last years of sinking GDP, immediately followed by Trump's 1st 2 years of rising GDPs.  BEA also now shows our most recent quarter being 33.1% GDP growth, highest (by far) in US history (and that is in spite of the Democrat lockdowns and blockage of the stimulus checks$$, and doing all they can to keep the economy down during the election year).

And do you dispute the over 30,000 Dow Jones numbers ?  > Highest in US history (as well as the NASDQ and S & P)? Even CNN and MSNBC don't dispute that. They also don't dispute that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, & folks without high school diplomas have had their lowest unemployment in US history. They also don't dispute that since 2017, we have had the highest median wage in US history.

For you to refer to these accomplishments as _"total b******* propaganda" _does nothing to the accomplishments. It only does one thing.  It establishes you as an laughingstock, of zero credibility in this forum.  Not my problem.

And the presidents who China laughed at (and conspired with) are Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, in that order.  And Trump has been tough on China, with Chinese imports reduced immensely. Trump is the last person the Chinese are laughing at.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 17, 2020)

PredFan said:


> Allow me to sift through all the bull shit here.
> 
> The president cannot create jobs but he can create an effect the economy and it is the economy that creates jobs. Bill Clinton didn’t create jobs but he also stayed out of the way while the economy did. Specifically the new tech industry.
> 
> ...


Not a bad assessment. Yes Trump's economy success, was due to easing of business regulations, but also by his lowering of the corporate tax, and immensely reducing Chinese imports.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 17, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that we've been selling ourselves to China for years by buying all their shit and not selling an equal or greater amount to them.
> ...


I agree again!  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is just an extension of the trade war.  Unleash a flu and tell everyone it is the end of the world, shut down economies and education.  All domestic business shuts down and goes broke.  Producers reduce their production and the democrats raid the treasury to make sure you can buy all the CHINESE SHIT that you want online.  I am amazed that our useless MSM covers for this crap.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 17, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


You're a fool.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 18, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...





Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


 I really don't give a s*** about the gun question. As far as I'm concerned they could sell everything up to machine gun small machine guns. I'd like to own one LOL. I care about a living wage healthcare daycare pay parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and a good ID card to end more illegals. like every other modern country has. And mainly taxing our ridiculously rich rich more like their Fair share. And you people block all that stuff for God knows what reason. Now it has been proved without a question that trickle down does not trickle down it trickles up. we have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever thanks to the greedy idiot Rich GOP and their brainwashed idiots like you oops brainwashed functional idiots. you people are smart you know every detail of ridiculous phony scandals and conspiracies from the only tiny little media out of all the media in the world that agrees with you. Pathetic. But Republican voters have always been pathetic. It's just now the silent majority are the loudmouth brainwashed majority. try to BBC for Christ's sake the best media in the world. Or anything not owned by Rupert f****** Murdock or hangers on on the internet and Rush limbaugh. Poor America. This last 4 years shows what you get with your b*******. The biggest con man fraud and worst businessman ever. Too bad you don't know any facts.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 18, 2020)

protectionist said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > 17 TRILLION, where the f have you been.  The debt was 23 trillion in March before the democrat congress voted to increase it by 10%. and currently it stands a 27 trillion and is moving up by the nano second.  China owns around 50% of our debt and that is why we are in trouble.  If they own your debt---they own you!  But we want to see you get you money's worth (rolling my eyes).  Don't believe me?  Check for yourself.  https://www.usdebtclock.org/
> ...


Christ man. The Chinese lost many millions dead in world war II. And of course we're talking about the fact that the Chinese own 5% or so of American debt because they paid for it cash. Absolutely idiotic world war II unbelievable. LOL. They really should stop buying up Ivory rhinoceros horn etc and bats or whatever. But they did not tell the orange clown to totally screw up the whole world's reaction to it the pandemic that is.Conservatives around the world the idiots that they are oops brainwashed functional idiots, all refused to follow mandates etc etc. And countries tried to reopen before they were ready like the orange clown, the leader of the Free world omg.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 19, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


It's not a pandemic man.  The mortality rate is less than 2% and 94% of those are over 50 with comorbidities.  You people are gullible and deserve what you get.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 19, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Triggered much?


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 19, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Tell us what you really think.  HaHaHaHa!


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 19, 2020)

protectionist said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > So do you plan to leave the country?
> ...


 nobody's going anywhere, brainwashed functional a******. We're all Americans- change the channel someday. Everything you know is wrong from the scumbag Rupert Murdoch...


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 19, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


 all fact, try thinking someday. No material is thicker than GOP base brainwashed skull.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 19, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Sure there is, a brainwashed, commie, democrat skull.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 19, 2020)

Everything the GOP base knows is pure garbage propaganda. The entire world outside the Rupert Murdoch etc tiny propaganda machine in the US and law enforcement thinks you're nuts. Everything you know is wrong dumbass ignoramus.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 19, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Everything the GOP base knows is pure garbage propaganda. The entire world outside the Rupert Murdoch etc tiny propaganda machine in the US and law enforcement thinks you're nuts. Everything you know is wrong dumbass ignoramus.


Just tell me what you really think.  Glad that you resorted to the first grade schoolyard tactics and arguments.  Typical democrat response when they have no logical retort.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 19, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Everything the GOP base knows is pure garbage propaganda. The entire world outside the Rupert Murdoch etc tiny propaganda machine in the US and law enforcement thinks you're nuts. Everything you know is wrong dumbass ignoramus.
> ...


Quote the whole thing so everyone can see what a lying POS oops lying brainwashed functional  POS you are LOL


----------



## protectionist (Dec 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> I really don't give a s*** about the gun question. As far as I'm concerned they could sell everything up to machine gun small machine guns. I'd like to own one LOL. I care about a living wage healthcare daycare pay parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and a good ID card to end more illegals. like every other modern country has. And mainly taxing our ridiculously rich rich more like their Fair share. And you people block all that stuff for God knows what reason. Now it has been proved without a question that trickle down does not trickle down it trickles up. we have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever thanks to the greedy idiot Rich GOP and their brainwashed idiots like you oops brainwashed functional idiots. you people are smart you know every detail of ridiculous phony scandals and conspiracies from the only tiny little media out of all the media in the world that agrees with you. Pathetic. But Republican voters have always been pathetic. It's just now the silent majority are the loudmouth brainwashed majority. try to BBC for Christ's sake the best media in the world. Or anything not owned by Rupert f****** Murdock or hangers on on the internet and Rush limbaugh. Poor America. This last 4 years shows what you get with your b*******. The biggest con man fraud and worst businessman ever. Too bad you don't know any facts.


Some of what you say here I agree with, but your general thrust is just wrong.  Yeah, I are about a living wage too. That's why I'm happy with the Trump record on wages, having accomplished the highest median wage in US history.

I'm also happy seeing that trickle down economics REALLY WORKING, as the corporate world has experienced record highs in the stock market, impressive GDP growths (ex, the "VGRAPH of 2015-2018), coming from trump's lowering the corporate tax, reducing China imports, deporting illegal aliens, and slashing business regulations.  All this resulting in good fortune trickling down to various groups experiencing their lowest unemployment rates in US history (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, the disabled, and people without a high school diploma).  Unemployment has been at record lows levels during the Trump administration. 

Veterans have gained from Trump's Accountability Act and his MISSION Act.  Blacks have gotten help for Back colleges that they didnt get during the Obama administration.  They also didnt get from Obama, the First Step Act that Trump put through helping long-term non-violent prison inmates, get a second chance at life.

And under Obama, poor people of all races didn't have the 8,700  "Opportunity Zones" all over the country giving financial aid to businesses in distressed communities, that they got from Trump.''

As for "inequality", that is something fostered by the left with their racist Affirmative Action programs, not anything Trump supports.

I could list dozens more things that Trump has done for the poor and working class in America, but I've already listed enough to shatter the old, worn-out cliche' leftist talking points of Post # 4,356 that leftists continually blabber like broken records.

Yes, this last 4 years shows what you get with a president who is a proven business leader, and gets things done, for ALL Americans, not just the rich.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 20, 2020)

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't give a s*** about the gun question. As far as I'm concerned they could sell everything up to machine gun small machine guns. I'd like to own one LOL. I care about a living wage healthcare daycare pay parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations and a good ID card to end more illegals. like every other modern country has. And mainly taxing our ridiculously rich rich more like their Fair share. And you people block all that stuff for God knows what reason. Now it has been proved without a question that trickle down does not trickle down it trickles up. we have the worst inequality and upward mobility ever thanks to the greedy idiot Rich GOP and their brainwashed idiots like you oops brainwashed functional idiots. you people are smart you know every detail of ridiculous phony scandals and conspiracies from the only tiny little media out of all the media in the world that agrees with you. Pathetic. But Republican voters have always been pathetic. It's just now the silent majority are the loudmouth brainwashed majority. try to BBC for Christ's sake the best media in the world. Or anything not owned by Rupert f****** Murdock or hangers on on the internet and Rush limbaugh. Poor America. This last 4 years shows what you get with your b*******. The biggest con man fraud and worst businessman ever. Too bad you don't know any facts.
> ...


His achievements are bologna propaganda alone. His big achievement was not wrecking Obama's recovery. Until he did. Totally. See my last post if you need to know what we should be trying to have in this country. Starts with a living wage healthcare daycare etc. Like every other modern country. all we do is argue about phony conspiracies and garbage GOP propaganda. Good night.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> Christ man. The Chinese lost many millions dead in world war II. And of course we're talking about the fact that the Chinese own 5% or so of American debt because they paid for it cash. Absolutely idiotic world war II unbelievable. LOL. They really should stop buying up Ivory rhinoceros horn etc and bats or whatever. But they did not tell the orange clown to totally screw up the whole world's reaction to it the pandemic that is.Conservatives around the world the idiots that they are oops brainwashed functional idiots, all refused to follow mandates etc etc. And countries tried to reopen before they were ready like the orange clown, the leader of the Free world omg.


This post shows that you have absolutely NO IDEA of what you're talking about. 

1.  Democrats are the ones who messed up the reaction to the pandemic, and they did it DELIBERATELY, to reduce Trump's chances for re-election. by taking away his best issue > the economy.

2.  Whatever death count there was of Chinese in World War 2, the fact still remains that America saved their asses from the Japs.  Period.

3.  And the while thing started with a $3.7 Million grant Obama gave to the Wuhan lab, where the Covid virus originated.

Strike 1.......Strike 2.........Strike 3.


----------



## protectionist (Dec 20, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> His achievements are bologna propaganda alone. His big achievement was not wrecking Obama's recovery. Until he did. Totally. See my last post if you need to know what we should be trying to have in this country. Starts with a living wage healthcare daycare etc. Like every other modern country. all we do is argue about phony conspiracies and garbage GOP propaganda. Good night.


You damn fool. Obama did not have a "recovery"  All severe recessions undergo a normal post-recession recoil, as did occur after 2009, as well. It would have happened that way if Pee Wee Herman were president.  But after that subsided, and Obama was on his own, (in 2015-2016), he FLUNKED miserably, with sinking GDPs so bad, that even the Obama-friendly BEA couldn't cook the books enough to make them look good. Even after all their patch work,* the V GRAPH* which left media never breathes a word about, shows GDPs sinking DOWN in 2015/2016 and then rising UP in 2017/2018.The truth is just the OPPOSITE of what you said. Not only did Trump not wreck any good economy of Obama, quite the contrary, he RESCUED us of from Obama's pitifully bad economy which fell below 0% GDP growth (showing on the charts before BEA altered the numbers (but they still look bad for Obama).

Yeah, I saw your last post. And just like this one they both are a pile of ridiculous nonsense.

Here's the V GRAPH, and correction of your misinformation >>


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 20, 2020)

protectionist said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > His achievements are bologna propaganda alone. His big achievement was not wrecking Obama's recovery. Until he did. Totally. See my last post if you need to know what we should be trying to have in this country. Starts with a living wage healthcare daycare etc. Like every other modern country. all we do is argue about phony conspiracies and garbage GOP propaganda. Good night.
> ...


you have a slow recovery when the GOP wRecks not only the US economy but also the world economy with another corrupt bubble and bust like they do every time they have 8 years. Trump did not change anything and it only cost 2 trillion dollars in debt and another huge giveaway to the rich. And he totally destroyed the economy with his non-reaction to the covid virus. In the modern world the worst reaction has been in the UK and the US where silly conservatives will do anything there's scumbag pundits tell them to. See the GOP imaginary planet and brexit. Idiocy from rural ignoramuses... I would also like to thank the GOP for banning distribution of birth control around the world so now we have the worst overpopulation ever. Great job


----------



## protectionist (Dec 21, 2020)

francoHFW said:


> you have a slow recovery when the GOP wRecks not only the US economy but also the world economy with another corrupt bubble and bust like they do every time they have 8 years. Trump did not change anything and it only cost 2 trillion dollars in debt and another huge giveaway to the rich. And he totally destroyed the economy with his non-reaction to the covid virus. In the modern world the worst reaction has been in the UK and the US where silly conservatives will do anything there's scumbag pundits tell them to. See the GOP imaginary planet and brexit. Idiocy from rural ignoramuses... I would also like to thank the GOP for banning distribution of birth control around the world so now we have the worst overpopulation ever. Great job


Airhead, information-deprived ignoramus.  _"Non-reaction"_ ? > You call reducing the Covid death rate 90% in 4 months, "non-reaction" ? You call Operation Warp Speed and its vaccines in unbelievable record time, "non-reaction" ?  You call all this "non-reaction" ?  Oh, you've been watching CNN ? Well, that explains it.

The REACTION >>
Trump's quick and decisive actions regarding the *Task Force, ventilators* (we now have so many we're exporting them), the *Navy hospital ships*, the* stimulus check*s, *social distancing, opposition/criticism of New York's dumb nursing home policies,* federal *aid to hospitals*,  ramped up *production of medical supplies,* *eliminated govt restrictions* on manufacturing medial supplies, *travel bans* (which Democrats called Trump a "racist' for), Trump's advocacy o*f Hydroxychloriquin* (now proven to be effective, despite criticism from Democrats), and *Regeneron*, and Trump's *Operation Warp Speed* fast development of a* vaccine*, now going out for distribution, with unprecedented speed.

And "Idiocy" isn't in rural areas. It's in cities, ruled by Democrat lunatics, who allow Antifa and BLM lunatics to riot, arson, loot, etc freely without police intervention, and then pass laws defunding their police.
As for >>_ "GOP for banning distribution of birth control around the world" > ...

....

_


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 22, 2020)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



So if every American got infected, that would mean over 6 million deaths, if the mortality rate is 2%! Your ok with that?

Also, 33% of people who get infected have long term damage done to their bodies by this virus. Your completely missing that key point. Just surviving the infection does not mean your in the clear.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, America just evicted Impeached Trump from the White House.
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


If that were true, the BEA would produce averaged data and not annualized.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2021)

protectionist said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > _*"Currently, Donald Trump's Average Quarterly Real GDP growth rate for his time in office is 1.79%."*_
> ...


Hey, it worked. It got Impeached Trump kicked out of office.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 6, 2021)

Faun said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That is FOREVER ACQUITTED!


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


So? He was still impeached and this country can last another 1000 years and Impeached Trump's name will be brought up with others who've been impeached every time future presidents face impeachment.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 6, 2021)

Faun said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Clinton?


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 6, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


  Here's some more MSM news for you moron.


----------



## Faun (Jan 6, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Thanks for making my point. Clinton's name came up repeatedly while Trump was being impeached. Along with Johnson, who was impeached over a century and a half ago. As I said, Impeached Trump's name will be brought up whenever any future presidents get impeached. His acquittal doesn't wash that stain away.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Every respected journalist and law enforcement around the world agrees you are brainwashed functional morons....


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Who would that be, Todd, Pfffft.  You don't know the first thing about journalism.  Just stop it, my belly is hurting from laughing so hard.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Every media in the world not owned by Rupert Murdoch, brainwashed functional moron. And Rush Limbaugh and the internet crazies. So who is in charge here, Trump or Rupert limbaugh? Trump appears to be ignorant enough to believe the crap himself....


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2021)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 48th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 48th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.97% in November 2020 to 5.01% in December 2020.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
09. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
10. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*11. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
12. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
13. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.5% for December 2020, the same as it was in November 2020.

                So, Donald Trump finishes hit time in office with an average monthly unemployment rate of 5.01% putting him at 5th on the list. At the start of 2020, Donald Trump was #1 on the list. Early in Trumps term back in 2017, he was #3 on the list. Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021.


----------



## Faun (Jan 8, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 48th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 48th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.97% in November 2020 to 5.01% in December 2020.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


What's your point? That Obama's average was lower than when he started while Trump's is higher?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Jan 8, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Average?  You couldn't pick a more misleading indicator.  When Clinton was President, the average height of the Twin Towers was 110 stories.  Under Bush the Lesser, the average height was 55 stories, and under Obama, the average height was zero.   Obama was an incredible failure on the Twin Tower average.  It's enough to make a Trumper pretend there are no high and low points in an average.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 10, 2021)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for December 2020 was 6.7%. This is the 48th unemployment report with Trump in office, his 48th month recorded for this list. This brings Trump's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, up from 4.97% in November 2020 to 5.01% in December 2020.
> ...



Its just a comparison of average unemployment for every President since Harry Truman.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 10, 2021)

joaquinmiller said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



Its like your Grade Point Average. Each month you get a grade for unemployment. If you serve two terms, that is 96 months. To see how well you did, you look at each month and take the average. For some Presidents, you'll see a lot of up and down movement over the time period, while some will have a more steady rate whether high, low, or in the middle. Based way to compare all those difference equally and objectively is to take the average.


----------



## U2Edge (May 7, 2021)

The monthly unemployment rate for April 2021 was 6.1%. This is the 4th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 4th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.17% in March 2021 to 6.15% in April 2021.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
*09. Joe Biden: 6.15%*
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.7% for April 2021, up from 61.5% in March 2021.

After 4 months in office, Joe Biden enters at #9 on the list.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 7, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for April 2021 was 6.1%. This is the 4th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 4th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.17% in March 2021 to 6.15% in April 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


He will quickly assume #1 at the rate he is going!


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The monthly unemployment rate for April 2021 was 6.1%. This is the 4th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 4th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.17% in March 2021 to 6.15% in April 2021.
> ...


And people wonder why republic pols are fighting an Infrastructure bill.

They hate jobs.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


what jobs?  name them.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Every respected journalist and law enforcement around the world agrees you are brainwashed functional morons....


respected by whom?


----------



## asaratis (May 7, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



The Harris/Biden-handlers Administration is creating a shitload of government jobs.  When all currently unemployed workers are on the government payroll (taxpayer's pocket book), they will claim 0% Unemployment...and the stupid, braindead numbnuts supporting the anti-American Biden Crime Syndicate will rejoice in this number.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (May 7, 2021)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


Pinochijoe!


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2021)

jbrownson0831 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...


LOLOL 


Now THAT'S funny coming from the Trump herd.


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

jbrownson0831 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?
> ...


GWB


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> ...


Where do you get that level of dumb?


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

asaratis said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Wrong forum fir your post. Try 8klan


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> After 4 months in office, Joe Biden enters at #9 on the list.


Biden has only been in office 3 months, you have saddled him with Tramp's last terrible month in office lowering Tramp's rate and raising Biden's rate!


----------



## francoHFW (May 7, 2021)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Every respected journalist and law enforcement around the world agrees you are brainwashed functional morons....
> ...


Respected by the entire world of law enforcement. All you have is Rupert scumbag Murdoch who is not allowed to buy control of major media anymore. Pure scumbag of misinformation and hate dumb dumbass Dupe.


----------



## Concerned American (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Pure scumbag of misinformation and hate dumb dumbass Dupe.


We can see clearly where the hate is coming from---look in the mirror.


----------



## francoHFW (May 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pure scumbag of misinformation and hate dumb dumbass Dupe.
> ...


That's not hate, that is pity for brainwashed functional morons like you. No sacrifice is too great to save the greedy idiots from paying their fair share.... Try reality. Anything but Rupert Murdoch incorporated. That's about 4,000 outlets to 10 worldwide....


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Name one


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Yeah, yes it is


----------



## Concerned American (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


No different than the Turners, McClatchys, Cowles, Hearsts--you know all of your left wing outlets, but that's OK, because--they're leftys--hypocrite.   And yeah, you're dripping with hate in every last one of your bs posts.


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Pure scumbag of misinformation and hate dumb dumbass Dupe.
> ...


Cry me some of those tears...


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


You have your own


----------



## otto105 (May 7, 2021)

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


No, I have yours to laugh at.

The former president makes you cry them.


----------



## francoHFW (May 7, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Don't forget about the BBC and France 24 and the German TV network and every respected media outlet in the world along with law enforcement. Everything you know is crap propaganda that nobody gives a damn about except other rubes of the lying robbing GOP. Change the channel... Yes they are totally different. They are not even trying for the truth, they just spew garbage propaganda phony scandals and ridiculous conspiracies. And all owned by scumbag Rupert Murdock. One TV Network and five or six newspapers. All garbage. His tabloids in the UK lead the racist charge against Megan Markle. The hate they spew. I hate lies not you idiots. Tucker Carlson and Trump lawyers have a new defense that works. They say no rational person would believe such idiocy. Not guilty! Change the channel stupid


----------



## badbob85037 (May 7, 2021)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


At least this one don't But on a good day he might remember his name.


----------



## Concerned American (May 7, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


You are a psycho.  You should get help.


----------



## francoHFW (May 8, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Try reality ding bad. Change the channel for crying out loud lol

www.npr.org
The Legal Defense For Fox's Tucker Carlson: He Can't Be Literally ...
Tucker Carlson no rational person would believe what he says from www.npr.org
Sep. 29, 2020 — You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells ... that given Mr . Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer ...
Imagehttps://www.businessinsider.com › ...
Fox Wins McDougal Case, Argues No One Takes Tucker Carlson ...
Sep. 25, 2020 — The case was brought by the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who said Carlson defamed her on his ...


----------



## U2Edge (Jun 4, 2021)

The monthly unemployment rate for May 2021 was 5.8%. This is the 5th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 5th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.15% in April 2021 to 6.08% in May 2021.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
08. John Kennedy: 5.98%
*09. Joe Biden: 6.08%*
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.6% for May 2021, down from 61.7% in April 2021.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for May 2021 was 5.8%. This is the 5th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 5th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.15% in April 2021 to 6.08% in May 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


The Biden Crime Family Administration will lower the unemployment number by hiring thousands of IRS agents.  I've heard he's aiming to have 87,000 new agents to harass citizens in the near future.


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



None of those presidents except Obama has to resurrect the economy after the GFC. How convenient is it to forget that.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...


Most of the decline was coincidental and had nothing to do with Obama policies.  The labor force participation was the lowest since the late 1970s.



> President Obama took office on January 20, 2009 in the midst of the Great Recession. Unemployment was skyrocketing as businesses laid off workers. It peaked at 10.3% in October 2009 (it would later be revised to 10%), the worst level in 26 years.
> 
> At the end of Obama's term, businesses are hiring and unemployment has fallen back to just 4.7% -- a reflection of a healthy economy. However, labor force participation (a fancy way of referring to the percentage of working U.S. adults) is at its lowest level since the late 1970s. The main reason is that Baby Boomers are retiring, combined with a segment of the population who stopped looking for work because they can't find anything.


Without the Boomer retirement and people ceasing to look for work, Obama's average would have been even higher.  Obama also presided over the largest increase in national debt in our history...higher that that of all previous Presidents combined.









						The Obama economy in 10 charts
					

President Obama came to office in January 2009 in the midst of the Great Recession. Much has turned around since then, but he's been criticized for a slow recovery.



					money.cnn.com


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 6, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



My point is the GFC was deliberately overlooked attempting to score points.  
Why wouldn't Obama's debt be greatest? 
GWB left noth iknh so massive borrowing was required to stimulate the economy just as trump an d Biden have been forced to do.  So both scenarios need to be in perspective with the economic conditions at the time. 

But what gives me a smile is when th e legs fall off everything, both governments go back to the same Keynes socialist policy of using taxpayer wealth and collateral as a way of producing money 
 from thin air, roughly speaking of course. 

The same goes for all the infrastructure built by the government's to build I infrastructure.  Republicans use it every day but rail against anything socialist. 
They should try no schools, universities, roads, bridges, freeways, hospitals, doctors, police, maritime services and all the military and see how they go. 

Good talking to you. Cheers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> ...



How could we forget the slowest recovery since WWII?


----------



## Faun (Jun 7, 2021)

asaratis said:


> Obama also presided over the largest increase in national debt in our history...higher that that of all previous Presidents combined.



That nonsense has been debunked a thousand times. That there are still conservatives spreading it is testament to how brain-damaged conservatives are.

Obama ................................................. $9.3 trillion 
All previous presidents combined ... $10.6 trillion









						Debt to the Penny | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
					

Debt to the Penny is the total debt of the U.S. government and is reported daily. It is made up of intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public.




					fiscaldata.treasury.gov


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 6, 2021)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2021 was 5.4%. This is the 7th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 7th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.08% in May 2021 to 5.96% in July 2021.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
*08. Joe Biden: 5.96%*
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.7% for July 2021, up from 61.6% in June 2021.


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 6, 2021)

Once upon a time it was “all about the economy” then it became something entirely different, as to be expected. Remember when the international pandemic, Wuhan, was the Donald’s fault, people died because of the Donald, unemployment was the Donald’s fault, collapse of the worlds economy was the Donald’s fault. I guess the new normal is what America wanted so shut up and man up America get used to being your brother’s  keeper for the benefit of the whole.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 6, 2021)

Reuters not thrilled with employment details…









						Why the drop in the U.S. Black unemployment rate may not be good news
					

It should have been a number to celebrate: The U.S. Black unemployment rate fell a full percentage point to 8.2% in July - the biggest drop of any major racial or demographic group. But a look behind the numbers reveals a distressing reality.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## my2¢ (Aug 6, 2021)

Averages are good but I'm more impressed with what they inherited and how they left things.  Or for a president in office, what it was when he took office and what it is currently. 

I also take into consideration things beyond their control.  For example, considering unemployment, I believe it is better to judge Trump's record based on the situation before COVID.  Likewise I wouldn't praise him with doing a remarkable job over the trade deficit with China by using the months before the Senate's March 2020 stimulus package which put dough back in people's pockets.


----------



## kaz (Aug 6, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for July 2021 was 5.4%. This is the 7th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 7th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 6.08% in May 2021 to 5.96% in July 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



Trump is the best if you take out the four wartime presidents ahead of him


----------



## JimH52 (Aug 6, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Once upon a time it was “all about the economy” then it became something entirely different, as to be expected. Remember when the international pandemic, Wuhan, was the Donald’s fault, people died because of the Donald, unemployment was the Donald’s fault, collapse of the worlds economy was the Donald’s fault. I guess the new normal is what America wanted so shut up and man up America get used to being your brother’s  keeper for the benefit of the whole.


We don't ask for much.  We asked for an honest President....but we got trump.  His lies about the seriousness of COVID cost the lives of thousands.  History wI'll not be kind to the Former Guy.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 7, 2021)

JimH52 said:


> We don't ask for much.  We asked for an honest President....but we got trump.  His lies about the seriousness of COVID cost the lives of thousands.  History wI'll not be kind to the Former Guy.


/——/ TDS rears its ugly head again.


----------



## Ringo (Aug 21, 2021)

"We create nothing. We own. We make the rules, pals. War, famine, upheaval, the price of your housing, education, electricity, gasoline, and groceries. Now, you guys aren't naïve enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you?" (c)


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 21, 2021)

Actually a democratically elected REPUBLIC. We are not a democracy. How else do you explain Congress and the Charlie McCarthy puppet?
If not for the constitution we would be a form of fascist democracy, or democratic socialist state. The problem with dimbo’s is they don’t understand the difference between the two and view the constitution as an antiquated piece of garbage that needs to be overthrown.


----------



## Ringo (Aug 21, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Actually a democratically elected REPUBLIC.


They don't care.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 21, 2021)

Ringo said:


> "We create nothing. We own. We make the rules, pals. War, famine, upheaval, the price of your housing, education, electricity, gasoline, and groceries. Now, you guys aren't naïve enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you?" (c)




Were you a "crack baby?"


----------



## Ringo (Aug 21, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Were you a "crack baby?"


No, I am more like "Boom baby"


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 3, 2021)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2021 was 4.2%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50% in November 2021.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
*08. Joe Biden: 5.50%*
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.8% for November 2021, up from 61.7% in July 2021.


----------



## AntonToo (Dec 3, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2021 was 4.2%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50% in November 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Why do you keep posting this stupid bullshit?

Bush would give his right nut (pardon the pun) to have Reagan's or Obama's economic record.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 3, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2021 was 4.2%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50% in November 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


That's some nice rolled-up Rush Limbaugh statistics you got there.
How many of those Presidents had a booming economy before China dropped a bomb on the economy of *every nation* on earth?
I know, I know, you're too filled with hate to allow facts to interfere with your mental illness.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Dec 3, 2021)

JimH52 said:


> We don't ask for much.  We asked for an honest President....but we got trump.  His lies about the seriousness of COVID cost the lives of thousands.  History wI'll not be kind to the Former Guy.


And Poopeypants is honest?  Wow you really are losing your tiny mind.....


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 3, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> That's some nice rolled-up Rush Limbaugh statistics you got there.
> How many of those Presidents had a booming economy before China dropped a bomb on the economy of *every nation* on earth?
> I know, I know, you're too filled with hate to allow facts to interfere with your mental illness.


If he says This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50% 

That's hateful?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 3, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Once upon a time it was “all about the economy” then it became something entirely different, as to be expected. Remember when the international pandemic, Wuhan, was the Donald’s fault, people died because of the Donald, unemployment was the Donald’s fault, collapse of the worlds economy was the Donald’s fault. I guess the new normal is what America wanted so shut up and man up America get used to being your brother’s  keeper for the benefit of the whole.


No it is Trump's fault along with GOP propaganda that the vaccines and mass have been made political, so we have the worst vaccine and death rate of anywhere in the modern world. They also lead the rest of the world conservative conspiracy nut jobs to do the same.... Great job!!


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 3, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> No it is Trump's fault along with GOP propaganda that the vaccines and mass have been made political, so we have the worst vaccine and death rate of anywhere in the modern world. They also lead the rest of the world conservative conspiracy nut jobs to do the same.... Great job!!


Link it dumb fuck.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  What a maroon.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> No it is Trump's fault along with GOP propaganda that the vaccines and mass have been made political, so we have the worst vaccine and death rate of anywhere in the modern world. They also lead the rest of the world conservative conspiracy nut jobs to do the same.... Great job!!



What a sad little Nazi.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> What a sad little Nazi.


Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and would like the poster to stop calling the opposition NAZIs as it confuses the QOP supporters who believe they are.


----------



## Staidhup (Dec 3, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> No it is Trump's fault along with GOP propaganda that the vaccines and mass have been made political, so we have the worst vaccine and death rate of anywhere in the modern world. They also lead the rest of the world conservative conspiracy nut jobs to do the same.... Great job!!


😂 your killing me. How much do they pay you or are you just another wannabe?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and would like the poster to stop calling the opposition NAZIs as it confuses the QOP supporters who believe they are.



So sad that a full grown Nazi like you can't come up with anything better.

I recognize the FACT that you are a Nazi. That's just stating the facts. You are a totalitarian collectivist who depends on the scapegoating of Der Juden, the whites, to support the lust for power by your filthy Reich, You fight to crush freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly. You seek to create a police state where "papers please" is the rule for the enslaved populace while party members are above all laws.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So sad that a full grown Nazi like you can't come up with anything better.
> 
> I recognize the FACT that you are a Nazi. That's just stating the facts. You are a totalitarian collectivist who depends on the scapegoating of Der Juden, the whites, to support the lust for power by your filthy Reich, You fight to crush freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly. You seek to create a police state where "papers please" is the rule for the enslaved populace while party members are above all laws.


Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and concluded that it lacks clarity on NAZIs which confuses the QOP political base which is proudly NAZI. Please review your post and be more specific to the QOP NAZI cause.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and concluded that it lacks clarity on NAZIs which confuses the QOP political base which is proudly NAZI. Please review your post and be more specific to the QOP NAZI cause.



So sad that a full grown Nazi can come up with nothing better. But the Reich depends on your evil, not on your ever so limited intellect...


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So sad that a full grown Nazi can come up with nothing better. But the Reich depends on your evil, not on your ever so limited intellect...


Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and again asks the poster to clarify the use of the NAZI's references.  The office further states that misuse of NAZI's hurts their brand.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Your local QOP office has reviewed the previous post and again asks the poster to clarify the use of the NAZI's references.  The office further states that misuse of NAZI's hurts their brand.



Still repeating your moronic little chant?

You're far too stupid to come up with anything else. Obviously incapable of discussion or debate.

You're stupid and evil, it's why you're a Nazi democrat.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Still repeating your moronic little chant?
> 
> You're far too stupid to come up with anything else. Obviously incapable of discussion or debate.
> 
> You're stupid and evil, it's why you're a Nazi democrat.


Your local QOP office is requesting that you stop accusing people of being NAZI's who are clearly not part of the modern QOP movement. They further go on to state that current QOP branding is hurt by your false accusations.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 3, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Link it dumb fuck.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  What a maroon.


So I guess70 percent of Republicans did their own research lol. What is wrong with you as if I didn't know, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 3, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Still repeating your moronic little chant?
> 
> You're far too stupid to come up with anything else. Obviously incapable of discussion or debate.
> 
> You're stupid and evil, it's why you're a Nazi democrat.


Nazis and fascists are right wing, brainwashed functional dumbbell. Communists are the leftist dictatorships.... You people believe Trump like they believed Hitler, that's what's so terrifying. Rupert Murdoch and internet swine should be taken out and shot and I'm kidding. But only here can Rupert Murdock get major media anymore. Pure scumbag will say anything for money. We need debate everywhere again.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 3, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> So I guess70 percent of Republicans did their own research lol. What is wrong with you as if I didn't know, brainwashed functional moron.


Thanks for staying true to form you stupid fuck.  You are definitely a democrat--you lie and when called on it, instead of proving your point you pull the only three words in your lexicon--brainwashed functional moron.  You've just had your ass handed to you---AGAIN.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Nazis and fascists are right wing, brainwashed functional dumbbell. Communists are the leftist dictatorships.... You people believe Trump like they believed Hitler, that's what's so terrifying. Rupert Murdoch and internet swine should be taken out and shot and I'm kidding. But only here can Rupert Murdock get major media anymore. Pure scumbag will say anything for money. We need debate everywhere again.


Nazism was a syncretic movement.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Your local QOP office is requesting that you stop accusing people of being NAZI's who are clearly not part of the modern QOP movement. They further go on to state that current QOP branding is hurt by your false accusations.



Let's Go Brandon







			https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TRF-Biden-Approval-1130-Poll-Report.pdf


----------



## otto105 (Dec 4, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Actually a democratically elected REPUBLIC. We are not a democracy. How else do you explain Congress and the Charlie McCarthy puppet?
> If not for the constitution we would be a form of fascist democracy, or democratic socialist state. The problem with dimbo’s is they don’t understand the difference between the two and view the constitution as an antiquated piece of garbage that needs to be overthrown.


We're a representative Democracy. 

BTW how many times has the US Constitution been amended?


----------



## otto105 (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Let's Go Brandon
> 
> View attachment 571653
> 
> ...


Bah Ha Ha Ha HA HA the trafuckedup group.


I piss on that poll and Eat Shit donny.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Bah Ha Ha Ha HA HA the trafuckedup group.
> 
> 
> I piss on that poll and Eat Shit donny.


We can always count on rightards cherry-picking the poll with the lowest rating.

I suppose that makes them feel good.


----------



## Staidhup (Dec 4, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Nazism was a syncretic movement.


Syncretic in that it embraced socialism, centralized state control, and fear?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Syncretic in that it embraced socialism, centralized state control, and fear?


_*Socialism*

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole._

How did the Nazis embrace that? ^^^


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 4, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Syncretic in that it embraced socialism, centralized state control, and fear?


Nazism cherry picked bits from the Left and Right. Left wingers claim it's rightwing and vice versa.


----------



## Staidhup (Dec 4, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Nazism cherry picked bits from the Left and Right. Left wingers claim it's rightwing and vice versa.


Well stated, regretfully most have no concept of  what Mussolini is credited with crafting, even more concerning that it’s blue print originated from the Wilson administration.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2021)

Faun said:


> _*Socialism*
> 
> a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole._
> 
> How did the Nazis embrace that? ^^^


_<crickets>_


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 4, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2021 was 4.2%. This is the 11th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 11th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50% in November 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


/---- Keep in mind, the way the unemployment rate has been calculated over the decades has changed. 









						Employment: How is it defined and why does that matter? - Full Fact
					

In our second piece of this series, we look at the definition of employment. Lots of people think that the government changes the definition of unemployment, so you can’t compare figures over time.




					fullfact.org
				




*A 1991 report from the Social Security Advisory Committee found the unemployment definition had been changed 20 times between 1979 and 1988, and that almost every change reduced the number of people defined as unemployed.*

So comparing the unemployment and employment rates as measured in those years would have been an unfair comparison, because the definition was always changing.

But nowadays the unemployment rate (and the employment rate) isn’t affected by how many people claim benefits. Employment and unemployment is based on the number of people who do or are seeking paid work as measured by a large scale survey. Statistics using these definitions have been back-calculated going back to the early 1970s.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Thanks for staying true to form you stupid fuck.  You are definitely a democrat--you lie and when called on it, instead of proving your point you pull the only three words in your lexicon--brainwashed functional moron.  You've just had your ass handed to you---AGAIN.


Conservatives are not getting vaccinated especially here. Because GOP propaganda





Concerned American said:


> Thanks for staying true to form you stupid fuck.  You are definitely a democrat--you lie and when called on it, instead of proving your point you pull the only three words in your lexicon--brainwashed functional moron.  You've just had your ass handed to you---AGAIN.


What the hell are you talking about? Lol. Conservatives are missinformed twits who won't get vaccinated, believe the election was stolen omg. Who needs evidence when you have lying scumbag pundits?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /---- Keep in mind, the way the unemployment rate has been calculated over the decades has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOLOLOL 

Do you even know you’re retarded??

Moron, that's about the UK.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Faun said:


> _<crickets>_


Well The Nazi economy was a pyramid scheme that promised good jobs so that's socialist but no socialist ever wanted a dictatorship. No matter what scumbag communists and missinformed conservatives and English speakers it appears would say. socialism is always democratic fair capitalism. Ask any socialist or anyone in France Germany Italy Scandinavia etc


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

otto105 said:


> Bah Ha Ha Ha HA HA the trafuckedup group.
> 
> 
> I piss on that poll and Eat Shit donny.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

36% approval?

Worst "president" in history.

Carter must love this fucking pile of shit....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Well The Nazi economy was a pyramid scheme that promised good jobs so that's socialist but no socialist ever wanted a dictatorship. No matter what scumbag communists and missinformed conservatives and English speakers it appears would say. socialism is always democratic fair capitalism. Ask any socialist or anyone in France Germany Italy Scandinavia etc







*no socialist ever wanted a dictatorship.

{the capitalist system would inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of proletariat, be superseded by a socialist state and classless communist society. A dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to ensure the removal of the capitalist society. The dictatorship is above the law because it is the law, and therefore can be unlimited. }*





__





						Dictatorship of the Proletariat - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
					






					www.sciencedirect.com
				




You are truly the dumbest motherfucker on USMB. This is astounding, Farouk is in this thread, and you're even dumber than that drooling retard.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Nazism cherry picked bits from the Left and Right. Left wingers claim it's rightwing and vice versa.



Nazism is collectivist totalitarian.

It is a command economy under authoritarian dictatorship.  There are no rights, all privilege is based on group affiliation, and there really is no law under Nazism as the Reich is above all law (see the democrats as an illustration of this in action).

The American right is defined by free and uncoerced trade, individual civil rights, and codified laws that apply to all.

Exactly what features of Nazism come from "the right?"


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 4, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /---- Keep in mind, the way the unemployment rate has been calculated over the decades has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Governments are good at placing certain people into schemes, paid by the government, that removes from the "official" unemployed list. UK is no different.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nazism is collectivist totalitarian.
> 
> It is a command economy under authoritarian dictatorship.  There are no rights, all privilege is based on group affiliation, and there really is no law under Nazism as the Reich is above all law (see the democrats as an illustration of this in action).
> 
> ...


Try Googling the knowledge you seek, saves me becoming a lackey


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> Try Googling the knowledge you seek, saves me becoming a lackey



It saves you from supporting your fallacious argument?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Staidhup said:


> Well stated, regretfully most have no concept of  what Mussolini is credited with crafting, even more concerning that it’s blue print originated from the Wilson administration.


Oh nose, not liberal fascism again. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists who promised good jobs and said they were socialists in that regard but their biggest enemies were socialists and communists, brainwashed functional moron. And has nothing to do with Woodrow Wilson for God's sake. That is the stupidest book ever written. Just like the rest of your ridiculous Murdoch garbage propaganda movement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Hitler and Mussolini were fascists who promised good jobs and said they were socialists in that regard but their biggest enemies were socialists and communists,



Stalin's biggest enemies were socialists and communists, look at all the socialists and communists he killed or put in the Gulag.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> It saves you from supporting your fallacious argument?


 The whole educated and not brainwashed world believes you are nuts lol. Change the channel. Read the Hindustani Times or something for God's sake.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Oh nose, not liberal fascism again. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists who promised good jobs and said they were socialists in that regard but their biggest enemies were socialists and communists, brainwashed functional moron. And has nothing to do with Woodrow Wilson for God's sake. That is the stupidest book ever written. Just like the rest of your ridiculous Murdoch garbage propaganda movement.



Yo stupid fuck, guess who the biggest enemy of this Communist was?





That's right,

THIS socialist...





Okay, so you're the dumbest person on USMB - at least you achieved SOMETHING....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> The whole educated and not brainwashed world believes you are nuts lol. Change the channel. Read the Hindustani Times or something for God's sake.



What would you know about educated, Stalin?

You really are the dumbest person on USMB - even Faun isn't as jaw droppingly stupid as you.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stalin's biggest enemies were socialists and communists, look at all the socialists and communists he killed or put in the Gulag.


He put everyone in the gulag lol.... Of course his biggest enemies were supposedly capitalists and imperialists and their running dogs.... He hated the rest of cracks also. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists because they were capitalists who loved aristocrats as long as they weren't Jewish or against them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2021)

Rozman said:


> Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....
> 
> Obama is not it seems....


what planet have YOU been living on,presidents have NEVER been accountable for their actions.they get off scott free with murder everyday chuckles.Look at all the people the clintons had ARKANSAWED off.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2021)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


No surprise in the least the fact he is a KENYON who hates America. Number one is actually Kennedy,Johnson inherited what he got started like the civil rights bill.Johnson was a racist,he hated blacks and minoritys,he just inherited what Kennedy initiated and got the ball rolling on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> He put everyone in the gulag lol.... Of course his biggest enemies were supposedly capitalists and imperialists and their running dogs.... He hated the rest of cracks also. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists because they were capitalists who loved aristocrats as long as they weren't Jewish or against them.



*He put everyone in the gulag lol....*

Yeah, communists and socialists. Awful!

*Of course his biggest enemies were supposedly capitalists and imperialists and their running dogs....*

Couldn't have been many of them in Russia after 1917.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yo stupid fuck, guess who the biggest enemy of this Communist was?
> 
> View attachment 571817
> 
> ...


We're not talking about leadership rivalries between communists for crying out loud. Socialists are for democracy except in stupid propaganda. Stupid propaganda from conservatives Nazis and communists.... People in France Italy Spain the Netherlands Germany Scandinavia Romania Russia etcetera know the difference. They have had socialist and communist parties at the same time. The communist parties never got more than 20% and disappeared along with their support from the USSR. But Babble on, dingbat...


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

LA RAM FAN said:


> No surprise in the least the fact he is a KENYON who hates America. Number one is actually Kennedy,Johnson inherited what he got started like the civil rights bill.Johnson was a racist,he hated blacks and minoritys,he just inherited what Kennedy initiated and got the ball rolling on.


Of course Obama was handed a world depression by the worst president up to that point lol. Obama should have waited until Hillary's 8 years were done. He was afraid to piss everyone off because he was a black guy.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *He put everyone in the gulag lol....*
> 
> Yeah, communists and socialists. Awful!
> 
> ...


 I was mainly referring to the capitalists and imperialists outside of Russia... There were certainly a lot of capitalists in Russia keeping their mouths shut for 70 years.... Dictatorships suck. I lived in Franco's Spain for a while. Who needs trials? I got two traffic tickets from policemen waiting with sub machine guns. You got to pay them immediately. Spanish people got to go to jail for years lol... Unless they were rich capitalists of course


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Of course Obama was handed a world depression by the worst president up to that point lol.



The depression that ended in June 2009, before Obama could do anything to fix it? DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> I was mainly referring to the capitalists and imperialists outside of Russia... There were certainly a lot of capitalists in Russia keeping their mouths shut for 70 years.... Dictatorships suck. I lived in Franco's Spain for a while. Who needs trials? I got two traffic tickets from policemen waiting with sub machine guns. You got to pay them immediately. Spanish people got to go to jail for years lol... Unless they were rich capitalists of course



*I was mainly referring to the capitalists and imperialists outside of Russia... *

He killed tens of millions of Russian communists and put millions more in the Gulag because of foreign capitalists and imperialists? That's your excuse?


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The American right is defined by free and uncoerced trade, individual civil rights, and codified laws that apply to all.


Pure BULLSHIT!


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I was mainly referring to the capitalists and imperialists outside of Russia... *
> 
> He killed tens of millions of Russian communists and put millions more in the Gulag because of foreign capitalists and imperialists? That's your excuse?


You won't find me defending Joseph Stalin for crying out loud lol. He probably thought they were domestic capitalists and imperialists but were lying and saying They were communists and Stalinists....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> You won't find me defending Joseph Stalin for crying out loud lol.



Why would you?
He was worse than those other fascists, Hitler and Mussolini.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> We're not talking about leadership rivalries between communists for crying out loud.



Yeah;

Especially these two, shit fer brains.







francoHFW said:


> Socialists are for democracy except in stupid propaganda.



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Lying doesn't strengthen your position - it reinforces just how fucking stupid you are.



francoHFW said:


> Stupid propaganda from conservatives Nazis and communists.... People in France Italy Spain the Netherlands Germany Scandinavia Romania Russia etcetera know the difference. They have had socialist and communist parties at the same time. The communist parties never got more than 20% and disappeared along with their support from the USSR. But Babble on, dingbat...



There are socialist parties in those nations, but they are not socialist nations.

Just as we have a Nazi party, the democrats in America, but are not a Nazi nation (yet).


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

edthecynic said:


> Pure BULLSHIT!


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would you?
> He was worse than those other fascists, Hitler and Mussolini.


Fascism is right wing dictatorship, with capitalism. Left wing dictatorship is communism.Both suck the big one.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yeah;
> 
> Especially these two, shit fer brains.
> View attachment 571851
> ...


They think they are socialist. Lol. See you are part of the English and English speaking brainwashed functional morons. The English are the biggest capitalists swine in the world. Well not anymore lol. They got lucky after world war II and got socialism. In other words healthcare. You have been brainwashed into totally conflating socialism and communism. Every socialist in the world is for democracy and fair capitalism. That is in Democratic countries. In dictatorships you get a load of crap and they often claim they are socialist because socialism is very popular when you know what it is. That is not your problem. The English have been capitalist brainwashers for centuries. Napoleon was taller than average and never said England was a nation of shopkeepers, he was talking about corporate monopolism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Fascism is right wing dictatorship, with capitalism. Left wing dictatorship is communism.Both suck the big one.



Right wing dictatorship? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Right wingers want to push granny off the cliff and drown government in the bathtub.

Remember?


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> View attachment 571856


Nazis and fascists are right wing. Everybody knows it except brainwashed functional moron GOP base zombies like you. Stalin is a communist. Hitler is a Nazi. You people are right-wing and believe anything Trump or Rupert Murdoch pundits and much worse on the internet say. It is just like with Hitler. Republican masters think they can handle Trump just like conservatives thought they could handle Hitler. Luckily Trump is also very old and stupid and ignorant thank God. But this is the worst stuff that has ever happened to America. You guys are absolutely confused lol. Baffled by BS. Change the channel. Everyone in the world disagrees with you fools....


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 4, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> If he says This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.96% in July 2021 to 5.50%
> 
> That's hateful?


The truth is not the rolled-up numbers, the truth is what lies beneath the rolled-up numbers.
Of course, I realize that if you were honest you would admit such.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> The whole educated and not brainwashed world believes you are nuts


Link it moron, because you haven't got a clue about education or the educated world.


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> The truth is not the rolled-up numbers, the truth is what lies beneath the rolled-up numbers.
> Of course, I realize that if you were honest you would admit such.


 Yes we have a major problem, misinformed people who will not get vaccinated.





Concerned American said:


> Link it moron, because you haven't got a clue about education or the educated world.


I speak three languages and have a masters in history. Every respected media in the world agrees with me along with every courtroom in the country. All you have is internet crazy and Rupert scumbag Murdoch's scumbag pundits. In the entire world! Wake up wake up.Change the channel for crying out loud.


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> I speak three languages and have a masters in history.


Maybe before your stroke.  Now you have a lexicon of five words--brainwashed, functional, moron, Rupert, and Murdoch.  Excuse me, three more--change the channel.  You are a lying POS who does not provide proof or links to proof of anything.  I wouldn't believe anything out your mouth.  Try providing proof of ANYTHING.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Fascism is right wing dictatorship, with capitalism.



Fucking liar.

Fascism is a collectivist system.

You've been corrected before; you're not "wrong," you're a fucking liar.





francoHFW said:


> Left wing dictatorship is communism.Both suck the big one.



You suck, fucking Nazi.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> They think they are socialist. Lol. See you are part of the English and English speaking brainwashed functional morons. The English are the biggest capitalists swine in the world. Well not anymore lol. They got lucky after world war II and got socialism. In other words healthcare. You have been brainwashed into totally conflating socialism and communism. Every socialist in the world is for democracy and fair capitalism. That is in Democratic countries. In dictatorships you get a load of crap and they often claim they are socialist because socialism is very popular when you know what it is. That is not your problem. The English have been capitalist brainwashers for centuries. Napoleon was taller than average and never said England was a nation of shopkeepers, he was talking about corporate monopolism.



You're a pathetic, ignorant fucking liar.

England has socialized medicine. Other than that, it's a market based Capitalist system.

The reason you're such a filthy fucking liar is that real socialism is hell on earth. North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, anywhere it's tried.


----------



## themirrorthief (Dec 4, 2021)

Lakhota said:


>


poor  old  senile joe will  save  us   just  keep  kamala close  by  with  a  fresh  depends  for  her  racist  master


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Yes we have a major problem, misinformed people who will not get vaccinated.
> I speak three languages and have a masters in history. Every respected media in the world agrees with me along with every courtroom in the country. All you have is internet crazy and Rupert scumbag Murdoch's scumbag pundits. In the entire world! Wake up wake up.Change the channel for crying out loud.


And you're poor as shit...so much for your worthless "credentials".


----------



## themirrorthief (Dec 4, 2021)

NYcarbineer said:


> So you credit Bill Clinton with the 4% UE he left for GW Bush?


newt  gingrich  did  that  while  billy  was  getting  jiggy  with  it with  monica


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> And you're poor as shit...so much for your worthless "credentials".


I remain happily retired thank you. What is wrong with you? Lol


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> I remain happily retired thank you. What is wrong with you? Lol


We all know most historians are multi-multi-multi millionaires


----------



## francoHFW (Dec 4, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> We all know most historians are multi-multi-multi millionaires


Prep School teacher and businessman. They like people with brains in administration...


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 4, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> Prep School teacher and businessman. They like people with brains in administration...


*administration!   *


----------



## Viktor (Dec 4, 2021)

regent said:


> Should the president be given the power to control America's economy?


No. The Constitution defines his power and that is a legal document.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 5, 2021)

francoHFW said:


> I remain happily retired thank you. What is wrong with you? Lol



6 figure tax payer funded pension for mind-raping children, right? Telling kids how unfair America is while you leached off of the working people and lived the life of a king as a stooge in the pre-prison training centers of public schools.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*05. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
06. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
07. George W. Bush: 5.27%
*08. Joe Biden: 5.36%*
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 61.9% for December 2021, the same as November 2021.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


COVID, retard.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

antontoo said:


> Why do you keep posting this stupid bullshit?
> 
> Bush would give his right nut (pardon the pun) to have Reagan's or Obama's economic record.



Its solid average unemployment data for each U.S. President, since World War II, that all Americans should be aware of. No U.S. President since World War II wants to have the same average unemployment rate as Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan had during their terms as President, except maybe FORD, although it would not really be much of an improvement for him.


----------



## AntonToo (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



*07. George W. Bush: 5.27%*

This is all anyone ever needs to see about this retarded metric's connection to actual economic record.


----------



## AntonToo (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Its solid average unemployment data for each U.S. President,


Bush has a pretty bad economic record. Anyone who is not completely out to lunch knows that, so take your "average unemployment" and shove it you know where.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...





U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


/-----/ I don't trust the UE rate even when they make Republican presidents look good and when they make democRAT presidents look bad.   Here's why: Top 5 Problems With the Unemployment Rate - SmartAsset


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /---/ I don't trust teh UE rates ebven when they make Republican Presidents look good and democRAT presidents look bad. They are massaged.
> 
> /-----/ I don't trust the UE rate even when they make Republican presidents look good and when they make democRAT presidents look bad.   Here's why: Top 5 Problems With the Unemployment Rate - SmartAsset


Wall Street Presidents have always sucked.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

antontoo said:


> *07. George W. Bush: 5.27%*
> 
> This is all anyone ever needs to see about this retarded metric's connection to actual economic record.



Look, that is George W. Bush's average monthly unemployment rate for the 96 months he was in the White House. Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If your Butt hurt because it does not match up with whatever assumption's you have about the particular President, there is nothing I can do. Its historical objective fact and always will be.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Look, that is George W. Bush's average monthly unemployment rate for the 96 months he was in the White House. Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If your Butt hurt because it does not match up with whatever assumption's you have about the particular President, there is nothing I can do. Its historical objective fact and always will be.


It hides the fact that Bush was given 5 percent unemployment and left with over 10 percent.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Look, that is George W. Bush's average monthly unemployment rate for the 96 months he was in the White House. Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If your Butt hurt because it does not match up with whatever assumption's you have about the particular President, there is nothing I can do. Its historical objective fact and always will be.


The BLS was changing the U{X} formula on a weekly basis to try to make him look as good as possible; he was one of the worst Presidents ever.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> It hides the fact that Bush was given 5 percent unemployment and left with over 10 percent.



It does not hide the fact that for most of the 96 months the President was in office, the unemployment rate was relatively low. It contributed to George W. Bush being re-elected in 2004, which will always be the largest sample of the American people expressing their feelings about George W. Bush's time in office.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The BLS was changing the U{X} formula on a weekly basis to try to make him look as good as possible; he was one of the worst Presidents ever.



Well, regardless of what anyone thinks of these Presidents, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will continue to show that these are the average unemployment rates for these Presidents since World War II.


----------



## Billiejeens (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The BLS was changing the U{X} formula on a weekly basis to try to make him look as good as possible; he was one of the worst Presidents ever.



Far too progressive for my taste, but that is in no way factually true.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Well, regardless of what anyone thinks of these Presidents, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will continue to show that these are the average unemployment rates for these Presidents since World War II.


It will, but it's a meaningless stat which hides actual performance.

Case in point.... take two presidents....

President A inherits an unemployment rate at a healthy 4.0%. The rate increases every month at 0.2 points... after 4 years, the unemployment rate is up to 13.6% and he would get kicked out of office.

President B inherits an obscene rate at 23.0%. The rate decreases every month at 0.2 points... after 8 years, the unemployment rate is under 4% (where president A started) and the 22nd Amendment is repealed for such a jobs god.

Then along comes a moron like you who idiotically shows president A performed better regarding unemployment because his average of *8.9%* is far lower than president B's *13.2%* average. That it doesn't matter how one president destroyed the job market while the other saved it -- all that matters is that president A's average unemployment rate was lower.


----------



## AntonToo (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Look, that is George W. Bush's average monthly unemployment rate for the 96 months he was in the White House



Yep it's amazing, loser Reagan has nothing on W.Bush.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

Billiejeens said:


> Far too progressive for my taste, but that is in no way factually true.


It's completely true as I was researching the underlying formulas on a weekly basis.
GW's open borders and business visas policies caused massive unemployment of which I knew because of my national Jewish community.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> Prep School teacher and businessman. They like people with brains in administration...


What "business" do you own?


----------



## otto105 (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> COVID, retard.


COVID what maga fuckup.


----------



## otto105 (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The BLS was changing the U{X} formula on a weekly basis to try to make him look as good as possible; he was one of the worst Presidents ever.


The BLS doesn't change how they count jobs maga fuckup.

Your just denying the reality of the jobs market under President Biden.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

otto105 said:


> The BLS doesn't change how they count jobs maga fuckup.
> 
> Your just denying the reality of the jobs market under President Biden.


You never heard of U1->U8?
Or do you get paid to pretend you're that ignorant?


----------



## otto105 (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You never heard of U1->U8?
> Or do you get paid to pretend you're that ignorant?


They don't change weekly how the count jobs under any of the U designations maga fuckup.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

otto105 said:


> They don't change weekly how the count jobs under any of the U designations maga fuckup.


Prove it.


----------



## otto105 (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Prove it.


YOU'RE the one asserting they change weekly maga fuckup.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 7, 2022)

otto105 said:


> YOU'RE the one asserting they change weekly maga fuckup.


Try watching CSPAN once in a while.
Also, the jobs reports take 3 months to be accurate so the December 2021 report could be way off.

Also, I truly couldn't give a crap about what a moron such as yourself feels or supposedly thinks.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> It will, but it's a meaningless stat which hides actual performance.
> 
> Case in point.... take two presidents....
> 
> ...




The unemployment rate often goes up and down every month, every year etc. When you look at a persons time on the job, its important to look at every month, not just the first month and the last month. Even in your hypothetical examples, or Presidents Bush and Obama, its not accurate to say that only the first month and last month, TWO MONTHS, of data are the only relevant data out of a total of 96 months.

IF, you only looked at two months of data, you would miss the fact that for most of George Bush's 8 years in office, the unemployment rate was relatively low.

Its important to look at all the information/data and average monthly unemployment data is an important figure to look at. George W. Bush's relatively low average monthly unemployment rate was a contributing factor to his re-election as President in November 2004.

   The problem with certain types of cherry picking of particular data, only certain months, or this or that economic statistic, is that you miss a lot of other things. To overly focus on George W. Bush's last months in office in attempt to cast him as the worst of the worst, you miss out on things like the fact that George W. Bush was actually re-elected President and the reasons behind that. 

    Its sort of like Oliver Stones little movie about Bush called W. Oliver Stone does everything he can to ridicule Bush in the movie, throw the kitchen sink at him, but fails to mention that when the American People at large had the first and only chance to say what they thought about the work he had done, they re-elected him. George W. Bush's re-election does not fit the narrative of Stones film, so it's not included.


----------



## otto105 (Jan 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Try watching CSPAN once in a while.
> Also, the jobs reports take 3 months to be accurate so the December 2021 report could be way off.
> 
> Also, I truly couldn't give a crap about what a moron such as yourself feels or supposedly thinks.


Yeah, that is normal too. Usually after 3 revisions it is considered final. It's been that way for a long time maga fuckup.

Look for the December jobs report to be revised up probably 200,000+


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The unemployment rate often goes up and down every month, every year etc. When you look at a persons time on the job, its important to look at every month, not just the first month and the last month. Even in your hypothetical examples, or Presidents Bush and Obama, its not accurate to say that only the first month and last month, TWO MONTHS, of data are the only relevant data out of a total of 96 months.
> 
> IF, you only looked at two months of data, you would miss the fact that for most of George Bush's 8 years in office, the unemployment rate was relatively low.
> 
> ...


As I demonstrated, your stat is meaningless. It hides performance and can make the worst jobs president look good and vica-versa.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


I still don't get the nonsense connecting Presidents to economic performance. They shouldn't get credit for it when it's good, nor should they be blamed when it isn't. Government control of the economy is a socialist thing. It's the last thing we should ask for from a President.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> What "business" do you own?


Was a purchasing agent and a salesman. Try having a political discussion instead of your usual personal insults and brainwashed GOP talking points....


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

dblack said:


> I still don't get the nonsense connecting Presidents to economic performance. They shouldn't get credit for it when it's good, nor should they be blamed when it isn't. Government control of the economy is a socialist thing. It's the last thing we should ask for from a President.


Not government control, good government regulations to cut down on the usual corrupt GOP bubbles and busts that give us a depression every time they get eight years in office, as well as their usual screwing over of regular people.... Socialism as understood everywhere but brainwashed English speaking supercapitalist countries Is always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Every modern country but us has a living wage health care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training great infrastructure and vacations except stupid America because of this stupid GOP base. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid. Soak the rich! It would be about time...


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

dblack said:


> I still don't get the nonsense connecting Presidents to economic performance. They shouldn't get credit for it when it's good, nor should they be blamed when it isn't. Government control of the economy is a socialist thing. It's the last thing we should ask for from a President.


Of course in the long run there is a definite connection. The last 35 years have been a huge GOP giveaway to the rich which has given us the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. A real screw job for you and your family and friends, ding bat dupe


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> Of course in the long run there is a definite connection. The last 35 years have been a huge GOP giveaway to the rich which has given us the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. A real screw job for you and your family and friends, ding bat dupe


Don't you even fucking mention my family. Troll someone else, shitbag.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> Of course in the long run there is a definite connection. The last 35 years have been a huge GOP giveaway to the rich which has given us the worst inequality and upward mobility ever and anywhere. A real screw job for you and your family and friends, ding bat dupe



It's true, the Dems are useless twats.


----------



## Concerned American (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2021 was 3.9%. This is the 12th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 12th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.50% in November 2021 to 5.36% in December 2021.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


So at least 0.14% of unemployment recipients were no longer eligible and dropped from the roles or voluntarily retired or died due to covid.  Sounds reasonable.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> As I demonstrated, your stat is meaningless. It hides performance and can make the worst jobs president look good and vica-versa.


And I responded explaining how the statistic is not meaningless as well as the fact that your cherry picked version of U.S. Presidency's hides vast amounts of information. I did not cherry pick anything here. I simply took the every monthly unemployment rate for each President and found the average for each president. There is no bias at all, or picking or excluding bits of information. Each President is treated the same. Its raw numbers from the bureau of labor statistics and a little math. Its raw facts, and all the whining in the world won't change it.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2022)

dblack said:


> I still don't get the nonsense connecting Presidents to economic performance. They shouldn't get credit for it when it's good, nor should they be blamed when it isn't. Government control of the economy is a socialist thing. It's the last thing we should ask for from a President.



This is not true because the Federal Government has a large impact on the nation's economy. That does not mean the Federal Government will necessarily be the cause of good or bad economic performance, but it does have an impact and it needs to be evaluated.


----------



## dblack (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> This is not true because the Federal Government has a large impact on the nation's economy. That does not mean the Federal Government will necessarily be the cause of good or bad economic performance, but it does have an impact and it needs to be evaluated.


It has far, far too much of an impact. It's problem, not something encouraged and/or celebrated. Government shouldn't make decisions based on how it will effect the performance of the economy.


----------



## Faun (Jan 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> And I responded explaining how the statistic is not meaningless as well as the fact that your cherry picked version of U.S. Presidency's hides vast amounts of information. I did not cherry pick anything here. I simply took the every monthly unemployment rate for each President and found the average for each president. There is no bias at all, or picking or excluding bits of information. Each President is treated the same. Its raw numbers from the bureau of labor statistics and a little math. Its raw facts, and all the whining in the world won't change it.


Which has no meaning. Case in point,  Reagan did a great job when it came to growing jobs. Bush43 has the second worst record since WWII. Your moronic metric makes it look like Bush did better than Reagan.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's true, the Dems are useless twats.


So go with the devil right? God will not be amused lol. Carry on troll 🤣


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> Which has no meaning. Case in point,  Reagan did a great job when it came to growing jobs. Bush43 has the second worst record since WWII. Your moronic metric makes it look like Bush did better than Reagan.


Re Reagan had success when he lowered the top rate from 70 to 50 but going out the door he took it to 28 and gave us the worst inequality and upward mobility ever, not to mention the worst propaganda machine a total disgrace.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> So go with the devil right? God will not be amused lol. Carry on troll 🤣



You should definitely go with the useless twats.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

dblack said:


> Don't you even fucking mention my family. Troll someone else, shitbag.


 Totally brainwashed by hateful propaganda much? Geez Louise lol


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You should definitely go with the useless twats.


It's just a question of how long it takes for you idiots to figure out the actual situation lol and vote your own interests, not the interests of the greedy idiot mega rich...


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> Which has no meaning. Case in point,  Reagan did a great job when it came to growing jobs. Bush43 has the second worst record since WWII. Your moronic metric makes it look like Bush did better than Reagan.


Both as usual running the usual GOP corrupt bubble and bust deregulation scam and had a recession or depression after eight years. Great job! S&l crisis Ring a Bell? The world's real estate depression of 2008? You and your party are a disgrace and catastrophe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> It's just a question of how long it takes for you idiots to figure out the actual situation lol and vote your own interests, not the interests of the greedy idiot mega rich...



You're voting your own interests, by voting for Dems....but they're useless twats.

How's that working out for you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2022)

francoHFW said:


> Both as usual running the usual GOP corrupt bubble and bust deregulation scam and had a recession or depression after eight years. Great job! S&l crisis Ring a Bell? The world's real estate depression of 2008? You and your party are a disgrace and catastrophe.



Because Dems never contribute to any bubbles and busts, eh?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Which has no meaning. Case in point,  Reagan did a great job when it came to growing jobs. Bush43 has the second worst record since WWII. Your moronic metric makes it look like Bush did better than Reagan.



Whatever your interpretation is, it does not change the fact that these are the official numbers from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, for average monthly unemployment during each Presidents time in office. I'm sorry you don't like the numbers, but they are never going to change except for Biden and future Presidents.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> And I responded explaining how the statistic is not meaningless as well as the fact that your cherry picked version of U.S. Presidency's hides vast amounts of information. I did not cherry pick anything here. I simply took the every monthly unemployment rate for each President and found the average for each president. There is no bias at all, or picking or excluding bits of information. Each President is treated the same. Its raw numbers from the bureau of labor statistics and a little math. Its raw facts, and all the whining in the world won't change it.



The problem with what you've written is that statistics don't tell the whole story, they don't even get close.

For example Obama came in on day one and had high unemployment rate, Trump came in and had low unemployment rate. Are you suggesting Trump was better than Obama because the simple statistic of the unemployment rate on day one was better for Trump than Obama?

Another, non-cherry picked statistics is that for post WW2 presidents, all Democratic presidents, except one, have had LOWER unemployment when they left office than when they started. Carter had the same level. All Republican presidents, except one, have had HIGHER unemployment when they left office than when they started. Reagan had lower unemployment. 

This is far more suggestive or what was going in the presidencies, because things had to happen for their rate to be lower.

Obama's unemployment rise started in April 2008 with a rising trend starting a year before that. How's that a reflection of Obama? It isn't. Obama got in, and within 10 months unemployment went up to 10%. No president can change an economy quickly, especially one which has crashed. 

So, yes, Obama has high unemployment rates for the first five or six years of his presidency, but any other president would have had the same had they won that election. 

You need to understand the context, statistics can provide some information, but NEVER show the whole picture.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 8, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The problem with what you've written is that statistics don't tell the whole story, they don't even get close.





frigidweirdo said:


> For example Obama came in on day one and had high unemployment rate, Trump came in and had low unemployment rate. Are you suggesting Trump was better than Obama because the simple statistic of the unemployment rate on day one was better for Trump than Obama?
> 
> Another, non-cherry picked statistics is that for post WW2 presidents, all Democratic presidents, except one, have had LOWER unemployment when they left office than when they started. Carter had the same level. All Republican presidents, except one, have had HIGHER unemployment when they left office than when they started. Reagan had lower unemployment.
> 
> ...


They never do that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> They never do that.



Am I supposed to know who "They" are and what "that" is? 

Come on dude, try and write clearly.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 8, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Am I supposed to know who "They" are and what "that" is?
> 
> Come on dude, try and write clearly.


Republicans and taking facts, figures, and statements out of context.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Republicans and taking facts, figures, and statements out of context.



Happens all over. People create narratives, they don't about the truth


----------



## Faun (Jan 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Whatever your interpretation is, it does not change the fact that these are the official numbers from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, for average monthly unemployment during each Presidents time in office. I'm sorry you don't like the numbers, but they are never going to change except for Biden and future Presidents.


The BLS figures are not the problem.


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You never heard of U1->U8?
> Or do you get paid to pretend you're that ignorant?


There is no U8 you fucking IDIOT!!!


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 8, 2022)

edthecynic said:


> There is no U8 you fucking IDIOT!!!


Thanks for admitting there is U1 through U7 to manipulate the numbers, you fucking IDIOT!!!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 9, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> The problem with what you've written is that statistics don't tell the whole story, they don't even get close.



I'm not telling a story or some whole story etc. I've only reported the average monthly unemployment rate for each President while they were in office. People get upset because it does not square with the media, or political party image they have a President they like or a President they love to hate. Its because of that crap that most people don't realize that for 90% of the 8 years Bush was in office, the unemployment rate was consistently low and stable. That low stable unemployment rate contributed to George W. Bush's being re-elected President in November 2004. 

The average unemployment rate is one economic statistic. It doesn't tell the whole story at all. But it is an important statistic, especially given the fact that so many people here are crying about it. Its raw fact, and raw fact often does not support images and perceptions created over time by media and political party bias.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 9, 2022)

Faun said:


> The BLS figures are not the problem.


Then there is no problem, because that is all that is being presented here.


----------



## Faun (Jan 9, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Then there is no problem, because that is all that is being presented here.


Of course there's a problem. I already explained it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 9, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> I'm not telling a story or some whole story etc. I've only reported the average monthly unemployment rate for each President while they were in office. People get upset because it does not square with the media, or political party image they have a President they like or a President they love to hate. Its because of that crap that most people don't realize that for 90% of the 8 years Bush was in office, the unemployment rate was consistently low and stable. That low stable unemployment rate contributed to George W. Bush's being re-elected President in November 2004.
> 
> The average unemployment rate is one economic statistic. It doesn't tell the whole story at all. But it is an important statistic, especially given the fact that so many people here are crying about it. Its raw fact, and raw fact often does not support images and perceptions created over time by media and political party bias.



People get "upset", as you put it, because they understand that one statistic doesn't tell the whole story. 

People try and manipulate stupid people by posting one statistic and trying to make out it's everything. That's being dishonest. Also, as you keep pushing this one statistic in the face of others saying you can't do it, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2022)

Faun said:


> Of course there's a problem. I already explained it.



Nope, no problems here. Just the average monthly unemployment rate for each President since World War II.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> People get "upset", as you put it, because they understand that one statistic doesn't tell the whole story.
> 
> People try and manipulate stupid people by posting one statistic and trying to make out it's everything. That's being dishonest. Also, as you keep pushing this one statistic in the face of others saying you can't do it, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.



I don't know anyone in this entire thread, who has ever claimed that one statistic tells the whole story. I'm not pushing this one statistic against any other. It's a relevant statistic independent of any other.


----------



## Faun (Jan 16, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Nope, no problems here. Just the average monthly unemployment rate for each President since World War II.


Which has no relationship to a president's policies nor does it show if a president improved employment or hurt employment.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 16, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> I don't know anyone in this entire thread, who has ever claimed that one statistic tells the whole story. I'm not pushing this one statistic against any other. It's a relevant statistic independent of any other.



Now you're just being dishonest.


----------



## Doc7505 (Feb 17, 2022)

Weekly Jobless Claims Increase To 248,000​








						Weekly Jobless Claims Increase To 248,000
					

The number of Americans who filed new unemployment claims increased to 248,000 in the week ending Feb. 12, the Labor Department announced Thursday.




					dailycaller.com
				



17 Feb 2022 ~~ By Harry Wilmerding

The number of Americans who filed new unemployment claims increased to 248,000 in the week ending Feb. 12, the Labor Department announced Thursday.
The Labor Department’s figure showed an increase of 23,000 compared to the week ending on Feb. 5, when claims decreased to 225,000.


----------



## Faun (Feb 17, 2022)

Doc7505 said:


> Weekly Jobless Claims Increase To 248,000​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So?


----------



## Golfing Gator (Feb 17, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Nope, no problems here. Just the average monthly unemployment rate for each President since World War II.



which is a meaningless statistic


----------



## otto105 (Feb 17, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Where's the former 1-term president?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Where's the former 1-term president?


Bush is dead.


----------



## otto105 (Feb 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Bush is dead.


Cult 45 is dead.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Cult 45 is dead.


----------



## otto105 (Feb 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


>


And the whole family is going to be deposed by the NYC AG.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> And the whole family is going to be deposed by the NYC AG.


TDSing,  on a thursday afternoon!!!


----------



## otto105 (Feb 17, 2022)

jc456 said:


> TDSing,  on a thursday afternoon!!!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/17/trump-hotel-lease-probe/


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/17/trump-hotel-lease-probe/


TDSing, on a thursday afternoon!!!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Where's the former 1-term president?


he is in your head otto....


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Feb 17, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Where's the former 1-term president?


/——/ List the governors who shut down their economies and put people out of work. Just to be fair of course.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

Otto is certifiably *retarded*; why doesn't everyone have him on *Ignore*?
You are ridiculing a *retard*.


----------



## otto105 (Feb 17, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ List the governors who shut down their economies and put people out of work. Just to be fair of course.


Why?

The virus is just a cold!


----------



## otto105 (Feb 18, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> he is in your head otto....


Nope, he's in a deposition lying his ass off.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 8, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.81%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.2% for June 2022, up from 61.9% in December 2021.

Joe Biden on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Once you open up businesses and the economy after the fake leftyvirus people can go back to the jobs they had before.  Duuuhhhh.  Dont forget the highest gas and grocery prices, highest illegal entry rate and inflation, and lowest support of police in your babbling diatribe.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Thanks to Trump of course...


if it wasn't for Trump and his superior planning and forecasting, Biden would be worse off 


Trump essentially saved America from Obama's disastrous economy and policies...I don't have any data to support that, but it makes me feel better to believe it...


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Jul 8, 2022)

jbrownson0831 said:


> Once you open up businesses and the economy after the fake leftyvirus people can go back to the jobs they had before.  Duuuhhhh.  Dont forget the highest gas and grocery prices, highest illegal entry rate and inflation, and lowest support of police in your babbling diatribe.


Ronald Reagan would have scored higher on that list if it wasn't for the left


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did* NOT* provide ANY substantiation.
Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
*The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in*








						Fact-check: Were 20 million people on unemployment insurance when Biden took office?
					

White House gets it wrong on unemployment level when Joe Biden took office



					www.statesman.com


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did* NOT* provide ANY substantiation.
> Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
> The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
> *The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in*
> ...











						Reminder: President Biden Hasn’t Created a Single New Job - Ways and Means Republicans
					

Americans are paying the highest prices in 40 years and know the economy is not “on the move” — despite what President Biden claims. Worse, as the New York Post editorial board writes, all jobs now come with a pay cut: “All jobs now come with a built-in pay cut that’s only going to get worse […]




					gop-waysandmeans.house.gov


----------



## skews13 (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



Update


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did* NOT* provide ANY substantiation.
> Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
> The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
> *The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in*
> ...



jobs:
Trump ... -2½ million
Biden ..... +9 million


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 8, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Update


Link


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

jbrownson0831 said:


> Once you open up businesses and the economy after the fake leftyvirus people can go back to the jobs they had before.  Duuuhhhh.  Dont forget the highest gas and grocery prices, highest illegal entry rate and inflation, and lowest support of police in your babbling diatribe.


Liberals are mentally ill or don’t understand context.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> jobs:
> Trump ... -2½ million
> Biden ..... +9 million



First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did NOT provide ANY substantiation.
Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down du*e to the coronavirus. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in








						Fact-check: Were 20 million people on unemployment insurance when Biden took office?
					

White House gets it wrong on unemployment level when Joe Biden took office



					www.statesman.com


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did NOT provide ANY substantiation.
> Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
> The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down du*e to the coronavirus. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
> The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in
> ...



_*You make up those numbers? Because you did NOT provide ANY substantiation.*_

LOL

You idiot, there's a link to the BLS in my post. 

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> _*You make up those numbers? Because you did NOT provide ANY substantiation.*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...


Here we go with the *Bullshit* Labor *Statistics* again!


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


And gas prices are going down.  I guess McConnell and McCarthy are hoping for another surge in crude oil?


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

JimH52 said:


> And gas prices are going down.  I guess McConnell and McCarthy are hoping for another surge in crude oil?


With no reserve left now.....and still over twice what they were under Trump.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 8, 2022)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Thanks to Trump of course...
> 
> 
> if it wasn't for Trump and his superior planning and forecasting, Biden would be worse off
> ...


So....you are like Rudy.  "We have lots of theories, just no evidence." in speaking of his assertion of massive voter fraud.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> _*You make up those numbers? Because you did NOT provide ANY substantiation.*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...


These people have the brain rot disease called *"MAGA."*


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

JimH52 said:


> So....you are like Rudy.  "We have lots of theories, just no evidence." in speaking of his assertion of massive voter fraud.


Plenty of evidence as we have gone over with you before.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

JimH52 said:


> These people have the brain rot disease called *"MAGA."*


And what is the disease for lack of a brain called? Jimmyhasacluenia??


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 8, 2022)

JimH52 said:


> So....you are like Rudy.  "We have lots of theories, just no evidence." in speaking of his assertion of massive voter fraud.


Oh boy YOU are repeating what someone else said that Rudy said!
Way to go fulfilling the way a vast majority of people like you do... use hearsay just like this:
"I heard a chicken say 'the sky is falling'..." So declared the witness to the chicken's statement. 

No proof that Rudy said that!

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers told the January 6 committee that Rudy Giultold him: ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence’​








						Rusty Bowers says Giuliani told him: ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence’
					

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) on Tuesday said he repeatedly pressed Rudy Giuliani for proof of his claims of election fraud after the 2020 election, but added that Giuliani failed to produ…




					thehill.com
				




Unlike this voice mail that counters Biden's statement:
*Joe Biden sticking to claim he and Hunter Biden never talked about foreign business:*








						Joe Biden sticking to claim he and Hunter Biden never talked about foreign business: Psaki
					

Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski alleges that he met with Joe Biden to discuss the CEFC venture on May 2, 2017, and that the president was the “big guy.”




					nypost.com
				




President Biden has repeatedly denied discussing Hunter's business ventures with him, but on June 27, the Daily Mail first published a bombshell voicemail that many feel contradicts previous claims. 
_
"Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you have a chance give me a call. Nothing urgent—I just wanted to talk with you_," Biden is heard saying in a voicemail from 2018. _"I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear."_








						ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC ignore voicemail Joe Biden allegedly left for Hunter Biden on business dealings
					

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC have ignored a leaked voicemail President Biden purportedly left for his son Hunter Biden about his overseas business dealings.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Oh boy YOU are repeating what someone else said that Rudy said!
> Way to go fulfilling the way a vast majority of people like you do... use hearsay just like this:
> "I heard a chicken say 'the sky is falling'..." So declared the witness to the chicken's statement.
> 
> ...


Wow Jimmy needs to go testify at the Jan 6 debacle!


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Here we go with the *Bullshit* Labor *Statistics* again!


----------



## Oddball (Jul 8, 2022)

Never have so many worked for dollars that have less buying power.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Oh boy YOU are repeating what someone else said that Rudy said!
> Way to go fulfilling the way a vast majority of people like you do... use hearsay just like this:
> "I heard a chicken say 'the sky is falling'..." So declared the witness to the chicken's statement.
> 
> ...



You know the rightards are waving their white flag when they start diverting to Hunter.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


>


You do realize that every non-*LibTard* here knows you're full of shit and full of yourself.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> You know the rightards are waving their white flag when they start diverting to Hunter.


I agree...who need Hunter when we know that statistics are used to manipulate the *LibTards*.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You do realize that every non-*LibTard* here knows you're full of shit and full of yourself.



I have no doubt y'all are fucked in the head. I see that every time I come here.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> I have no doubt y'all are fucked in the head. I see that every time I come here.


How many of your close relatives work in science fields or academia?


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> How many of your close relatives work in science fields or academia?



Don't know, never counted.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Don't know, never counted.


Translation...None.
I have a few dozen family members in those fields...statistic 99% bullshit.
My son-in-law's mother would audit the statistics provided by the drug development teams at Ely Lilly for 35 years and had to constantly smack them down.
Academia statistics...what a farce!


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for June 2021 was 3.6%. This is the 18th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 18th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 5.36% in December 2021 to 4.81% in June 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Biden has thrown more people out of their jobs than any president in US history using vaccine mandates which are still in effect.
Of course he's made more jobs available....but he didn't create them. All he did was kick a qualified worker out of their position because he/she didn't want to put that poison in their body.....and opened up a new opportunity for either an illegal or a suck ass lemming willing to do anything the left asks of them.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Jul 8, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> Biden has thrown more people out of their jobs than any president in US history using vaccine mandates which are still in effect.
> Of course he's made more jobs available....but he didn't create them. All he did was kick a qualified worker out of their position because he/she didn't want to put that poison in their body.....and opened up a new opportunity for either an illegal or a suck ass lemming willing to do anything the left asks of them.


And yet employment participation is down again this month as the last thing Dimmers want to do is fill a vacant job.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Translation...None.
> I have a few dozen family members in those fields...statistic 99% bullshit.
> My son-in-law's mother would audit the statistics provided by the drug development teams at Ely Lilly for 35 years and had to constantly smack them down.
> Academia statistics...what a farce!



LOL

As if it matters what your deformed brain translates my words into.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> As if it matters what your deformed brain translates my words into.


99% of your posts are ad hominems, not to mention that you constantly prove you know nothing about what happens outside of your demented ego.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> 99% of your posts are ad hominems, not to mention that you constantly prove you know nothing about what happens outside of your demented ego.



I happy for you that you think that.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> I happy for you that you think that.


Myself and every other user here who isn't a *LibTard*.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Myself and every other user here who isn't a *LibTard*.



So? Like I said, y'all are fucked in the head. So what you think has zero affect on me.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Jul 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> 99% of your posts are ad hominems, not to mention that you constantly prove you know nothing about what happens outside of your demented ego.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> View attachment 667930


This coming from a Liberal who pretends to be a Libertarian.


----------



## U2Edge (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> First... who are you ?  You make up those numbers? Because you did* NOT* provide ANY substantiation.
> Now for FACTS  with LINKs...
> The first is the number of unemployed Americans, estimated every month from a federal survey of households. The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.
> *The number of unemployed Americans had fallen to about 10 million by the time Joe Biden was sworn in*
> ...



All my figures for the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2022 come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. To figure out the average monthly unemployment rate during each Presidential Administration, I simply add up all the rates for each month and then divide by the number of months.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> All my figures for the monthly unemployment rates from January 1948 to June 2022 come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. To figure out the average monthly unemployment rate during each Presidential Administration, I simply add up all the rates for each month and then divide by the number of months.


The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> The unemployment level did peak at about 23 million people in April 2020, *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*. But that was nine months before Biden took office — and the number fell significantly before Biden was sworn in.



Trump was handed: 7,468,000
Trump handed off: 10,180,000
An *increase* of: 36.3%

Biden was handed: 10,180,000
Biden is currently at: 5,912,000
A *decrease* of: 42%









						Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
					






					data.bls.gov


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Trump was handed: 7,468,000
> Trump handed off: 10,180,000
> An *increase* of: 36.3%
> 
> ...


The economy is smoking and gas prices are going down.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Trump was handed: 7,468,000
> Trump handed off: 10,180,000
> An *increase* of: 36.3%
> 
> ...


*right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> *right when the economy was closing down due to the coronavirus*



Your excuses are noted. Trump was president and he owns the bad with the good. The buck stopped at his desk whether he accepted that or not.


----------



## sartre play (Jul 10, 2022)

NYcarbineer said:


> So if anything that happens during a president's tenure is the president's fault then we can blame the explosive increase in AIDs cases in the 1980's on Ronald Reagan.


Funny and agree, Blame is the game. The thought that there are honest & smart people from both sides of the isle gets no traction. The loud angry voices get the spot light,


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Your excuses are noted. Trump was president and he owns the bad with the good. The buck stopped at his desk whether he accepted that or not.


Oh I agree!  But Biden then accepted the upward growth of jobs that STARTED after the COVID shut down was terminated. FACTS: As this chart shows.. Because of Covid national job shutdown, the 2020 first quarter was disaster.
BUT unemployment WAS going down under Trump and Biden benefitted.  It was never above 5% until COVID!
By the way COVID's beginning was under Obama and the Wuhan lab donations paid by Obama's administration!
*Between October 2009 and May 2019, USAID provided a total of $1.1 million to the EcoHealth Alliance for a sub-agreement with the WIV.*




__





						Reschenthaler Uncovers $1.1 Million in Taxpayer Funding Sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology
					

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14) recently uncovered $1.1 million in Obama-era taxpayer funding funneled to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) through the EcoHealth Alliance. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded this funding. The WIV is a...




					reschenthaler.house.gov
				
















						Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
					






					data.bls.gov


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Trump was handed: 7,468,000
> Trump handed off: 10,180,000
> An *increase* of: 36.3%
> 
> ...


No one is fooled by your selective parsing of the data.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> No one is fooled by your selective parsing of the data.



LOLOL 

By "parsing of data," fucking moron, you mean showing all of the unemployed data under Trump's term with all of the unemployed data under Biden.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Oh I agree!  But Biden then accepted the upward growth of jobs that STARTED after the COVID shut down was terminated. FACTS: As this chart shows.. Because of Covid national job shutdown, the 2020 first quarter was disaster.
> BUT unemployment WAS going down under Trump and Biden benefitted.  It was never above 5% until COVID!
> By the way COVID's beginning was under Obama and the Wuhan lab donations paid by Obama's administration!
> *Between October 2009 and May 2019, USAID provided a total of $1.1 million to the EcoHealth Alliance for a sub-agreement with the WIV.*
> ...



You're insane. 

Covid was unknown prior to November, 2019.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> By "parsing of data," fucking moron, you mean showing all of the unemployed data under Trump's term with all of the unemployed data under Biden.


The unemployed under Trumps term were all the result of Shutdowns by Dims governors.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The unemployed under Trumps term were all the result of Shutdowns by Dims governors.



Who listened to Trump's recommendations, fucking moron.


----------



## dblack (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Who listened to Trump's recommendations, fucking moron.


That shaman guy, with the Viking helmet?


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're insane.
> 
> Covid was unknown prior to November, 2019.


That is why it is called COVID19
..DUH.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're insane.
> 
> Covid was unknown prior to November, 2019.
> Exposing the True Origins of the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic
> ...


Exposing the True Origins of the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic
Trump was right: Obama and Biden made a “terrible mistake” by funding dangerous bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, knowing the potentially catastrophic consequences. 

In 2014, the Obama-Biden administration gave the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and its American partners the Ecohealth Alliance a five-year NIH research grant to search bat caves in southern China to look for new and deadly strains of bat coronavirus like the one responsible for the terrible SARS epidemic in 2003. The researchers at the WIV discovered exactly what Obama and Biden paid them to find: a deadly strain of bat coronavirus, now known as COVID-19. Due to the lax safety protocols at WIV, this deadly coronavirus was released, resulting in the global pandemic that started in Wuhan and rapidly spread across China and the rest of the world with disastrous consequences.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Who listened to Trump's recommendations, fucking moron.


So then why did the especially democrat run states , CA, NY, Ill , all shut down?  Did they not listen to Trump ?
Please explain.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Exposing the True Origins of the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic
> Trump was right: Obama and Biden made a “terrible mistake” by funding dangerous bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, knowing the potentially catastrophic consequences.
> 
> In 2014, the Obama-Biden administration gave the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and its American partners the Ecohealth Alliance a five-year NIH research grant to search bat caves in southern China to look for new and deadly strains of bat coronavirus like the one responsible for the terrible SARS epidemic in 2003. The researchers at the WIV discovered exactly what Obama and Biden paid them to find: a deadly strain of bat coronavirus, now known as COVID-19. Due to the lax safety protocols at WIV, this deadly coronavirus was released, resulting in the global pandemic that started in Wuhan and rapidly spread across China and the rest of the world with disastrous consequences.



The post immediately before yours bitch-slaps you silly.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> So then why did the especially democrat run states , CA, NY, Ill , all shut down?  Did they not listen to Trump ?
> Please explain.



Trump recommended states shut down restaurants & bars, recommended schools be shut down, recommended no social gatherings of more than 10 people, recommended social distancing; and the states, whether red or blue, complied.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


Considering Obama was handed the worse recession since 1929 where millions list their  job, 8.86 % is pretty fking good.
The real  story.


			https://www.unempoymentinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/the-unemployment-rate-doubled-under-bush-its-fallen-by.jpeg


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Trump recommended states shut down restaurants & bars, recommended schools be shut down, recommended no social gatherings of more than 10 people, recommended social distancing; and the states, whether red or blue, complied.


How easily they forget....or purposefully lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Considering Obama was handed the worse recession since 1929 where millions list their  job, 8.86 % is pretty fking good.
> The real  story.
> 
> 
> https://www.unempoymentinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/the-unemployment-rate-doubled-under-bush-its-fallen-by.jpeg



*Considering Obama was handed the worse recession since 1929 *

The recession ended in June 2009.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Considering Obama was handed the worse recession since 1929 *
> 
> The recession ended in June 2009.



So? The worst of it was 2008-Q4. That's what Obama inherited.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> So? The worst of it was 2008-Q4. That's what Obama inherited.



Right. The worst was when Bush was president. It already turned the corner before Obama took office. So much so, it was over in June.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. The worst was when Bush was president. It already turned the corner before Obama took office. So much so, it was over in June.



So you don't know the last quarter of GDP is what the incoming president inherits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> So you don't know the last quarter of GDP is what the incoming president inherits.



I know it was over in June. Before Obama could "fix" it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Who listened to Trump's recommendations, fucking moron.


Nope, he didn't recommend that any state shut down.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know it was over in June. Before Obama could "fix" it.



He inherited it. A pity you don't know that.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Nope, he didn't recommend that any state shut down.



Again.... Trump recommended states shut down restaurants & bars, recommended schools be shut down, recommended no social gatherings of more than 10 people, recommended social distancing; and the states, whether red or blue, complied.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> He inherited it. A pity you don't know that.



And it ended 4 months later.


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 0
> And in ended 4 months later.



LOL

Now I see the your problem. You're demented. You actually think the recession ended in May, 2009.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Now I see the your problem. You're demented. You actually think the recession ended in May, 2009.



Poor Obama......it was just like the Great Depression.
It went on and on and on and on. Until it ended in June.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Now I see the your problem. You're demented. You actually think the recession ended in May, 2009.


MAGA Brain Rot


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> Again.... Trump recommended states shut down restaurants & bars, recommended schools be shut down, recommended no social gatherings of more than 10 people, recommended social distancing; and the states, whether red or blue, complied.


Prove it!  Where are your links substantiating your statements?
Trump says nationwide lockdown would ‘ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent’​








						Trump says nationwide lockdown would 'ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent'
					

While Trump said he wouldn't shut down the U.S., he urged Americans to stay "vigilant" against the coronavirus as U.S. officials begin to see new "flare-ups."




					www.cnbc.com
				



I'd strongly suggest because YOU don't do any substantiation...READ this !








						Trump tosses coronavirus shutdowns back to the states
					

The president told governors he’d let them decide when to restart shuttered activity, offering general guidance on a phased approach.




					www.politico.com
				



Trump tosses coronavirus shutdowns back to the states​The president told governors he’d let them decide when to restart shuttered activity, offering general guidance on a phased approach. “We are not opening all at once, but one careful step at a time,” Trump said. “Some states will be able to open up sooner than others. Some states are not in the kind of trouble that others are in. Now that we have passed the peak in new cases, we are starting our life again. We are starting rejuvenation of our economy again in a safe and structured and very responsible fashion.“
But see strict single government knows the best advocates evidently you are one of them don't believe that 50 states are different from each other.  You don't believe the average American can make decisions.
Sad that people like you are so pompous and yet truly so ignorant!  Where are YOUR links?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Considering Obama was handed the worse recession since 1929 *
> 
> The recession ended in June 2009.


Are you  implying that everyone had their jobs back ? Hilarious. Guest Obama did a great job.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 10, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right. The worst was when Bush was president. It already turned the corner before Obama took office. So much so, it was over in June.


Ha ha The unemployment numbers we’re climbing at 8% when Obama took office. In less then a year they started to drop. Trump was sworn in while the unimployment numbers were dropping from the Obama presidency. It’s Obama policies that changed the trajectory.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Poor Obama......it was just like the Great Depression.
> It went on and on and on and on. Until it ended in June.



You said 4 months. You think from January to June is 4 months?? 

Still he inherited the recession at its worst.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Prove it!  Where are your links substantiating your statements?
> Trump says nationwide lockdown would ‘ultimately inflict more harm than it would prevent’​
> 
> 
> ...



Idiot.



_"Therefore, my administration is recommending that all Americans, including the young and healthy, work to engage in schooling from home when possible, avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people, avoid discretionary travel and avoid eating and drinking in bars, restaurants, and public food courts." ~ Donald Trump, 3.16.2020_​


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha The unemployment numbers we’re climbing at 8% when Obama took office. In less then a year they started to drop. Trump was sworn in while the unimployment numbers were dropping from the Obama presidency. It’s Obama policies that changed the trajectory.
> View attachment 668768


Hmmm let's see... what kind of policies and statements HELP Americans?
Just asking... how would getting rid of fossil fuels increase employment? 
How would favoring companies go bankrupt increase jobs?
How would putting 1,400 companies out of business laying off 450,000 people that at these companies over $100 billion in taxes increase jobs?
How would encouraging foreign dependency on oil be helpful?
Just curious but I'm 100% confident that none of you anti-American supporters agree!


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Hmmm let's see... what kind of policies and statements HELP Americans?
> Just asking... how would getting rid of fossil fuels increase employment?
> How would favoring companies go bankrupt increase jobs?
> How would putting 1,400 companies out of business laying off 450,000 people that at these companies over $100 billion in taxes increase jobs?
> ...


Facts are facts. Read the chart. Whatever policies Obama used, worked. Whatever policies Bush and Trump used, didn’t. Trump had his recession. 
ALL republican  admins have recessions where people lose their jobs. In modern times, only one dem president had a recession. Case closed.


You ‘re just rambling and inserting your own conclusions. I’m stating historical facts. The evidence is in. Repugnants don’t know shit about economics.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Facts are facts. Read the chart. Whatever policies Obama used, worked. Whatever policies Bush and Trump used, didn’t. Trump had his recession.
> ALL republican  admins have recessions where people lose their jobs. In modern times, only one dem president had a recession. Case closed.
> 
> 
> You ‘re just rambling and inserting your own conclusions. I’m stating historical facts. The evidence is in. Repugnants don’t know shit about economics.


But you didn't supply ANY facts!  Zero!  I provided FACTS regarding what Obama WANTED and what happened!
Why can't you do what I do, provide a link or substantiation?  Very easy to do!

FACT is Trump did in 2 short years was something that hadn't been done since 1957! 
The United States Was Energy Independent in 2019 for the First Time Since 1957​U.S. energy production in 2019 was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in 62 years.  Thus, the U.S. attained the long-held goal of “energy independence”








						The United States Was Energy Independent in 2019 for the First Time Since 1957
					

U.S. energy production in 2019 was higher than U.S. energy consumption for the first time in 62 years.  Thus, the…




					www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
				




President Trump was the first President in the last 70 years to do this:
In 2020, the U.S. exported about 635,000 barrels per day more than it imported from other countries, “making the United States a net annual petroleum exporter for the first time since at least 1949,” the EIA has said. 








						Examining U.S. 'Energy Independence' Claims - FactCheck.org
					

When politicians say that the United States was “energy independent” under former President Donald Trump, some people may get the false impression that the U.S. was 100% self-sufficient. The country still relied on foreign sources of energy, including oil.




					www.factcheck.org


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> But you didn't supply ANY facts!  Zero!  I provided FACTS regarding what Obama WANTED and what happened!
> Why can't you do what I do, provide a link or substantiation?  Very easy to do!
> 
> FACT is Trump did in 2 short years was something that hadn't been done since 1957!
> ...



Imbecile, by that definition of energy independence,  we're energy independent as of the latest EIA report...

​
... so does Biden have your support now??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Are you  implying that everyone had their jobs back ? Hilarious. Guest Obama did a great job.



Not even a little bit you silly twat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Faun said:


> You said 4 months. You think from January to June is 4 months??
> 
> Still he inherited the recession at its worst.



Poor Obama.........


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Poor Obama.........



Poor you for not being able to count to 5.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Faun said:


> Poor you for not being able to count to 5.



Just awful!
How did he cope with a recession that ended in June 2009?
It must have been rough.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Just awful!
> How did he cope with a recession that ended in June 2009?
> It must have been rough.



Well with C-SPAN's historian's latest survey ranking him in the top 10, I would guess he's coping ok.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Faun said:


> Well with C-SPAN's historian's latest survey ranking him in the top 10, I would guess he's coping ok.



Yes, liberal historians like a liberal.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, liberal historians like a liberal.


You can't change facts and figures.  History is not going to be kind to the repub party.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, liberal historians like a liberal.



LOL

Now you're making shit up. 4 of the top ten are Republicans and 4 are Democrats. Doesn't sound like there is a Liberal bias.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 11, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Now you're making shit up. 4 of the top ten are Republicans and 4 are Democrats. Doesn't sound like there is a Liberal bias.


These people lie with impunity.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> But you didn't supply ANY facts!  Zero!  I provided FACTS regarding what Obama WANTED and what happened!
> Why can't you do what I do, provide a link or substantiation?  Very easy to do!
> 
> FACT is Trump did in 2 short years was something that hadn't been done since 1957!
> ...


Copy paste then providing your own faulty conclusions is not facts. Repugnants are RECESSION KINGS.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> But you didn't supply ANY facts!  Zero!  I provided FACTS regarding what Obama WANTED and what happened!
> Why can't you do what I do, provide a link or substantiation?  Very easy to do!
> 
> FACT is Trump did in 2 short years was something that hadn't been done since 1957!
> ...


Yah, and Trump was the first president to be impeached twice . What a guy. Mr. White supremest Putin Humper  traitor. Trump couldn’t go out in public.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yah, and Trump was the first president to be impeached twice . What a guy. Mr. White supremest Putin Humper  traitor. Trump couldn’t go out in public.



_tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility_ _after the election_


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility_ _after the election_


More flexibility ? So hopefully, you can bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> More flexibility ? So hopefully, you can bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.



The 1980s called..........


----------



## U2Edge (Aug 5, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for July 2021 was 3.5%. This is the 19th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 19th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.81% in June 2022 to 4.74% in July 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.74%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.1% for July 2022, down from 62.2% in June 2022.

July's unemployment rate of 3.5% ties September 2019, January 2020, and February 2020 as the LOWEST unemployment rate in over 53 years! The last time the monthly Unemployment rate was below 3.5% was in May 1969 when it was 3.4%. 

Joe Biden on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## U2Edge (Sep 7, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for August 2021 was 3.7%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.74% in July 2022 to 4.69% in August 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.69%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.4% for August 2022, up from 62.1% in July 2022.



Joe Biden is on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment rate of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## gipper (Sep 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The 1980s called..........


He missed the call. Lol.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Sep 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2021 was 3.7%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.74% in July 2022 to 4.69% in August 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Trump's unemployment rate hit 3.5% and was falling in February 2020 before the fake leftyvirus hit and the Dims shut everything down causing tons of forced layoffs.








						Trump's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org
					

Statistical indicators of President Trump's four years in office.




					www.factcheck.org


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2021 was 3.7%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.74% in July 2022 to 4.69% in August 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


YOU made up All these numbers or why else don't you have a link?  So easy to do copy, paste!!!


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 7, 2022)

jbrownson0831 said:


> Trump's unemployment rate hit 3.5% and was falling in February 2020 before the fake leftyvirus hit and the Dims shut everything down causing tons of forced layoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THANK YOU for the LINKS... but people who don't tell the truth don't use links.  I believe your statement especially regarding Covid MSM lack of SCIENCE in their news!  Total paranoia all because the MSM donated 96% to Hillary she lost, they spent 4 years 92% negative news Trump and then the BIASED MSM that promoted Covid as the phony threat to close schools, etc. created the most impactful element to Biden's election.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Sep 7, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2021 was 3.7%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.74% in July 2022 to 4.69% in August 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Because lots of people are still on the covid dole and uncounted. The participation rate is below 2019 in spite of the increase in all-cause deaths.


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

jbrownson0831 said:


> Trump's unemployment rate hit 3.5% and was falling in February 2020 before the fake leftyvirus hit and the Dims shut everything down causing tons of forced layoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How odd... my state shut down and I'm in a red state but you're blaming Democrats.


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> How odd... my state shut down and I'm in a red state but you're blaming Democrats.


Once again.  you don't tell the WHOLE truth!  What state?


----------



## westwall (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> How odd... my state shut down and I'm in a red state but you're blaming Democrats.





Which state was that?


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Once again.  you don't tell the WHOLE truth!  What state?



Florida.

Do you need to see a link to that too?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2022)

healthmyths said:


> Once again.  you don't tell the WHOLE truth!  What state?


He claims to be from New York.

Which sure the fuck isn't a red state.

But Farouk is a known, pathological liar.


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> He claims to be from New York.
> 
> Which sure the fuck isn't a red state.
> 
> But Farouk is a known, pathological liar.



You're mentally deranged, Fruitcake. But then of course that is obvious by you thinking I'm North Korean and Iranian. 

I never once said I live in New York. I have only ever said I live in Florida. Suffice it to say, you're batshit insane. Not exactly new information.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're mentally deranged, Fruitcake. But then of course that is obvious by you thinking I'm North Korean and Iranian.
> 
> I never once said I live in New York. I have only ever said I live in Florida. Suffice it to say, you're batshit insane. Not exactly new information.


Faux calling another board member insane?   

That's rich.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're mentally deranged, Fruitcake. But then of course that is obvious by you thinking I'm North Korean and Iranian.
> 
> I never once said I live in New York. I have only ever said I live in Florida. Suffice it to say, you're batshit insane. Not exactly new information.



Sure.

You aren't worth the trouble of digging up a post.

BTW moron, Florida defied the lockdowns for the most part.

Don't you remember lying that DeSantis was killing billions?


----------



## miketx (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're mentally deranged, Fruitcake. But then of course that is obvious by you thinking I'm North Korean and Iranian.
> 
> I never once said I live in New York. I have only ever said I live in Florida. Suffice it to say, you're batshit insane. Not exactly new information.


Don't you remember all those lies you told about desantis killing all those people? I do.


----------



## westwall (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> Florida.
> 
> Do you need to see a link to that too?





So, the last to enter lockdown, the first to leave it, and the one that never went into another.  And Florida is doing better than any blue state.  So, you are confirmed as a liar.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 7, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yah, and Trump was the first president to be impeached twice . What a guy. Mr. White supremest Putin Humper  traitor. Trump couldn’t go out in public.


That says more about Democrats than it says about Trump.


----------



## Billiejeens (Sep 7, 2022)

westwall said:


> So, the last to enter lockdown, the first to leave it, and the one that never went into another.  And Florida is doing better than any blue state.  So, you are confirmed as a liar.


You may mean re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-confirmed.


----------



## westwall (Sep 7, 2022)

Billiejeens said:


> You may mean re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-confirmed.





Yeah, you're right!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 7, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yah, and Trump was the first president to be impeached twice . What a guy. Mr. White supremest Putin Humper  traitor. Trump couldn’t go out in public.


/——-/ Yeah, democrats pulled out all the stops trying to remove our president on bogus charges.


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sure.
> 
> You aren't worth the trouble of digging up a post.
> 
> ...



You don't post it because you can't post it since I never said I live in New York. Here's a post of mine from 6 years ago where I said I live in Florida...

_


Faun said:



			Your insanity is noted, but Boca Raton is hardly "the woods."
		
Click to expand...

_​


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

westwall said:


> So, the last to enter lockdown, the first to leave it, and the one that never went into another.  And Florida is doing better than any blue state.  So, you are confirmed as a liar.



Great, so Republicans are to blame too for the lockdowns.

And in terms of cases per population, the only blue state doing worse than Florida is Rhode Island.


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Yeah, democrats pulled out all the stops trying to remove our president on bogus charges.
> View attachment 693031



You left one out...

2020 election [X]


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 7, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Yeah, democrats pulled out all the stops trying to remove our president on bogus charges.
> View attachment 693031


Just weak babble in the minds of the mindless following the criminal.

This is what criminality looks like when they are allowed access to the government.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility_ _after the election_


You tell him. You’re the one with the love affair with the idiot with the love affair with Putin.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> You're mentally deranged, Fruitcake. But then of course that is obvious by you thinking I'm North Korean and Iranian.
> 
> I never once said I live in New York. I have only ever said I live in Florida. Suffice it to say, you're batshit insane. Not exactly new information.



Lots of MAGA NUTS on this board


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You tell him. You’re the one with the love affair with the idiot with the love affair with Putin.



You mean Obama?

I think it's you who is the Obama fluffer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You tell him. You’re the one with the love affair with the idiot with the love affair with Putin.



The 1980s called.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> You don't post it because you can't post it since I never said I live in New York. Here's a post of mine from 6 years ago where I said I live in Florida...
> 
> ​


So you are a snowbird?


----------



## Faun (Sep 7, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> So you are a snowbird?



Nope. Full time Florida resident.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Sep 8, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for August 2021 was 3.7%. This is the 20th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 20th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.74% in July 2022 to 4.69% in August 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


Sure.


The unemployment rate was 3.7% in August 2022. That number is slightly higher than July when it was 3.5%, the same as before the pandemic. 1
Overall, there were 6 million unemployed people. Job seekers have had the upper hand in recent months because there are nearly two available jobs for every unemployed person. 
In August, 315,000 jobs were added to the market, but 786,000 people joined the labor force, which caused the unemployment rate to rise.
They reposted the numbers straight from the BLS.
U.S. Unemployment Rate August 2022 - The Balance​


			https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s...
		

Aug 02, 2007 · The unemployment rate was* 3.7%* in August 2022. That number is slightly higher than July when it was 3.5%, the same as before the pandemic. …

The labor force participation rate?

Haven't heard that, since the LAST democrat was in office.
The go to statistic, for republicans when a democrat is in office and unemployment is low.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The 1980s called.


You are just waiting for your uranium to collapse……what ever the fk that means. You're posts are  a world wind if woo woo and made up shit. Are you and “ chemengineer “ brothers in “bullschik ? “


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> So you are a snowbird?


The Duke was a fraud also.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You are just waiting for your uranium to collapse……what ever the fk that means. You're posts are  a world wind if woo woo and made up shit. Are you and “ chemengineer “ brothers in “bullschik ? “



It's not my fault Hillary wanted a reset.
Or that Obama wanted to be all flexible and didn't think Russia was a threat.
Dems fellated Russia for nearly 100 years after their revolution.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's not my fault Hillary wanted a reset.
> Or that Obama wanted to be all flexible and didn't think Russia was a threat.
> Dems fellated Russia for nearly 100 years after their revolution.


/——-/ Remember when BO mocked Mitt in the debates about the Russia threat?  The 80s want their foreign policy back.” Or some such asshole comment.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate was 3.7% in August 2022. That number is slightly higher than July when it was 3.5%, the same as before the pandemic. 1
> ...


Just think, he only had to spend $6 trillion to achieve the same unemployment rate we had before he was elected.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Just think, he only had to spend $6 trillion to achieve the same unemployment rate we had before he was elected.



Fucking moron, the last unemployment rate before he was elected was 6.9%.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, the last unemployment rate before he was elected was 6.9%.


It was 3.5% before COVID, moron.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It was 3.5% before COVID, moron.



But COVID happened, you cannot just pretend it did not.  It happened under Trump thus they are his numbers.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It was 3.5% before COVID, moron.



So? It was up to 6.9% when Biden was elected. Biden is not responsible for the unemployment rate while Trump was president. Trump was.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> So? It was up to 6.9% when Biden was elected. Biden is not responsible for the unemployment rate while Trump was president. Trump was.


The unemployment rate under Trump was up because red state governors imposed lockdowns.  He had nothing to do with it otherwise.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> But COVID happened, you cannot just pretend it did not.  It happened under Trump thus they are his numbers.


Democrats are responsible for the shutdowns, moron.  Trump did not mandate any shutdowns.  Governors in blue states did.  Thus, the numbers belong to the Democrat party.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> So? It was up to 6.9% when Biden was elected. Biden is not responsible for the unemployment rate while Trump was president. Trump was.


Democrats were responsible, not Trump.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The unemployment rate under Trump was up because red state governors imposed lockdowns.  He had nothing to do with it otherwise.



States imposed lockdowns following Trump's recommendations. Is he not responsible for what he says?



_"Therefore, my administration is recommending that all Americans, including the young and healthy, work to engage in schooling from home when possible, avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people, avoid discretionary travel and avoid eating and drinking in bars, restaurants, and public food courts." ~ Donald Trump, 3.16.2020_​


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Democrats are responsible for the shutdowns, moron.  Trump did not mandate any shutdowns.  Governors in blue states did.  Thus, the numbers belong to the Democrat party.



Fucking moron, which state *didn't* lock down after Trump recommended social distancing and home schooling?


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Democrats were responsible, not Trump.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Just think, he only had to spend $6 trillion to achieve the same unemployment rate we had before he was elected.


/——/ Same morons who spent $1 billion building a website that didn’t work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> States imposed lockdowns following Trump's recommendations. Is he not responsible for what he says?
> 
> ​​​_"Therefore, my administration is recommending that all Americans, including the young and healthy, work to engage in schooling from home when possible, avoid gathering in groups of more than 10 people, avoid discretionary travel and avoid eating and drinking in bars, restaurants, and public food courts." ~ Donald Trump, 3.16.2020_​


I don't see where that says shutdown all the businesses in the state, not even bars and restaurants.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, which state *didn't* lock down after Trump recommended social distancing and home schooling?


Florida, for one.  

Neither home schooling nor social distancing require any businesses to shutdown, moron.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I don't see where that says shutdown all the businesses in the state, not even bars and restaurants.



That's because Trump lacked the authority to do so. He recommended people not go to non-essential businesses like restaurants and bars. Governors, Democrats and Republicans, then enforced it.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Florida, for one.
> 
> Neither home schooling nor social distancing require any businesses to shutdown, moron.



Fucking moron, Florida shut down non-essential businesses.

And schools were shut down while students logged in from home to "attend" classes.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's not my fault Hillary wanted a reset.
> Or that Obama wanted to be all flexible and didn't think Russia was a threat.
> Dems fellated Russia for nearly 100 years after their revolution.


Hillary ? Wondered when it would get back to Hillary. You must have the hots for her. Obama is black so that’s another Humper  landing spot. Now you’re in denial that the GOP is in bed with Putin.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, Florida shut down non-essential businesses.
> 
> And schools were shut down while students logged in from home to "attend" classes.


Public schools are not businesses.  Home schooling didn't cause any unemployment, numskull.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Public schools are not businesses.  Home schooling didn't cause any unemployment, numskull.



Fucking moron, I didn't  day schools were businesses. I even mentioned them separately from non-essential businesses.

And you're an even bigger fucking moron for saying school closures did cause any unemployment. A bill was passed just to provide such people with some financial relief because many folks like custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc., were no longer needed while the schools were closed. And that extended to areas beyond the schools, such as food vendors who supplied lunches, vendors who supplied custodians, etc.

And then there were parents who had to quit their jobs to stay at home with their kids because they couldn't find anyone else to do that.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, I didn't  day schools were businesses. I even mentioned them separately from non-essential businesses.
> 
> And you're an even bigger fucking moron for saying school closures did cause any unemployment. A bill was passed just to provide such people with some financial relief because many folks like custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc., were no longer needed while the schools were closed. And that extended to areas beyond the schools, such as food vendors who supplied lunches, vendors who supplied custodians, etc.
> 
> ...


The bottom line is that Democrats insisted on closing the schools. 

_DeSantis orders statewide shutdown for Florida through April_​​_“It is distressing that Governor Ron DeSantis waited until the coronavirus had spread to so many Floridians before finally issuing a statewide stay-at-home order,'' Florida Democratic Party Chair Terrie Rizzo said in a statement. "I hope this will finally slow the rise in infections and that his actions are not too late.”_​


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The bottom line is that Democrats insisted on closing the schools.
> 
> _DeSantis orders statewide shutdown for Florida through April_​​_“It is distressing that Governor Ron DeSantis waited until the coronavirus had spread to so many Floridians before finally issuing a statewide stay-at-home order,'' Florida Democratic Party Chair Terrie Rizzo said in a statement. "I hope this will finally slow the rise in infections and that his actions are not too late.”_​



Again, fucking moron, not every state was run by a Democrat. And only one state didn't shut down at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hillary ? Wondered when it would get back to Hillary. You must have the hots for her. Obama is black so that’s another Humper  landing spot. Now you’re in denial that the GOP is in bed with Putin.



I noticed some women and some blacks are awful people and worse politicians.
I must hate all women and all blacks, eh?

Now tell me more about Obama's flexibility with that awful Putin.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Again, fucking moron, not every state was run by a Democrat. And only one state didn't shut down at all.


Democrats in all states were the ones who wee whining about the shutdown.  Trying to blame Trump for the shutdown only shows what a douchebag you are.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> must hate all women and all blacks, eh?


Just the ones who think for themselves and don’t fall for Humper BS.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Democrats in all states were the ones who wee whining about the shutdown.  Trying to blame Trump for the shutdown only shows what a douchebag you are.


Nope. We blame Trump for offering   no guidance, honesty or factual information. He’s a scammer. He’s a non science person. >Covid will be gone without vaccines two years ago. Just  think about drinking Lysol. <
Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people.


----------



## Faun (Sep 8, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Democrats in all states were the ones who wee whining about the shutdown.  Trying to blame Trump for the shutdown only shows what a douchebag you are.



Again, fucking moron, 49 states participated in shutdowns following Trump's recommendations. Trump is not a Democrat and neither were most of the governors of those 49 states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Just the ones who think for themselves and don’t fall for Humper BS.



Why would I hate the ones that escaped the dem plantation?
What do you call them.....oreos?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would I hate the ones that escaped the dem plantation?
> What do you call them.....oreos?


Ridiculous moronic comment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ridiculous moronic comment.



I agree, dems are moronic.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, dems are moronic.


You obviously have a reading  problem. The adjective moronic goes with the noun “comment”.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You obviously have a reading  problem. The adjective moronic goes with the noun “comment”.



And you have a comprehension problem, like most dems.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 8, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you have a comprehension problem, like most dems.


The only thing anyone has a comprehension problem with, are your babbling posts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nope. We blame Trump for offering   no guidance, honesty or factual information. He’s a scammer. He’s a non science person. >Covid will be gone without vaccines two years ago. Just  think about drinking Lysol. <
> Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people.


Lie, 
Lie, 
Lie.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2022)

Faun said:


> Fucking moron, I didn't  day schools were businesses. I even mentioned them separately from non-essential businesses.
> 
> And you're an even bigger fucking moron for saying school closures did cause any unemployment. A bill was passed just to provide such people with some financial relief because many folks like custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc., were no longer needed while the schools were closed. And that extended to areas beyond the schools, such as food vendors who supplied lunches, vendors who supplied custodians, etc.
> 
> ...


You mentioned them in response to my comment that "Neither home schooling nor social distancing require any businesses to shutdown, moron."  Given the context you implied schools were businesses.  Now you're trying to change the subject.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Remember when BO mocked Mitt in the debates about the Russia threat?  The 80s want their foreign policy back.” Or some such asshole comment.


What a difference TEN YEARS makes.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Just think, he only had to spend $6 trillion to achieve the same unemployment rate we had before he was elected.


Sure, Q NUT.

I heard it was $10 trillion.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nope. We blame Trump for offering   no guidance, honesty or factual information. He’s a scammer. He’s a non science person. >Covid will be gone without vaccines two years ago. Just  think about drinking Lysol. <
> Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people.


/----/* "Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people."*
Science says there are only two genders....


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/* "Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people."*
> Science says there are only two genders....



Science does not address gender at all, it is not a term of science, but of literature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Science does not address gender at all, it is not a term of science, but of literature.



So when liberals say that men can get pregnant, they aren't following the science?


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So when liberals say that men can get pregnant, they aren't following the science?



that is correct, they aren't following the science.


----------



## Faun (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You mentioned them in response to my comment that "Neither home schooling nor social distancing require any businesses to shutdown, moron."  Given the context you implied schools were businesses.  Now you're trying to change the subject.



LOL

Nah, you're just a fucking moron.

Tell me again how shutting down schools all across the nation didn't cost anyone their job.

That was hysterical.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Science does not address gender at all, it is not a term of science, but of literature.


/——-/ Biology is science, moron.

Gender is determined by two biological factors: hormones and chromosomes. Hormones are chemical substances secreted by glands throughout the body and carried in the bloodstream. The same sex hormones occur in both men and women, but differ in amounts and in the effect that they have upon different parts of the body. 
Biological Theories of Gender | Simply Psychology​


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Biology is science, moron.
> 
> Gender is determined by two biological factors: hormones and chromosomes. Hormones are chemical substances secreted by glands throughout the body and carried in the bloodstream. The same sex hormones occur in both men and women, but differ in amounts and in the effect that they have upon different parts of the body.
> Biological Theories of Gender | Simply Psychology​




Thanks for the link proving my point...


People often get confused between the terms sex and gender. Sex refers to biological differences between males and females. For example, chromosomes (female XX, male XY), reproductive organs (ovaries, testes), hormones (oestrogen, testosterone).

Gender refers to the cultural differences expected (by society / culture) of men and women according to their sex.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, Q NUT.
> 
> I heard it was $10 trillion.


Could be.  It's hard to keep track of all the trillions Biden is spending.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Gender refers to the cultural differences expected (by society / culture) of men and women according to their sex.


That's just prog horseshit invented in the last few decades.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Sep 9, 2022)

JimH52 said:


> Lots of MAGA NUTS on this board


And more than one TDS moron too.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That's just prog horseshit invented in the last few decades.



and it is from the link your fellow Trump humper posted you fucking moron.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It was 3.5% before COVID, moron.


I provided that link


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> and it is from the link your fellow Trump humper posted you fucking moron.


The link said the opposite of that, moron.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The link said the opposite of that, moron.


Yep, 3.5% unemployment just before the DImmer loons shut down their states over the fake leftyvirus.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> But COVID happened, you cannot just pretend it did not.  It happened under Trump thus they are his numbers.


Trump was not responsible for COVID, moron, but you assholes keep trying to blame him for it.


----------



## jbrownson0831 (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Trump was not responsible for COVID, moron, but you assholes keep trying to blame him for it.


How about Poopeypants killing all those people even though he had the vaccine?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/* "Thats the idiot shit we get from you and Trump other non science people."*
> Science says there are only two genders....


Really ? You read a science book ? That’s a first.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Trump was not responsible for COVID, moron, but you assholes keep trying to blame him for it.


Trump was responsible for disseminating false information leading to deaths and sicknesses that were totally unnecessary. You’re actually excusing  a moron for lying every-time he opened his mouth during a pandemic.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

jbrownson0831 said:


> How about Poopeypants killing all those people even though he had the vaccine?


The people who died at the highest rates were the idiots who refused to take the vaccine….the Humpers and deniers.

They  were the vast majority who had to be hospitalized. Are you through making up shit, or will this continue till Trump is wearing an Orange jump suit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Trump was responsible for disseminating false information leading to deaths and sicknesses that were totally unnecessary. You’re actually excusing  a moron for lying every-time he opened his mouth during a pandemic.


Fauci, Biden and Pelosi spewed far more false information

_https://www.gopusa.com/democrats-forget-what-they-were-saying-about-coronavirus-in-early-2020/_​
_when the president took bold and decisive action closing the border to China early on in late January, Joe Biden lambasted the decision and called him “xenophobic” for blocking travel to the United States despite China being a known hotspot for the deadly virus. In March, Biden was still unwilling to admit the president made the right call in closing the border. He tweeted: “Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job.”_​​_In February, Nancy Pelosi also downplayed the virus by going shopping in San Francisco’s Chinatown area — without a mask — urging fellow Americans on television to do the same. When will the media ask Pelosi how many citizens may have contracted the disease and/or died from it as a result of her incautious advice?_​


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Fauci, Biden and Pelosi spewed far more false information


We know Trump lied about Covid being gone two years ago without vaccinations. We know he tried to scam false un proven meds. Give us ONE LIE FAUCI SAID IN A FULL QUOTE…not shit you made up or got from Fix News, but one actual quote with a reference to the full article. Just one….can’t do it can you ?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> We know Trump lied about Covid being gone two years ago without vaccinations. We know he tried to scam false un proven meds. Give us ONE LIE FAUCI SAID IN A FULL QUOTE…not shit you made up or got from Fix News, but one actual quote with a reference to the full article. Just one….can’t do it can you ?


We know you spew nothing but horseshit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> We know you spew nothing but horseshit.


All you have to do is post one quote from Fauci, and you can’t do it. That means you’re FOS. That’s short hand for…….
Be a man. Go ahead. Post just one full quote of Fauci.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> All you have to do is post one quote from Fauci, and you can’t do it. That means you’re FOS. That’s short hand for…….
> Be a man. Go ahead. Post just one full quote of Fauci.


I don't waste my time posting substantive responses to douchebags who do nothing but lie.


----------



## Faun (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Trump was not responsible for COVID, moron, but you assholes keep trying to blame him for it.



LOL

So Obama was responsible for Ebola but Trump is not responsible for covid?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> So Obama was responsible for Ebola but Trump is not responsible for covid?
> 
> ...


Obama allowed people who tested positive for Ebola to enter the country.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The link said the opposite of that, moron.



That was a direct quote from the link you fucking moron.  Try opening it next time


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Trump was not responsible for COVID, moron, but you assholes keep trying to blame him for it.



Just his response to it

Just like Obama was not responsible for the 08 recession, just his response to it


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> That was a direct quote from the link you fucking moron.  Try opening it next time


I read the link, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Just his response to it
> 
> Just like Obama was not responsible for the 08 recession, just his response to it


His response was better than Biden's


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Trump was responsible for disseminating false information leading to deaths and sicknesses that were totally unnecessary. You’re actually excusing  a moron for lying every-time he opened his mouth during a pandemic.


/——-/ No, that was Fauci, your hero.


----------



## flan327 (Sep 9, 2022)

Trajan said:


> so now its changed, the exec. has zip to do with employment...got it.
> 
> 
> you get the silver.....


Depends on the PROFESSION

CAPISCH?


----------



## Faun (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Obama allowed people who tested positive for Ebola to enter the country.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever??



Trump allowed people who tested positive for covid to enter the country.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Faun said:


> Trump allowed people who tested positive for covid to enter the country.
> 
> Are you ever not a fucking moron?
> 
> Ever??


When he tried to stop it a bunch of Democrats called him a bunch of filthy names.


----------



## Faun (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> When he tried to stop it a bunch of Democrats called him a bunch of filthy names.



LOLOL 

Now your position is so weak, Trump is spineless to protect Americans because he's afraid of Democrats calling him names??






Are you ever not a fucking moron? 

Ever??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Trump was responsible for disseminating false information leading to deaths and sicknesses that were totally unnecessary.



Like telling people to take public transportation and go to Chinatown?
What was with all the dem whining about travel bans? Why did dems 
want more sick foreigners to fly here?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> Now your position is so weak, Trump is spineless to protect Americans because he's afraid of Democrats calling him names??
> 
> ...


/——-/ Why would democrats call the president filthy names for trying to protect Americans?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Trump was responsible for disseminating false information leading to deaths and sicknesses that were totally unnecessary. You’re actually excusing  a moron for lying every-time he opened his mouth during a pandemic.


/——-/ Breaking News, moron.








						In A Win For Trump, Judge Rejects Biden, Rules Biden MUST Hand Over Fauci, White House ‘Misinfo’ Emails Sent To Tech Giants - DC Enquirer
					

A Louisiana federal judge appointed by forty-fifth President Donald Trump, Judge Terry Doughty, ruled on Tuesday the Biden administration has 21 days to hand




					dcenquirer.com


----------



## Faun (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Why would democrats call the president filthy names for trying to protect Americans?



I don't know, ask bripat. He's the one saying they did.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> His response was better than Biden's



Damn, could you find a lower bar if you tried?

I mean Ryan Leaf was better than JaMarcus Russell but I still would not want either of them to be the starting QB on my team.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Damn, could you find a lower bar if you tried?
> 
> I mean Ryan Leaf was better than JaMarcus Russell but I still would not want either of them to be the starting QB on my team.


You voted for Biden, numskull.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You voted for Biden, numskull.



Nope, sure did not.  But of course you already knew that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Nope, sure did not.  But of course you already knew that.


Of course you didn't.  That's why you never criticize him!


----------



## Golfing Gator (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Of course you didn't.  That's why you never criticize him!



I just fucking did you moron.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you have a comprehension problem, like most dems.


Do you need help on English grammar ?


Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Breaking News, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


compared to the ruling on the Trump secrete material…..any special master involved


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> Nope, sure did not.  But of course you already knew that.


Right, that's why you so studiously avoid criticizing him.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> So Obama was responsible for Ebola but Trump is not responsible for covid?
> 
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like telling people to take public transportation and go to Chinatown?
> What was with all the dem whining about travel bans? Why did dems
> want more sick foreigners to fly here?


You’re the one doing all the whining.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I don't waste my time posting substantive responses to douchebags who do nothing but lie.


You can‘t show Fauci lied can you ? Fraud….


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 9, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ No, that was Fauci, your hero.


Obviously, anyone who devotes their life to medical science should be a hero to mankind. Just wonder why he isn’t one of yours. I know. Just  like all the scientist who spend their in science that you don’t understand, you find  it easier to criticize then educate yourself. Being ignorant is easier. It takes no effort.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 9, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Obviously, anyone who devotes their life to medical science should be a hero to mankind. Just wonder why he isn’t one of yours. I know. Just  like all the scientist who spend their in science that you don’t understand, you find  it easier to criticize then educate yourself. Being ignorant is easier. It takes no effort.


/——/ Trump got the Covid info from Fauci, you dumbass.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 10, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Trump got the Covid info from Fauci, you dumbass.


That’s hilarious. Fauci never recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.
Fauci never said civil would be gone two years ago without vaccinations. .fausi is nonwhere in the picture...just super idiot Trump.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s hilarious. Fauci never recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.
> Fauci never said civil would be gone two years ago without vaccinations. .fausi is nonwhere in the picture...just super idiot Trump.


/——-/ I stopped reading at your first lie. Neither President Trump or Fauci recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can‘t show Fauci lied can you ? Fraud….



I don't waste my time posting substantive responses to douchebags who do nothing but lie.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2022)

Faun said:


> I don't know, ask bripat. He's the one saying they did.


They hate America.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I don't waste my time posting substantive responses to douchebags who do nothing but lie.


That’s you…..no proof, just BS from a whiner.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I stopped reading at your first lie. Neither President Trump or Fauci recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.


That’s wrong. 


Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I stopped reading at your first lie. Neither President Trump or Fauci recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I stopped reading at your first lie. Neither President Trump or Fauci recommended looking into drinking industrial surface cleaners.


Of course Fauci never did…

Trump wanted to inject the  shit into People.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I don't waste my time posting substantive responses to douchebags who do nothing but lie.


You’re a waste of time Humper.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course Fauci never did…
> 
> Trump wanted to inject the  shit into People.


/——/ Yeah sure, Spanky. Funny the entire world missed that tidbit except you.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Yeah sure, Spanky. Funny the entire world missed that tidbit except you.


Really ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2022)

Hillary never got Covid.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really ?





Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Yeah sure, Spanky. Funny the entire world missed that tidbit except you.


Ha ha…obviously the idiot is you.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 694866
> 
> Hillary never got Covid.


You still have the hots for Hillary ?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really ?


/——-/ Wrong again, Spanky.








						Trump is right again: Internal 'disinfecting' of people is already being done
					

Friday’s news cycle in the mainstream media was dominated by patently false claims that President Donald Trump ‘recommended’ that everyone either bathe […] More




					trendingpolitics.com


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s wrong.


/———/ Trump is right again: Internal 'disinfecting' of people is already being done


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You still have the hots for Hillary ?



Yes, after a bottle or two of Stoli, Hillary very hot.

Like hot babushka!!






So hot!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Wrong again, Spanky.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You idiot. Ultraviolet light is not INJECTED foolish. That’s his own BS appointee CYA. So you actually believe. First you said it NEVER HAPPENED, NOW YOU SAY ITS TRUE. What a BS artist you are.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You idiot. Ultraviolet light is not INJECTED foolish.


/———/ Thank you for not reading the article.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You idiot. Ultraviolet light is not INJECTED foolish.





Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Thank you for nor reading the article.


Nor reading ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, after a bottle or two of Stoli, Hillary very hot.
> 
> Like hot babushka!!
> 
> ...


You are a desperate old fool.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nor reading ?


/—-/ I fixed my fat finger typo. LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You are a desperate old fool.







An old fool will drink to that!!!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Trump is right again: Internal 'disinfecting' of people is already being done


Nope. He was specifically talking about LIQUID INDUSTRIAL CLEANER.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ I fixed my fat finger typo. LOL


And then, he admitted he fked up by claiming he was being* sarcastic. tough to defend a moving target.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 11, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Trump is right again: Internal 'disinfecting' of people is already being done


Let’s look at your responses.
first, he didn’t say it,
secomd, he was right, if he did say it, 
now, after finding out he didn’t mean it and backs off having said it and was really being sarcastic, what say you now ?

Hilarious. You Humpers tie yourselves up in knots trying to defend the indefensible, the liar in chief.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Let’s look at your responses.
> first, he didn’t say it,
> secomd, he was right, if he did say it,
> now, after finding out he didn’t mean it and backs off having said it and was really being sarcastic, what say you now ?
> ...


/——-/ I shot holes your TDS rant with medical facts. So suck it up Sparky.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I shot holes your TDS rant with medical facts. So suck it up Sparky.


Now you’re claiming what ? You shot holes by making up shit. Anyone can make up shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Anyone can make up shit.


*
And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun.*

Durr


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here.


Yup…you posted that several times. You keep saying it collapsed into the earth and sun….your words, not mine…..


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun.


Bet your ass. We don’t exist without it. Kind of stupid to think otherwise. How ignorant do you have to be ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I shot holes your TDS rant with medical facts. So suck it up Sparky.


You know medical facts, really ?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You know medical facts, really ?


/———/ Do you?  You’re grasping at straws, Sparky.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yup…you posted that several times. You keep saying it collapsed into the earth and sun….your words, not mine…..
> 
> Bet your ass. We don’t exist without it. Kind of stupid to think otherwise. How ignorant do you have to be ?



*You keep saying it collapsed into the earth and sun….your words, not mine…..*

You think there was no uranium in the cloud of gas and dust?

Tell me, how did the Sun's energy or the Sun's gravity give Earth uranium?

Maybe when you sober up you can explain?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You keep saying it collapsed into the earth and sun….your words, not mine…..*
> 
> You think there was no uranium in the cloud of gas and dust?
> 
> ...


Tell me what you mean by collapse…..


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tell me, how did the Sun's energy or the Sun's gravity give Earth uranium?


The sun has radiant energy and the sun like all matter has gravitational force. It’s not an “ or”


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Do you?  You’re grasping at straws, Sparky.


You’re not even grasping. You’re making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Do you?  You’re grasping at straws, Sparky.


I know Trump is full of shit. You are too for trying to pretend he knows shit about medicine.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 12, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Do you?  You’re grasping at straws, Sparky.


Oh, covid will be gone by Easter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Tell me what you mean by collapse…..



_Star Formation_​_Stars are born within the clouds of dust and scattered throughout most galaxies. A familiar example of such as a dust cloud is the Orion Nebula. Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction. As the cloud collapses, the material at the center begins to heat up. Known as a protostar, it is this hot core at the heart of the collapsing cloud that will one day become a star. Three-dimensional computer models of star formation predict that the spinning clouds of collapsing gas and dust may break up into two or three blobs; this would explain why the majority the stars in the Milky Way are paired or in groups of multiple stars._






						Stars | Science Mission Directorate
					

How do stars form and evolve? Stars are the most widely recognized astronomical objects, and represent the most fundamental building blocks of galaxies. The age, distribution, and composition of the stars in a galaxy trace the history, dynamics, and evolution of that galaxy. Moreover, stars are...




					science.nasa.gov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The sun has radiant energy and the sun like all matter has gravitational force. It’s not an “ or”



Some of the energy in Earth's uranium is from the Sun's radiant energy and some is from the Sun's gravitational force?

Tell me more!!!!!

After you sober up.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 12, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re not even grasping. You’re making up shit.


/——-/ GRASP THIS.  democRATs down play Covid. Taint no big deal. 








						Marvelous Montage: A Collection of Democrats Downplaying COVID-19
					

If you haven’t heard yet, Democrats have concluded a special investigation (at your expense, of course) that found President Donald Trump personally killed 200,000 Americans with his bare hands and then blamed it on COVID-19. Yes, Democrats,




					www.wibc.com


----------



## BothWings (Sep 12, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



In many cases presidents inherit problems that were in place when they took office. Legislation and executive take time to pass and take effect. And some cases you can literally watch the world flushing down the toilet AFTER an election. Like now, for instance.


----------



## Faun (Sep 12, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> They hate America.



If people call the president names because they hate America, who's left in America who loves it?


----------



## IM2 (Sep 12, 2022)

Trajan said:


> so now its changed, the exec. has zip to do with employment...got it.
> 
> 
> you get the silver.....


trump inherited a strong economy produced by Obama. Obama inherited a deep recession.

These things should be considered, but right wingers won't do that.

Because it kills their narrative.


----------



## IM2 (Sep 12, 2022)

BothWings said:


> In many cases presidents inherit problems that were in place when they took office. Legislation and executive take time to pass and take effect. And some cases you can literally watch the world flushing down the toilet AFTER an election. Like now, for instance.


But that's not happening now and Biden inherited a huge mess.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

IM2 said:


> trump inherited a strong economy produced by Obama. Obama inherited a deep recession.
> 
> These things should be considered, but right wingers won't do that.
> 
> Because it kills their narrative.



*trump inherited a strong economy produced by Obama*

+1.6% in 2016 was super strong, right?

I mean on an AA curve it is.


----------



## IM2 (Sep 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *trump inherited a strong economy produced by Obama*
> 
> +1.6% in 2016 was super strong, right?
> 
> I mean on an AA curve it is.


Trump inherited a strong growing economy from Obama.

So maybe on the white AA legacy privilege scale you don't pay attention to job growth and dropping unemployment.

That's the legacy privileged logic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2022)

IM2 said:


> Trump inherited a strong growing economy from Obama.
> 
> So maybe on the white AA legacy privilege scale you don't pay attention to job growth and dropping unemployment.
> 
> That's the legacy privileged logic.



*Trump inherited a strong growing economy from Obama.*

Right, +1.6%, very strong! Down from +2.7% in 2015. DURR

*So maybe on the white AA legacy privilege scale*

Is that why we were so easy on Obama? He was half white?


----------



## IM2 (Sep 13, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Trump inherited a strong growing economy from Obama.*
> 
> Right, +1.6%, very strong! Down from +2.7% in 2015. DURR
> 
> ...


Trump inherited record job growth, falling unemployment, a record stock market and growing economy. When you talk about AA, look in the mirror and you will see a person who has got what you think AA is all your life. You scrubs don't like that being said about you, but you don't mind making that claim about everyone else.  But the record is clear. White males have been perpetual beneficiaries of affirmative action.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

IM2 said:


> Trump inherited record job growth, falling unemployment, a record stock market and growing economy. When you talk about AA, look in the mirror and you will see a person who has got what you think AA is all your life. You scrubs don't like that being said about you, but you don't mind making that claim about everyone else.  But the record is clear. White males have been perpetual beneficiaries of affirmative action.


/——/ “*White males have been perpetual beneficiaries of affirmative action”*
I can’t stop laughing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2022)

IM2 said:


> When you talk about AA, look in the mirror and you will see a person who has got what you think AA is all your life.



I'm not the mumbling half black failure who got AA.


----------



## Rambunctious (Sep 13, 2022)

So the Biden administration set out chairs and tables and had planned a big party for the drop in inflation today..... Ooooops!
Inflation has gone up and the market is crashing today 9-13-22
What a mess we are in with these clowns......
I guess the tables and chairs and balloons won't be necessary....


----------



## Rambunctious (Sep 13, 2022)

Hey Jill! better take off that party dress.... Buuuuaaahahahahah bring on the midterms MAGA baby.....


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> So the Biden administration set out chairs and tables and had planned a big party for the drop in inflation today..... Ooooops!
> Inflation has gone up and the market is crashing today 9-13-22
> What a mess we are in with these clowns......
> I guess the tables and chairs and balloons won't be necessary....



Inflation did not go up, rambtard.






						Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2022 | US Inflation Calculator
					

The table of historical inflation rates displays annual rates from 1914 to 2022. Rates of inflation are calculated using the current Consumer Price Index published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS data was last updated on Dec. 13 and covers up to November 2022. The next...




					www.usinflationcalculator.com
				




Are you ever not a rambtard? 

Ever??


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some of the energy in Earth's uranium is from the Sun's radiant energy and some is from the Sun's gravitational force?
> 
> Tell me more!!!!!
> 
> After you sober up.


I can't believe this idiot is still pushing this story.


----------



## Rambunctious (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Inflation did not go up, rambtard.
> 
> Are you ever not a rambtard?
> 
> Ever??


They thought it was going to be lower and its not the market has noticed and is crashing.... wake up retard....
Buuaaaaahahaha they thought since gas went down for a few days so would inflation... but not when eggs rose two bucks a carton....
So yes bring on the midterms where the dems have funded our MAGA candidates in the primaries..... Thanks demtards... for helping us rid our party of do nothing RINO's.... like a gift from heaven....
The dems are draining the swamp for us.... LMFAO......


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> They thought it was going to be lower and its not the market has noticed and is crashing.... wake up retard....
> Buuaaaaahahaha they thought since gas went down for a few days so would inflation... but not when eggs rose two bucks a carton....
> So yes bring on the midterms where the dems have funded our MAGA candidates in the primaries..... Thanks demtards... for helping us rid our party of do nothing RINO's.... like a gift from heaven....
> The dems are draining the swamp for us.... LMFAO......



Still, last month inflation was 8.5%, down from 9.1%. And this month, it's down from 8.5% to 8.3%.


----------



## Rambunctious (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Still, last month inflation was 8.5%, down from 9.1%. And this month, it's down from 8.5% to 8.3%.


Then why is the market crashing?... because its not lower... its virtually unchanged and that means bad times are ahead when cold weather gets here... the people who know (unlike fools like you) know this is bad and is going to get worse... like I said the party in the white house has been cancelled.... and Biden had planned a big speech.... cancelled..... buaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> Then why is the market crashing?... because its not lower... its virtually unchanged and that means bad times are ahead when cold weather gets here... the people who know (unlike fools like you) know this is bad and is going to get worse... like I said the party in the white house has been cancelled.... and Biden had planned a big speech.... cancelled..... buaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha



Yes, because it's not lower than 8.3%. You know, up from last month according to a rambtard.


----------



## Rambunctious (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Yes, because it's not lower than 8.3%. You know, up from last month according to a rambtard.


You are such a sucker... lol Thank God you are in a shrinking demographic.....
The Stock market could slide under 30,000 today or tomorrow erasing all the gains from the Trump presidency..... I play golf with a guy that has lost nearly 100,000 in just 8 months.... he voted for Biden.... but he won't do that again..... Buaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> You are such a sucker... lol Thank God you are in a shrinking demographic.....
> The Stock market could slide under 30,000 today or tomorrow erasing all the gains from the Trump presidency..... I play golf with a guy that has lost nearly 100,000 in just 8 months.... he voted for Biden.... but he won't do that again..... Buaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha



LOL

Suuure ya do, ramtard.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Inflation did not go up, rambtard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


/——-/ Tell that to Wall Street. When is Joe taking a victory lap?


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Tell that to Wall Street. When is Joe taking a victory lap?



Yeah, a bad day for America is a good day for conservatives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Yeah, a bad day for America is a good day for conservatives.



A bad day for Biden is a good day for conservatives.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Yeah, a bad day for America is a good day for conservatives.


/——-/ America was better with Trump in office.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A bad day for Biden is a good day for conservatives.



Today is a bad day for America. Conservatives celebrate.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ America was better with Trump in office. View attachment 695650



Based on polling, America disagrees with you.


----------



## Nostra (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Yes, because it's not lower than 8.3%. You know, up from last month according to a rambtard.


Working folks only got an 8.3% tax hike from Biden this month.

YIPPEE!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Today is a bad day for America. Conservatives celebrate.



When Biden fucks up, the country gets hurt.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Based on polling, America disagrees with you.


/—-/ Yeah, those polls of 350 random adults the overweight democrat have the pulse of America.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Based on polling, America disagrees with you.


You have lost contact with reality.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When Biden fucks up, the country gets hurt.



And conservatives celebrate.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You have lost contact with reality.



Nope, the average of polls on realclearpolitics show that Biden currently has a higher approval rating than Trump did at this same point in his presidency. 

And that is reality; no matter how much you wish it wasn't.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> Nope, the average of polls on realclearpolitics show that Biden currently has a higher approval rating than Trump did at this same point in his presidency.
> 
> And that is reality; no matter how much you wish it wasn't.



Polls also show that a majority want to impeach Biden.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Polls also show that a majority want to impeach Biden.



So?


----------



## gipper (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> So?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> And conservatives celebrate.



We celebrate the exposure of Biden's idiocy, not the harm he causes.


----------



## Faun (Sep 13, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We celebrate the exposure of Biden's idiocy, not the harm he causes.



And yet, there were conservatives today celebrating the high inflation rate and the tanking of thd stock market.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> And yet, there were conservatives today celebrating the high inflation rate and the tanking of thd stock market.


/——-/ Like who? I’m sure you have a list.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> And yet, there were conservatives today celebrating the high inflation rate and the tanking of thd stock market.



Short term pain is worth it if we can vote enough Dems out of office.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> And yet, there were conservatives today celebrating the high inflation rate and the tanking of thd stock market.


You mean Democrats celebrated the death of thousands of Americans from COVID?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 13, 2022)

Faun said:


> And yet, there were conservatives today celebrating the high inflation rate and the tanking of thd stock market.


/——-/ Celebrate this libtard. Your clown is throwing parties.








						Critics slam President Biden for 'celebrating' signing of Inflation Reduction Act: 'Slap in the face'
					

Conservatives and politicians slammed President Biden on Tuesday for "celebrating" the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act as prices remain at record highs.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some of the energy in Earth's uranium is from the Sun's radiant energy and some is from the Sun's gravitational force?
> 
> Tell me more!!!!!
> 
> After you sober up.


Are you saying the sun has no gravity ? Tell me more.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 14, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I can't believe this idiot is still pushing this story.


I can’t be believe you’re such an idiot to believe matter has no gravity.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 14, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ I shot holes your TDS rant with medical facts. So suck it up Sparky.


You shot holes in your own dick with such poor aim.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun.*
> 
> Durr


So, your nimrod logic says what causes this magic event you call collapsing ? Is it hocus pocus, your god, or some other magic force ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Are you saying the sun has no gravity ? Tell me more.



Are you stoned again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So, your nimrod logic says what causes this magic event you call collapsing ? Is it hocus pocus, your god, or some other magic force ?



Magic? You must be a liberal.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Magic? You must be a liberal.


Made up shit, you must be a Humper.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you stoned again?


So, the sun has no gravity ? Tell us more.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ GRASP THIS.  democRATs down play Covid. Taint no big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice source....conservative nimrod inc.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nice source....conservative nimrod inc.


/——-/ “If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.” -Saul Alinsky 
Are you saying it didn’t happen? Maybe you’re 9 years old and too young to remember. 

How’s abouts NBC?








						Nancy Pelosi Visits San Francisco's Chinatown Amid Coronavirus Concerns
					

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi toured San Francisco’s Chinatown Monday to send a message. She said there’s no reason tourists or locals should be staying away from the area because of coronavirus concerns.




					www.nbcbayarea.com
				




Or this source: 








						De Blasio, NYC Officials Downplayed COVID-19 Threat After Trump Restricted Travel to China. Here Are 5 Examples.
					

De Blasio and Oxiris Barbot took turns telling citizens in February and March that the virus was not as widespread as people thought.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Made up shit, you must be a Humper.



I didn't make up the theory of how the solar system was formed, moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So, the sun has no gravity ? Tell us more.



Where did I make that claim? Are you on acid again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ “If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.” -Saul Alinsky
> Are you saying it didn’t happen? Maybe you’re 9 years old and too young to remember.
> 
> How’s abouts NBC?
> ...



I think he has tertiary syphilis, his incoherence is getting worse.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Are you saying the sun has no gravity ? Tell me more.


Uranium doesn't come from the sun, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I can’t be believe you’re such an idiot to believe matter has no gravity.


Where did I ever say that?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium doesn't come from the sun, moron.


I see you make up shit dufus...something I’ve never said. This your usual ploy ? Pretend you know something then when played a fool you make up your own shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Where did I ever say that?


You haven’t said anything that makes sense. Uranium isn’t energy dumbass. .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You haven’t said anything that makes sense. Uranium isn’t energy dumbass. .



Not until it gets "potential energy from the gravitational energy of the sun"?

Right, Einstein?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Where did I ever say that?



I think he's Fetterman.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not until it gets "potential energy from the gravitational energy of the sun"?
> 
> Right, Einstein?


Considering you don’t know what potential energy is, your little paraphrase out of context just means you’re a loser who still makes up shit. Tell us what potential energy is fool.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not until it gets "potential energy from the gravitational energy of the sun"?
> 
> Right, Einstein?


Ha ha. You’re an idiot aren’t you ? Do you know anything about potential energy ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha. You’re an idiot aren’t you ? Do you know anything about potential energy ?



Tell me all about the potential energy given to that uranium.

Come on, moron, that's a good moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Considering you don’t know what potential energy is, your little paraphrase out of context just means you’re a loser who still makes up shit. Tell us what potential energy is fool.



*And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun. You have no fking concept as to what energy is.*





__





						Al Gore said fixing issues with American democracy is necessary to properly address climate change.
					

what the fk are you talking about. You’re the dumb fk that asked if  solar energy was stored ? I corrected you imbecile.  When another poster asked you where the solar energy comes from at night, you said it was stored in batteries.  Now you are denying it.  You keep stepping on your own dick.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




That's some funny, in context shit right there.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun. You have no fking concept as to what energy is.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You need to look up potential energy and the effects of gravity on the displacement  of matter and how the potential energy of matter is effected by its position relative to everything else.
Uranium IS NOT ENERGY DUFUS. You’re just babbling.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tell me all about the potential energy given to that uranium.
> 
> Come on, moron, that's a good moron.


Do you know what potential energy is idiot ? Still waiting ? 
Tell us all what the collapse is caused by fool. Still waiting on that one too Mr. dufus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You need to look up potential energy and the effects of gravity on the displacement  of matter and how the potential energy of matter is effected by its position relative to everything else.
> Uranium IS NOT ENERGY DUFUS. You’re just babbling.



Or you could defend your moronic claim.

I don't need to look anything up, I already know you're an idiot.

_Uranium IS NOT ENERGY DUFUS._

How does this^

Fit with this >_The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun._


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I didn't make up the theory of how the solar system was formed, moron.


You haven even pretended to know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Do you know what potential energy is idiot ? Still waiting ?
> Tell us all what the collapse is caused by fool. Still waiting on that one too Mr. dufus.



Refer to the previous link about solar system formation. I'm tired of educating your retarded ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You haven even pretended to know.



I knew about it, that's how I linked it for your retarded ass.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or you could defend your moronic claim.
> 
> I don't need to look anything up, I already know you're an idiot.
> 
> ...



Tell us what potential energy is dufus. Still waiting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Tell us what potential energy is dufus. Still waiting.







__





						Google
					

Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.



					www.google.com
				




Help yourself.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium doesn't come from the sun, moron.


You must be wearing your depends on backwards. No one claimed that idiot. You said it collapsed into the sun and the earth. That was YOU.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You still don’t know do you ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You still don’t know do you ?



*And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun. You have no fking concept as to what energy is.*

That's some funny shit right there.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun. You have no fking concept as to what energy is.*
> 
> That's some funny shit right there.


Continue, tell us what is funny.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium doesn't come from the sun, moron.


Who said that ? Tell us. Provide an exact quote. Otherwise, it’s a lie.


----------



## Leo123 (Sep 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> The President with the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression is?


The great depression?  Get real....The most recent crash is since Joe Biden.  Highest inflation in decades, highest gas prices in decades, highest inflation in decades, interest rates soaring to 6%, highest in decades.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Joe Biden.  Highest inflation in decades, highest gas prices in decades, highest inflation in decades, interest rates soaring to 6%, highest in decades.


Since Bush......


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tell me all about the potential energy given to that uranium.
> 
> Come on, moron, that's a good moron.


Nice dufus....


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or you could defend your moronic claim.
> 
> I don't need to look anything up, I already know you're an idiot.
> 
> ...


How does it not ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tell me all about the potential energy given to that uranium.
> 
> Come on, moron, that's a good moron.


This is hilarious uninformed comment. What a stupid idea. All matter has potential energy dumbass. I’ve mentioned  more then once  what potential energy is, and you can’t remember because you didn’t even recognize it. You are totally unqualified.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Continue, tell us what is funny.



Your idiocy is funny. 
Now run away.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> How does it not ?



What potential energy does uranium have? Be specific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is hilarious uninformed comment. What a stupid idea. All matter has potential energy dumbass. I’ve mentioned  more then once  what potential energy is, and you can’t remember because you didn’t even recognize it. You are totally unqualified.



_All matter has potential energy dumbass._

Great. How did it get any "*from the gravitational energy of the sun"*?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I see you make up shit dufus...something I’ve never said. This your usual ploy ? Pretend you know something then when played a fool you make up your own shit.


What am I making up?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You haven’t said anything that makes sense. Uranium isn’t energy dumbass. .


It's a form of energy just like natural gas.  

What a fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is hilarious uninformed comment. What a stupid idea. All matter has potential energy dumbass.



That's a meaningless statement.


Dagosa said:


> I’ve mentioned .more then once  what potential energy is, and you can’t remember because you didn’t even recognize it. You are totally unqualified.



You don't know what potential energy is, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is hilarious uninformed comment. What a stupid idea. All matter has potential energy dumbass. I’ve mentioned  more then once  what potential energy is, and you can’t remember because you didn’t even recognize it. You are totally unqualified.


You don't know what potential energy is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Who said that ? Tell us. Provide an exact quote. Otherwise, it’s a lie.


You said uranium is potential energy, and all energy comes from the sun.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And the sun was responsible for the uranium being here. The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun. Why, because all energy here on earth comes from the sun. You have no fking concept as to what energy is.*
> 
> That's some funny shit right there.


Yeah, I laugh out loud every time he spouts his lame theories about physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, I laugh out loud every time he spouts his lame theories about physics.



I think he has Mad Cow disease.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You said uranium is potential energy, and all energy comes from the sun.


No I did not…..quote me exactly. I never said uranium IS potential energy
. That’s stupid. You are a confused puppy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, I laugh out loud every time he spouts his lame theories about physics.


You are the stupid one. You should be laughing at yourself. You can’t even speak English nor can you quote anything a accurately.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That's a meaningless statement.
> 
> 
> You don't know what potential energy is, moron.


I know you don’t have a clue, and I do. You just made another ignorant statement again. It’s not meaningless to say “all matter has potential energy”. Uranium is matter. IT IS NOT ENERGY dufus. It has potential energy….You struggle with words used In English don’t you ? But keep talking. Readers are rolling in laughter.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It's a form of energy just like natural gas.
> 
> What a fucking moron.


Uranium is  NOT ENERGY dumbass…that’s hilariously incompetent. You’re sounding really silly. Tell us about Uranium belting energy….tell us more ? Ha ha


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, I laugh out loud every time he spouts his lame theories about physics.


You said Uranium is energy ? Ha ha
Tell us more…..you could be a comedian.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I know you don’t have a clue, and I do. You just made another ignorant statement again. It’s not meaningless to say “all matter has potential energy”. Uranium is matter. IT IS NOT ENERGY dufus. It has potential energy….You struggle with words used In English don’t you ? But keep talking. Readers are rolling in laughter.



*It has potential energy….*

Where does uranium's potential energy come from?

Spell it out, Einstein.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, I laugh out loud every time he spouts his lame theories about physics.



Tell me what “theory” spouted. Do you know what a theory is ? Tell us.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It has potential energy….*
> 
> Where does uranium's potential energy come from?
> 
> Spell it out, Einstein.


So, I said uranium HAS potential energy, and you claim uranium IS energy. I rest my case. You are the fool everyone is laughing at. But keep talking.
Ill repeat your lesson for the day. All matter has potential energy. I know what it is, you don’t seem to.
”Where does uranium's potential energy come from?”
Uranium is matter. All matter has potential energy.
ha ha,


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great. How did it get any "*from the gravitational energy of the sun"*?


Ha ha 
You finally understand a little I hope. Gravity is one form of energy that comes from the sun. There are others. Can you name them ? I’m in for a good laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So, I said uranium HAS potential energy, and you claim uranium IS energy. I rest my case. You are the fool everyone is laughing at. But keep talking.
> Ill repeat your lesson for the day. All matter has potential energy. I know what it is, you don’t seem to.
> ”Where does uranium's potential energy come from?”
> Uranium is matter. All matter has potential energy.
> ha ha,


*
So, I said uranium HAS potential energy*

Bully for you.

You said "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

Defend your moronic claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You finally understand a little I hope. Gravity is one form of energy that comes from the sun. There are others. Can you name them ? I’m in for a good laugh.



*You finally understand a little I hope. *

I understand you posting a moronic claim.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No I did not…..quote me exactly. I never said uranium IS potential energy
> . That’s stupid. You are a confused puppy.


Then state your position clearly here.  You keep trying to weasel out whenever anyone tries to pin you down.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I know you don’t have a clue, and I do. You just made another ignorant statement again. It’s not meaningless to say “all matter has potential energy”. Uranium is matter. IT IS NOT ENERGY dufus. It has potential energy….You struggle with words used In English don’t you ? But keep talking. Readers are rolling in laughter.


How much potential energy depends on how far above the ground it is raised.  It doesn't come from radioactive decay.

You struggle with the term "potential energy."  you have never used it correctly because you don't know what it is.

Potential energy - Wikipedia​​_In physics, *potential energy* is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.[1][2]_​​_Common types of potential energy include the gravitational potential energy of an object that depends on its mass and its distance from the center of mass of another object, the elastic potential energy of an extended spring, and the electric potential energy of an electric charge in an electric field. The unit for energy in the International System of Units (SI) is the joule, which has the symbol J._​


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Uranium is  NOT ENERGY dumbass…that’s hilariously incompetent. You’re sounding really silly. Tell us about Uranium belting energy….tell us more ? Ha ha


The energy of atomic decay is not potential energy, you fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Tell me what “theory” spouted. Do you know what a theory is ? Tell us.


You spouted your lame theory that atomic energy is "potential energy" and that it comes from the sun.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You said Uranium is energy ? Ha ha
> Tell us more…..you could be a comedian.


Oh please.  I was using your moronic terminology to frame it in terms that you might be able to understand.  Teaching physics to you is like teaching calculus to ants.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Uranium is  NOT ENERGY dumbass…that’s hilariously incompetent. You’re sounding really silly. Tell us about Uranium belting energy….tell us more ? Ha ha


Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?





bripat9643 said:


> Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?


The uranium found in nature “belts” nothing what ever that means. Is that another one of your physics terms ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 16, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Oh please.  I was using your moronic terminology to frame it in terms that you might be able to understand.  Teaching physics to you is like teaching calculus to ants.


Really ? You question me and you don’t have a fking clue what potential energy is ? Not only that, you claim uranium is energy ? Uranium is matter, it’s not gravity, radiation, mechanical energy or electricity. Without prossessing   the potential energy of uranium is limited by its position within it’s surroundings, as determined by guess what ? Gravity ! 

Now if a lump of uranium some how fell, that would be kinetic energy.....maybe it could land on your head and give you a clue wtf you are saying. 
Whatever is your point. Everything I’ve said is true...you’re just babbling.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Oh please.  I was using your moronic terminology to frame it in terms that you might be able to understand.  Teaching physics to you is like teaching calculus to ants.


So you admit, you were using moronic terminology. Wow..... But it was never mine. You can’t provide  one quote by me that used your foolishness. 
Don’t mention calculus. Btw, do you Humpers still think the universe is 6k years old ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You spouted your lame theory that atomic energy is "potential energy" and that it comes from the sun.


Liar. Provide one quote of mine that says so. I never even stated a theory.  But keep talking. Your pretense is laughably boring and filled with made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?


Ha ha
You are the one now trying to link potential energy of matter,  a term from Newtonian physics with atomic energy.....geesus are you for real ? One babble of woo woo after another.....keep making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> The energy of atomic decay is not potential energy, you fucking moron.


You’re now engaged in rapid fire idiocy. Your ignorance is stunning. All the references I made to potential energy has to do with the position of uranium in the earth’s crust as a function of gravity.
Now, you are absolutely full of shit. You keep calling me a fking moron after you make hilariously stupid statements.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Teaching physics to you is like teaching calculus to ants.


Now you’re a teacher ? Geesus, help us all.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> How much potential energy depends on how far above the ground it is raised.  It doesn't come from radioactive decay.
> 
> You struggle with the term "potential energy."  you have never used it correctly because you don't know what it is.
> 
> Potential energy - Wikipedia​​_In physics, *potential energy* is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.[1][2]_​​_Common types of potential energy include the gravitational potential energy of an object that depends on its mass and its distance from the center of mass of another object, the elastic potential energy of an extended spring, and the electric potential energy of an electric charge in an electric field. The unit for energy in the International System of Units (SI) is the joule, which has the symbol J._​


Wow, you looked up the meaning of potential energy......after making  statements that sound like made up shit. You never used the term “position” before I did at all. You don’t even know what it means either I bet.
All of a sudden you’re an expert because you quote Wiki and trying to cover your ass after saying uranium  IS energy. You’re walking through deep shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?


I bet it would blow your mind if I said matter can have both potential and kinetic energy at the same time depending on the view of  it’s surroundings. 
Go ahead, call me a moron again after behaving like an ignoramus. .


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You spouted your lame theory that atomic energy is "potential energy" and that it comes from the sun.


Continue lying. It reveals your lack of character.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Uranium does belt energy, moron.   Ever heard of Hiroshima?


Oh, now uranium is no longer energy, it belts energy. Wow. Another gear change. You must be mentally exhausted Humper.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You finally understand a little I hope. *
> 
> I understand you posting a moronic claim.


Of course,you can post insults like that without posting any of my quotes accurately, Humper.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The uranium found in nature “belts” nothing what ever that means. Is that another one of your physics terms ?


"Belts" is the term you used, moron.  You tell me what it means.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, now uranium is no longer energy, it belts energy. Wow. Another gear change. You must be mentally exhausted Humper.


you keep inventing terminology, and then you whine when someone uses the terms you invent.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re now engaged in rapid fire idiocy. Your ignorance is stunning. All the references I made to potential energy has to do with the position of uranium in the earth’s crust as a function of gravity.
> Now, you are absolutely full of shit. You keep calling me a fking moron after you make hilariously stupid statements.


So, you used a term that no one refers to when talking about energy from uranium.  We're all getting tired of your ring-around-the-rosy of invented scientific terminology.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you’re a teacher ? Geesus, help us all.


And he weasels once again.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wow, you looked up the meaning of potential energy......after making  statements that sound like made up shit. You never used the term “position” before I did at all. You don’t even know what it means either I bet.
> All of a sudden you’re an expert because you quote Wiki and trying to cover your ass after saying uranium  IS energy. You’re walking through deep shit.


What does position have to do with your theory that all energy comes from the sun?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I bet it would blow your mind if I said matter can have both potential and kinetic energy at the same time depending on the view of  it’s surroundings.
> Go ahead, call me a moron again after behaving like an ignoramus. .


No, it wouldn't blow my mind at all to see you trying yet another weasel.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Continue lying. It reveals your lack of character.


What did I lie about?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I bet it would blow your mind if I said matter can have both potential and kinetic energy at the same time depending on the view of  it’s surroundings.
> Go ahead, call me a moron again after behaving like an ignoramus. .



You're a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course,you can post insults like that without posting any of my quotes accurately, Humper.



Still waiting for you to post proof for your moronic claim.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where does uranium's potential energy come from?


Ha ha
All matter has potential energy. It comes from being matter. You ask the most hilariously uninformed questions.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're a moron.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still waiting for you to post proof for your moronic claim.


Pray tell, what claim is that ? That your posts are idiotic ? Like saying uranium is energy. Uranium is matter not energy. Just because it possesses a characteristic doesn’t mean it is that characteristic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> All matter has potential energy.



That's awesome!
Where does uranium's come from?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Pray tell, what claim is that ?



You said "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

Prove it, or run away like a little pussy. For the 100th time.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*
> 
> Prove it, or run away like a little pussy. For the 100th time.


Prove it ? Potential energy is positional dependent. Your definition said that. The position Uranium ore finds itself including its location on the earths crust and it’s own make up, according to you, was dependent upon gravity. Gravity of the sun and the earth. That’s YOUR inference when you said everything collapsed into the sun and the earth and inferred gravity was a responsible energy. That’s not me. That’s your own fking reference. Get a clue dumbo. Read your little Wiki reference.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's awesome!
> Where does uranium's come from?


You tell me. You’re the self proclaimed expert, btw, the question should be, what caused the uranium ore to be part of the earths crust, not just where did it come from…illiterate.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're a moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Prove it ? Potential energy is positional dependent. Your definition said that. The position Uranium ore finds itself including its location on the earths crust and it’s own make up, according to you, was dependent upon gravity. Gravity of the sun and the earth. That’s YOUR inference when you said everything collapsed into the sun and the earth and inferred gravity was a responsible energy. That’s not me. That’s your own fking reference. Get a clue dumbo. Read your little Wiki reference.


You only proved that you're an imbecile.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You tell me. You’re the self proclaimed expert, btw, the question should be, what caused the uranium ore to be part of the earths crust, not just where did it come from…illiterate.


You are weaseling once again.

Who do you think you're fooling, moron?


----------



## meaner gene (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Who do you think you're fooling, moron?


WOW.  You're one to call someone a moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> WOW.  You're one to call someone a moron.


That's how I refer to morons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Prove it ? Potential energy is positional dependent. Your definition said that. The position Uranium ore finds itself including its location on the earths crust and it’s own make up, according to you, was dependent upon gravity. Gravity of the sun and the earth. That’s YOUR inference when you said everything collapsed into the sun and the earth and inferred gravity was a responsible energy. That’s not me. That’s your own fking reference. Get a clue dumbo. Read your little Wiki reference.



And there goes the whiney twat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You tell me. You’re the self proclaimed expert, btw, the question should be, what caused the uranium ore to be part of the earths crust, not just where did it come from…illiterate.



_You tell me. You’re the self proclaimed expert_

DURR

"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> the question should be, what caused the uranium ore to be part of the earths crust



And your answer is the "*gravitational energy of the sun"*?  LOL!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> "Belts" is the term you used, moron.  You tell me what it means.


Quote me liar.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And your answer is the "*gravitational energy of the sun"*?  LOL!


And you’re laughing at what ?
“That Gravity is a force that pulls objects with mass together. ”


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And you’re laughing at what ?
> “That Gravity is a force that pulls objects with mass together. ”



I'm laughing at your idiocy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And there goes the whiney twat.


Is uranium  still energy, or have you given up on that bogus idea.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm laughing at your idiocy.


You’re laughing. That’s a sign there is still a synapses in your brain. We were all worried it stopped after your last post.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You are weaseling once again.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling, moron?


You’re easy to fool. You think uranium is energy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 17, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> What did I lie about?


What haven’t you lied about ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Is uranium  still energy, or have you given up on that bogus idea.



Does "*The potential energy from uranium come from the gravitational energy of the sun"*, 
or have you given up on that bogus idea?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re laughing. That’s a sign there is still a synapses in your brain. We were all worried it stopped after your last post.



You're still running away, pussy.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 17, 2022)

NYcarbineer said:


> Who cares?  Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.
> 
> I'm just curious.  Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?


Their POLICIES do. B.Hussein Obama really sucked. All he did was race bait.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Their POLICIES do. B.Hussein Obama really sucked. All he did was race bait.


Like the GOP was a paragon of excellent economic policies, which brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. Well done GOP.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're still running away, pussy.


Good avatar, clown.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Quote me liar.


You have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Like the GOP was a paragon of excellent economic policies, which brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. Well done GOP.


COVID and Democrat locks downs brought the nation to the brink of economic collapse, you fucking moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What haven’t you lied about ?


I have never lied in this forum.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re easy to fool. You think uranium is energy.


If it wasn't for lying, what arguments would you have to support your idiocies?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> If it wasn't for lying, what arguments would you have to support your idiocies?


You said uranium was energy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You said uranium was energy.


Yes, I know.  I attempted to explain it using your terminology.  

On the other hand, you claimed gravity is energy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Yes, I know.  I attempted to explain it using your terminology.
> 
> On the other hand, you claimed gravity is energy.


Really. Was that after or before you said uranium was like nat gas. Another hilarious statement. You are a standup comedian, right ?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really. Was that after or before you said uranium was like nat gas. Another hilarious statement. You are a standup comedian, right ?


When are you going to defend your idiotic claims about where uranium comes from?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> When are you going to defend your idiotic claims about where uranium comes from?


Where have I ever said where it came from ? Well, it must have come along  with natural gas because you said they are alike  ? Is uranium combustible ? Is Uranium  even a gas ? How are they alIke ? This gets funnier by the post.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Where have I ever said where it came from ? Well, it must have come along  with natural gas because you said they are alike  ? Is uranium combustible ? Is Uranium  even a gas ? How are they alIke ? This gets funnier by the post.


You said it came from the sun, idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You said it came from the sun, idiot.


Really ? Quote me iggy. That‘s just you making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You have me confused with someone who gives a shit.


So you admit you lied. Got it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So you admit you lied. Got it.


NO, I admit you're a douchebag that weasels incessantly.  You never address the questions put to you.  

You know your wrong.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> *Yes, I know.  I attempted to explain it using your terminology. *
> 
> On the other hand, you claimed gravity is energy.


Really ? By making up even  more shit ?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really ? By making up even  more shit ?


You are the one who makes things up, like new laws of physics.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> NO, I admit you're a douchebag that weasels incessantly.  You never address the questions put to you.
> 
> You know your wrong.


You’ve yet to ask a question that made sense.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’ve yet to ask a question that made sense.


My questions don't make sense only to morons like you.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You are the one who makes things up, like new laws of physics.


Another lie. Quote one law if physics  I made up.
Lets try again. Energy does not have mass. Matter has mass. 
Now, do you still claim uranium is energy, like nat gas ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You said uranium was energy.



"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

LOL!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Where have I ever said where it came from ? Well, it must have come along  with natural gas because you said they are alike  ? Is uranium combustible ? Is Uranium  even a gas ? How are they alIke ? This gets funnier by the post.


You said uranium comes from the sun, moron.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You said uranium comes from the sun, moron.


Don’t you get tired of lying. You go from one lie to another, just like Trump.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*
> 
> LOL!


Of course it’s funny to you. You know nothing about physics.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You said uranium comes from the sun, moron.


Change the subject again…..to more made up shit. If you could post a quote……but you can’t.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*
> 
> LOL!


You two have a huge problem. It’s called stupidity. You think energy is matter. You can keep thinking it all you want…..it just means you’re stupid.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You are the one who makes things up, like new laws of physics.


What law is that ? Name it.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You said uranium comes from the sun, moron.


Where ? Post it again…..we can all have a good laugh


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course it’s funny to you. You know nothing about physics.



It's funny because it's stupid.

Now run away again, pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's funny because it's stupid.
> 
> Now run away again, pussy.


Ha ha
You’re  being had by your own ignorance. Keep posting. You get dumber by the post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You two have a huge problem. It’s called stupidity. You think energy is matter. You can keep thinking it all you want…..it just means you’re stupid.



You have a huge problem. You think......

*"The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You’re  being had by your own ignorance. Keep posting. You get dumber by the post.



Keep running. Pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have a huge problem. You think......
> 
> *"The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*
> 
> LOL!


Explain. I could use a good laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Explain. I could use a good laugh.



You're an idiot is the only explanation I could come up with for your idiocy.
If you have a better explanation, post it. Or run away again, pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're an idiot is the only explanation I could come up with for your idiocy.
> If you have a better explanation, post it. Or run away again, pussy.


English is your what, third language ? You must be an alien.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> English is your what, third language ? You must be an alien.



Idiot is your first language.
Let me know when you can translate your claim, *"The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun" *into English.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Idiot is your first language.
> Let me know when you can translate your claim, *"The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun" *into English.


I did, a couple of times. Of course if you knew what potential energy of matter in physics represents, you’d understand. But your post indicate you don’t have a clue what ”it”  is. I’ll give you a hint.…….later. It’s too much fun for now reading your sludge.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Don’t you get tired of lying. You go from one lie to another, just like Trump.


ROFL!

The irony is excruciating.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course it’s funny to you. You know nothing about physics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Don’t you get tired of lying. You go from one lie to another, just like Trump.


I don't lie.

"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You’re  being had by your own ignorance. Keep posting. You get dumber by the post.


You have never responded with anything substantive since the start of this thread.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Explain. I could use a good laugh.


You don't understand your own posts?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Where ? Post it again…..we can all have a good laugh


"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What law is that ? Name it.


That the "potential energy of uranium" comes from the sun.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Change the subject again…..to more made up shit. If you could post a quote……but you can’t.


Your stupidity is the subject.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That the "potential energy of uranium" comes from the sun.


Huh ? You do have a problem reading don’t you. Just omit phrases. It does wonders keeping the fellow dullards in line.
Hint, potential energy of uranium isn’t uranium dufus. It’s energy. You must be a Tucker the drop out followers……


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That the "potential energy of uranium" comes from the sun.


No such law. You lose again, loser.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


Yup….nothing wrong with that. Neither the sun nor  uranium are the subjects of that statement. It’s about energy. Nimrod….


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> bripat9643
> 
> I did, a couple of times. Of course if you knew what potential energy of matter in physics represents, you’d understand. But your post indicate you don’t have a clue what ”it”  is. I’ll give you a hint.…….later. It’s too much fun for now reading your sludge.



No you didn't. Liar.
Now run along, pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You have never responded with anything substantive since the start of this thread.


Well, we got you guys to look up “ potential energy”, then you went on to totally disregard its meaning. It’s good you have spell check.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> "*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


Excellent… you can copy / paste. Now if you could only understand the written word.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No you didn't. Liar.
> Now run along, pussy.


Your idol. No wonder you’re so confused.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That the "potential energy of uranium" comes from the sun.


Which law is it ? Pick one out. 








						Laws of Physics And Applications Of All Physics Laws
					

The basic laws of physics are provided here along with facts which have been deduced and derived based on empirical observations. Get the complete list of basic laws of physics at BYJU’S.




					byjus.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Your idol. No wonder you’re so confused.



Pussy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Which law is it ? Pick one out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I looked at all of them. 
They agree, you're an idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pussy.


Pussy ?
Must be a physics thing….


Toddsterpatriot said:


> I looked at all of them.
> They agree, you're an idiot.


Sure you did…..like Trump and his law of fizicks


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Pussy ?
> Must be a physics thing….
> 
> Sure you did…..like Trump and his law of fizicks



Your pussy is a physics thing?

Then stop pulling "physics" out of your ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Pussy ?
> Must be a physics thing….
> 
> Sure you did…..like Trump and his law of fizicks











						Laws of Physics And Applications Of All Physics Laws
					

The basic laws of physics are provided here along with facts which have been deduced and derived based on empirical observations. Get the complete list of basic laws of physics at BYJU’S.




					byjus.com
				




None of them backed up your claim, 
"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*
Maybe you should cut and paste the one you feel does?
I'll be happy to show you your error.

Or you could run away again like a pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your pussy is a physics thing?
> 
> Then stop pulling "physics" out of your ass.


Blah blah blah


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Blah blah blah



Pussy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Laws of Physics And Applications Of All Physics Laws
> 
> 
> The basic laws of physics are provided here along with facts which have been deduced and derived based on empirical observations. Get the complete list of basic laws of physics at BYJU’S.
> ...


You’ve had your ten minutes of fame...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’ve had your ten minutes of fame...



And you've had your decades of idiocy.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Like the GOP was a paragon of excellent economic policies, which brought the country to the brink of economic collapse. Well done GOP.


Hmmmm.... That recession happened under a DEM controlled Congress and Dem Gimmie policies. B. Hussein spent all his time blaming Bush for his own fuckups.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Hmmmm.... That recession happened under a DEM controlled Congress and Dem Gimmie policies. B. Hussein spent all his time blaming Bush for his own fuckups.


Nope. The congress does not initiate the budget prossess  nor does it sign budget laws into effect. No budget. No budget can be passed without the president’s signature or super majority which Dems did not have. GOP had total and majority control of the Govt for 6 of 8 years-under Bush. The administration is called the administration because they spend the money or not. The admin can spend money it does not have through a special budget  process call reconciliation which Bush did to go into deep debt and drive the country into a recession to prosecute an a war it never paid for. They can even override a super majority decision.....which the Bush admin did.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Hmmmm.... That recession happened under a DEM controlled Congress and Dem Gimmie policies. B. Hussein spent all his time blaming Bush for his own fuckups.


The gop is the party of freebies. It spends and spends and cuts revenue going into debt with regularity. Since Reagan, Republicans have totally committed to trickle down, voodoo economics with all but one of the last 11 recessions under their budgets. Nope......it’s all about the gop incompetence and now their support for treason. They are the most corrupt party in the history of the US.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No such law. You lose again, loser.


True, there is no such law, but you claimed it anyway.  That's what makes you an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yup….nothing wrong with that. Neither the sun nor  uranium are the subjects of that statement. It’s about energy. Nimrod….


You have to be a profound idiot to claim there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Well, we got you guys to look up “ potential energy”, then you went on to totally disregard its meaning. It’s good you have spell check.


You're the one disregarding it's meaning, shit for brains.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> No such law. You lose again, loser.


That's right, there is no such law, but you claimed there was.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That's right, there is no such law, but you claimed there was.


More lies. you make up shit then can’t produce the proof (quote). Is this a reason you luv Trump….the make up shit king ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You're the one disregarding it's meaning, shit for brains.


See spot run…..


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You have to be a profound idiot to claim there is nothing wrong with that.


You can’t tell us what is wrong with the statement. Go ahead. I’m ready for a good laugh. Exactly what is wrong with the statement….ha ha


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You're the one disregarding it's meaning, shit for brains.


Potential energy is not matter dufus. You think it Is.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You have to be a profound idiot to claim there is nothing wrong with that.


You can’t tell anyone what is wrong with it can you. I can tell you how stupid you are. You look at the statement I made and think it says that ‘uranium comes from the sun’ 

Its hilarious.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> You're the one disregarding it's meaning, shit for brains.


You can’t tell us what ‘the meaning’  is can you ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you've had your decades of idiocy.


?.
That was suppose to make sense ? Failure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> ?.
> That was suppose to make sense ? Failure.



Not to you, you're an idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not to you, you're an idiot.


If you thought you knew that, why the fk did you address it to me ? You must be ignorant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> If you thought you knew that, why the fk did you address it to me ? You must be ignorant.



Everyone knows you're an idiot.

"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

But you're funny. Do you write for late night?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"


And you think that means what ? Tell us…..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And you think that means what ? Tell us…..



It's proof that you're an idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And you think that means what ? Tell us…..


Can’t do it ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's proof that you're an idiot.


Ha, just what we all thought….fraud.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 19, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Everyone knows you're an idiot.


Everyone…..you mean the frauds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Everyone…..you mean the frauds.



Everyone who saw your stupid claim knows you're an idiot.
You're good at running away.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Can’t do it ?


You can't do it, turd.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Everyone…..you mean the frauds.


You're the fraud.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t tell us what is wrong with the statement. Go ahead. I’m ready for a good laugh. Exactly what is wrong with the statement….ha ha


Nothing about uranium comes from the sun, period, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Potential energy is not matter dufus. You think it Is.


Then why did you claim "the potential energy of uranium comes from the sun?"


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t tell anyone what is wrong with it can you. I can tell you how stupid you are. You look at the statement I made and think it says that ‘uranium comes from the sun’
> 
> Its hilarious.


That's a logical conclusion of what you said, retard.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t tell us what ‘the meaning’  is can you ?


It means you are mentally retarded.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And you think that means what ? Tell us…..


We don't know because no physicist ever said such a thing.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> That's a logical conclusion of what you said, retard.


Only if you think energy is matter. That makes you stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Only if you think energy is matter. That makes you stupid.


How could uranium potential energy come from the sun without actual uranium existing on the sun?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> How could uranium potential energy come from the sun without actual uranium existing on the sun?


Idiot, it doesn’t come from the sun, NEITHER THE URANIUM NOR ITS POTENTIAL ENERGY comes from the sun. . Geesus , read the fking  statement In its entirety. How long have you been illiterate ?
Potential energy of Uranium, is NOT THE URANIUM, it’s not matter…..GEESUS…and the sun is not even mentioned as a subject. Did you ever take an English reading course ?
Do you know what fking gravity is ?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Then why did you claim "the potential energy of uranium comes from the sun?"


Never did say that illiterate…can’t you read ? Geesus, you have to be an alien.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> How could uranium potential energy come from the sun without actual uranium existing on the sun?


You obviously didn’t read your own definition of potential energy. you know nothing about Newtonian  “ Fizicks” do you..


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> We don't know because no physicist ever said such a thing.


You wouldn’t know anything about physics……you seem pretty ignorant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Idiot, it doesn’t come from the sun, *NEITHER THE URANIUM NOR ITS POTENTIAL ENERGY comes from the sun*. . Geesus , read the fking  statement In its entirety. How long have you been illiterate ?
> Potential energy of Uranium, is NOT THE URANIUM, it’s not matter…..GEESUS…and the sun is not even mentioned as a subject. Did you ever take an English reading course ?
> Do you know what fking gravity is ?


"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*

You just contradicted yourself, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You wouldn’t know anything about physics……you seem pretty ignorant.


Quote one saying that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You obviously didn’t read your own definition of potential energy. you know nothing about Newtonian  “ Fizicks” do you..


You failed to explain it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> How could uranium potential energy come from the sun without actual uranium existing on the sun?





Dagosa said:


> Never did say that illiterate…can’t you read ? Geesus, you have to be an alien.


"*The potential energy from uranium came from the gravitational energy of the sun"*


----------



## San Souci (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Nope. The congress does not initiate the budget prossess  nor does it sign budget laws into effect. No budget. No budget can be passed without the president’s signature or super majority which Dems did not have. GOP had total and majority control of the Govt for 6 of 8 years-under Bush. The administration is called the administration because they spend the money or not. The admin can spend money it does not have through a special budget  process call reconciliation which Bush did to go into deep debt and drive the country into a recession to prosecute an a war it never paid for. They can even override a super majority decision.....which the Bush admin did.


The Sub standard lending practice was initiated by DEMOCRATS. Took a while. But most of 'em went bust.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The gop is the party of freebies. It spends and spends and cuts revenue going into debt with regularity. Since Reagan, Republicans have totally committed to trickle down, voodoo economics with all but one of the last 11 recessions under their budgets. Nope......it’s all about the gop incompetence and now their support for treason. They are the most corrupt party in the history of the US.


Bullshit. Clinton got the BENEFIT of Reagans prosperity. That is why HE was mostly successful. His first 2 years sucked.  When the Repubs trounced him in the Mid Year election ,Clinton learned to COMPROMISE ,something Senile Biden better learn.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 21, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Bullshit. Clinton got the BENEFIT of Reagans prosperity. That is why HE was mostly successful. His first 2 years sucked.  When the Repubs trounced him in the Mid Year election ,Clinton learned to COMPROMISE ,something Senile Biden better learn.


His first two years sucked because we were still on  Reaganomics. Clinton passed bills his first two years that ultimately mandated limited increases in spending……hilarious, since he proved he was more fiscally responsible then repugnants who spent like drunken sailors. They just refused to pay and run up deficits.

 Btw, that wonderful Reagan had 2 recessions. His economic plans sucked for deficits and the environment. You’re FOS.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 21, 2022)

San Souci said:


> something Senile Biden better learn.


The only thing liberals need to compromise on, is other liberal ideas. The gop has devolved into do nothing fear mongerers  who let lobbyist actually write their budgets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> he proved he was more fiscally responsible then repugnants who spent like drunken sailors.



Yeah, the government shut down was because he wanted to spend less than the Republicans. DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> His first two years sucked because we were still on  Reaganomics. Clinton passed bills his first two years that ultimately mandated limited increases in spending……hilarious, since he proved he was more fiscally responsible then repugnants who spent like drunken sailors. They just refused to pay and run up deficits.
> 
> Btw, that wonderful Reagan had 2 recessions. His economic plans sucked for deficits and the environment. You’re FOS.



*Btw, that wonderful Reagan had 2 recessions.*

Liar.

One recession, July 1981-November 1982.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Btw, that wonderful Reagan had 2 recessions.*
> 
> Liar.
> 
> One recession, July 1981-November 1982.


You are ignorant aren’t you.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, the government shut down was because he wanted to spend less than the Republicans. DURR


oh, just one ? Just like all the rest of the gop along with the biggest increase deficits EVER to that point. Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible. You all want freebies.

btw, Reagan’s RECESSION was so bad it  was a double dip and counts as two.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You are ignorant aren’t you.
> 
> oh, just one ? Just like all the rest of the gop along with the biggest increase deficits EVER to that point. Conservatives are fiscally irresponsible. You all want freebies.
> 
> btw, Reagan’s RECESSION was so bad it  was a double dip and counts as two.



*You are ignorant aren’t you.

oh, just one ? *

I knew he only had 1 recession, moron.

*Reagan’s RECESSION was so bad it  was a double dip and counts as two.*

Carter had one and Reagan had one, idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You are ignorant aren’t you.
> 
> oh, just one ? *
> 
> ...


So Reagan is being compared to Carter. That’s hilarious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So Reagan is being compared to Carter. That’s hilarious.



Hardly. Reagan was infinitely better than Carter.

Have you figured out yet that Reagan's recession was July 1981-November 1982
and Carter's recession was January 1980-July 1980?

Or are you still retarded?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You are ignorant aren’t you.
> 
> oh, just one ? *
> 
> ...


A double dipper…










						Reagan’s Recession
					

In the depths of the 1981-1982 recession, Americans were far more displeased with their president and his policies than were their predecessors during the Great Depression, more so even than in today's high-unemployment economy.




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> A double dipper…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Carter was the first one. Moron.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 21, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The only thing liberals need to compromise on, is other liberal ideas. The gop has devolved into do nothing fear mongerers  who let lobbyist actually write their budgets.


Fear mongerers? Global Warming is YOUR bag. Racism is YOUR bag. Yet the biggests RACISTS are Al Sharpton ,Louis Farrakhan , Lori Stinkfoot of Chicago , and BLM/  Global warming? That retard Grete Thornbird has a spaz attack at the UN. And that is Rational? Clinton ,in his first year ,did a massive TAX increase. Then he turned HealthCare over to his Bitch Wife. Which FAILED even with a Dem House and Senate. Then he got rational and compromised. Doing that ,he won a second term. Try a History book ,numbnuts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The only thing liberals need to compromise on, is other liberal ideas. The gop has devolved into do nothing fear mongerers  who let lobbyist actually write their budgets.


It's funny how everything you accuse Republicans of is what Democrats are guilty of.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 22, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> It's funny how everything you accuse Republicans of is what Democrats are guilty of.


Really ? How many recessions and  impeachments and complete disregard for science do you need. Your leader is a traitor.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 22, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Global Warming is YOUR bag.


Global warming is the “bag “ of every cl8mate reader h facility in the world, every govt, university, military major corporation. Sure, it’s only a liberal bag. That means everyone is liberal. Btw,mis Moscow Mitch now a liberal ?

That it’s not your bag simply means you're admitting to stupidity.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really ? How many recessions and  impeachments and complete disregard for science do you need. Your leader is a traitor.


Do I need for what, to prove that you're a douche nozzle?


----------



## San Souci (Sep 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Global warming is the “bag “ of every cl8mate reader h facility in the world, every govt, university, military major corporation. Sure, it’s only a liberal bag. That means everyone is liberal. Btw,mis Moscow Mitch now a liberal ?
> 
> That it’s not your bag simply means you're admitting to stupidity.


Nope. Global Warming is fake science. Ya know what they are bellyaching and fearmongering about? That the mean Temp might go up 2 degrees by 2050. FACT. Will the world burn up? NO. Clue to the Clueless--There are OTHER issues far more important right now. China ,the BORDER ,and a massive RECESSION. In case ya haven't heard.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 25, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Nope. Global Warming is fake science. Ya know what they are bellyaching and fearmongering about? That the mean Temp might go up 2 degrees by 2050. FACT. Will the world burn up? NO. Clue to the Clueless--There are OTHER issues far more important right now. China ,the BORDER ,and a massive RECESSION. In case ya haven't heard.


NASA thinks you’re full of shit…..


----------



## San Souci (Sep 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> NASA thinks you’re full of shit…..


NASA is a Gov't bureaucracy now. Run by filthy Democrats.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 25, 2022)

San Souci said:


> NASA is a Gov't bureaucracy now. Run by filthy Democrats.


Even under  Trump and Bush ? They promoted CC.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Even under  Trump and Bush ? They promoted CC.


No. Democrats always fuck good programs up.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

San Souci said:


> No. Democrats always fuck good programs up.


10 of the last 11 recessions are gop inspired. Trickle down economics and fear of science has led the repugnants to a party with no policies, just back Trump and his minions as they go from one face saving blather to another, making up shit along the way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> 10 of the last 11 recessions are gop inspired. Trickle down economics and fear of science has led the repugnants to a party with no policies, just back Trump and his minions as they go from one face saving blather to another, making up shit along the way.



*10 of the last 11 recessions are gop inspired. *

You're counting Carter's recession as a Dem recession?

Why the sudden change?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

San Souci said:


> NASA is a Gov't bureaucracy now. Run by filthy Democrats.


Funny, your ass depends on them. Just lIke you’re SS and Medicare is totally dependent on democrats. Repugnants plan to completely eliminate both federal programs.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *10 of the last 11 recessions are gop inspired. *
> 
> You're counting Carter's recession as a Dem recession?
> 
> Why the sudden change?


. That’s not hard to figure out. So dufus repugnants are batting .900. If you like recessions, vote repugnant .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> . That’s not hard to figure out. So dufus repugnants are batting .900. If you like recessions, vote repugnant .



You were wrong? Reagan didn't have two?

I guess old Dem morons can learn a thing or two.

Now about that energy uranium got from the gravitational energy of the sun....LOL!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You were wrong? Reagan didn't have two?
> 
> I guess old Dem morons can learn a thing or two.
> 
> Now about that energy uranium got from the gravitational energy of the sun....LOL!


Reagan had a double dipper. It counts as two. You’re confused with the recession he started with…..
If Trump can take credit the day he takes office for Obama policies, then we can now say, Reagan had three recessions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Reagan had a double dipper. It counts as two. You’re confused with the recession he started with…..
> If Trump can take credit the day he takes office for Obama policies, then we can now say, Reagan had three recessions.



*Reagan had a double dipper. It counts as two.*

Reagan had one recession. It counts as one because it is one.

*You’re confused with the recession he started with…..*

Started in July 1981, ended in November 1982. You're the only one who is confused.

*then we can now say, Reagan had three recessions.*

Only a moron would say that. There you are!!!


Now about that energy uranium got from the gravitational energy of the sun....LOL!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Reagan had a double dipper. It counts as two.*
> 
> Reagan had one recession. It counts as one because it is one.
> 
> ...


Reagan was in office for nearly two years of recessions. Sounds like it was his, both of them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Reagan was in office for nearly two years of recessions. Sounds like it was his, both of them.



One entire recession.

Only an idiot would credit Reagan for one that ended months before he was elected.

Are you that idiot?


----------



## San Souci (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Funny, your ass depends on them. Just lIke you’re SS and Medicare is totally dependent on democrats. Repugnants plan to completely eliminate both federal programs.


Says who? Swallwell? Schiff? CNN? No Repub said anything about ending SS and Medicare. You are a fuckin' Liar.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> 10 of the last 11 recessions are gop inspired. Trickle down economics and fear of science has led the repugnants to a party with no policies, just back Trump and his minions as they go from one face saving blather to another, making up shit along the way.


Let us break that down ,Fucknut. Issues? Repubs--Crime ,Inflation ,Energy , China , The Border , and the Economy. Dems? Fear mongering ,Race Baiting ,and fake Global Warming.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Let us break that down ,Fucknut. Issues? Repubs--Crime ,Inflation ,Energy , China , The Border , and the Economy. Dems? Fear mongering ,Race Baiting ,and fake Global Warming.


Fake global warming…ha ha
Seriously, you must live in yo ma ma ‘s basement.
The economy ? They are the worse bag lappers on all economic issues.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

San Souci said:


> No Repub said anything about ending SS and Medicare. You are a fuckin' Liar.





San Souci said:


> Says who? Swallwell? Schiff? CNN? No Repub said anything about ending SS and Medicare. You are a fuckin' Liar.


Wrong shit head 
Ron Johnson advocates cutting both..
So you’re full of shit.
”Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.”

Approved on an annual basis…..you have to be shitting me. Make no plans……



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/03/ron-johnson-medicare-social-security/


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> One entire recession.
> 
> Only an idiot would credit Reagan for one that ended months before he was elected.
> 
> Are you that idiot?


Months ? you Can’t  count  can you ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Months ? you Can’t  count  can you ?



Yes, Carter's recession ended months before Reagan was elected.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong shit head
> Ron Johnson advocates cutting both..
> So you’re full of shit.
> ”Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.”
> ...


WaPo? PPFFFFFFTTTTT!


----------



## San Souci (Sep 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Fake global warming…ha ha
> Seriously, you must live in yo ma ma ‘s basement.
> The economy ? They are the worse bag lappers on all economic issues.


Yes. Fake. Where is your PROOF? There are just as many Scientists who say it ain't so. But they never get heard about on CNN. And who the fuck cares? What if it does get 2 degrees hotter by 2050? Here is a guess ,but I don't believe the world will burn up over 2 degrees.---But let us say ,just to be ignorant like you ,that it DOES warm up a bit. Vast Tundra land will lose its perma frost and open up grazing land and farm land in Siberia and Northern Canada. So what if Africa gets hotter? Or the Amazon? Nothing useful ever came out of either.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Yes. Fake. Where is your PROOF?


You have to be shitting me. You must be a Neanderthal reading inbred .

Every gov, university and major related corp in the world is my proof.
You can’t find one of them who sides with you.

Go ahead. Give us just one…


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Yes. Fake. Where is your PROOF? There are just as many Scientists who say it ain't so. But they never get heard about on CNN. And who the fuck cares? What if it does get 2 degrees hotter by 2050? Here is a guess ,but I don't believe the world will burn up over 2 degrees.---But let us say ,just to be ignorant like you ,that it DOES warm up a bit. Vast Tundra land will lose its perma frost and open up grazing land and farm land in Siberia and Northern Canada. So what if Africa gets hotter? Or the Amazon? Nothing useful ever came out of either.


Name one gov or major corporation that agrees with you idiots. Post their web site….waiting.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Name one gov or major corporation that agrees with you idiots. Post their web site….waiting.


Naw. I don't worry about Libby scare talk.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Naw. I don't worry about Libby scare talk.


Obviously you guys are in total denial. No one of any consequence agrees with you. You live in a field of dreams. Of all the climate related institutions, agencies and authorities, you a-holes are full of shit.
You can’t name anyone but dufus derelicts as bogus evidence.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Yes. Fake. Where is your PROOF? There are just as many Scientists who say it ain't so. But they never get heard about on CNN. And who the fuck cares? What if it does get 2 degrees hotter by 2050? Here is a guess ,but I don't believe the world will burn up over 2 degrees.---But let us say ,just to be ignorant like you ,that it DOES warm up a bit. Vast Tundra land will lose its perma frost and open up grazing land and farm land in Siberia and Northern Canada. So what if Africa gets hotter? Or the Amazon? Nothing useful ever came out of either.


Listen to you. You’ve gone from total denial to, “ so what if it is true? “
You obviously are ignorant that the root cause of immigration of peoples from Central America in increasing numbers are directly due to climate change. What a fool. The non Democratic govts are ill equipped  and unwilling to address the plights of their people and severe droughts that cause it.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Naw. I don't worry about Libby scare talk.


At least Libby talk is science based not the bogus shit you guys wallow in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Listen to you. You’ve gone from total denial to, “ so what if it is true? “
> You obviously are ignorant that the root cause of immigration of peoples from Central America in increasing numbers are directly due to climate change. What a fool. The non Democratic govts are ill equipped  and unwilling to address the plights of their people and severe droughts that cause it.



*You obviously are ignorant that the root cause of immigration of peoples from Central America in increasing numbers are directly due to climate change. *

If they stay here they will release more CO2 and kill the planet.

Don't make Gaia cry, deport the illegals!!!!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You obviously are ignorant that the root cause of immigration of peoples from Central America in increasing numbers are directly due to climate change. *
> 
> If they stay here they will release more CO2 and kill the planet.
> 
> Don't make Gaia cry, deport the illegals!!!!


Boring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Boring.



And yet true.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And yet true.


What’s true is, the increased MIGRATION  problem IS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO CLIMATE  CHANGE.





						Climate Change and Migration | Duke University Center for International and Global Studies
					

In this brief, Ducigs fellow Piotr Plewa analyzes causes, possible scenarios and policy recommendations related to climate migration, drawing--among other sources--from the recent World Bank report: "Groundswell II".




					igs.duke.edu


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What’s true is, the increased MIGRATION  problem IS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO CLIMATE  CHANGE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you want to make climate change worse by admitting millions of illegal aliens.

You should be ashamed.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you want to make climate change worse by admitting millions of illegal aliens.
> 
> You should be ashamed.


So admit we have AGW induced climate change.
BTW, its dumb to claim they are illegal if they are admitted. Have no idea what that means.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If they stay here they will release more CO2 and kill the planet.


Ha ha
You really are illiterate . They will emit CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of where they live. What a dumb remark.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So admit we have AGW induced climate change.
> BTW, its dumb to claim they are illegal if they are admitted. Have no idea what that means.



If CO2 is the worst thing in the world, why do you want the US to release more
by allowing millions of illegal aliens to stay here?

The biggest drop in CO2 we could accomplish is to deport 20 million illegal aliens.

*its dumb to claim they are illegal if they are admitted.*

If they're illegal, why does the Biden administration send them around the country instead of
immediately deporting them? Does he want CO2 to increase?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You really are illiterate . They will emit CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of where they live. What a dumb remark.



Yes, you stupid twat, but illegal aliens in the US release a lot more here than 
they would in their shithole of origin. Moron!


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, you stupid twat, but illegal aliens in the US release a lot more here than
> they would in their shithole of origin. Moron!


Really ? How is that ? They grow bigger mouths ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really ? How is that ? They grow bigger mouths ?



Because we have a higher standard of living than their shithole, shithead.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Obviously you guys are in total denial. No one of any consequence agrees with you. You live in a field of dreams. Of all the climate related institutions, agencies and authorities, you a-holes are full of shit.
> You can’t name anyone but dufus derelicts as bogus evidence.


True. No Democrat agrees with me. They are of no consequence.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Listen to you. You’ve gone from total denial to, “ so what if it is true? “
> You obviously are ignorant that the root cause of immigration of peoples from Central America in increasing numbers are directly due to climate change. What a fool. The non Democratic govts are ill equipped  and unwilling to address the plights of their people and severe droughts that cause it.


What if the Sky falls? Same chance.


----------



## San Souci (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> At least Libby talk is science based not the bogus shit you guys wallow in.


AOC tell ya that? Or was it that ugly Spaz Greta Thornbird?


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

San Souci said:


> AOC tell ya that? Or was it that ugly Spaz Greta Thornbird?


Another goober.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

San Souci said:


> What if the Sky falls? Same chance.


You run to the Govt for help. Like you frauds always do.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 5, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You run to the Govt for help. Like you frauds always do.


Nope. Only Dems go on Welfare. And anyone who believes the World is in danger from climate is Chicken Little.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 6, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Nope. Only Dems go on Welfare. And anyone who believes the World is in danger from climate is Chicken Little.


The entire gop is on welfare. You cut taxes then spend like drunken sailors. You’re deficits are record breaking every time you come  to power. No one wants something for nothing more then idiot conservatives. Your recessions prove it. You love  your Medicare and SS and whine because you say Dems are socialists; hypocrites.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 6, 2022)

How big a factor was planned obsolescence in the economy before The Great Depression versus after WWII?

But notice that our economists do not talk about the depreciation of durable consumer junk.










The first graphic is similar to what you will find in Economics textbooks. The second is what actually happens in the real world.

John Maynard Keynes died in 1946. Did he ever see a television commercial for automobiles? 

Then we ship e-waste to Africa.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 6, 2022)

No president deserves credit (or blame) for national economic changes that take place during his first year in office.


----------



## Dayton3 (Oct 6, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The entire gop is on welfare. You cut taxes then spend like drunken sailors. You’re deficits are record breaking every time you come  to power. No one wants something for nothing more then idiot conservatives. Your recessions prove it. You love  your Medicare and SS and whine because you say Dems are socialists; hypocrites.



Not me.    The only things I believe in the U.S. federal govt.  spending money on is defense and the space program.   Plus a small amount for a modest safety net.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 6, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The entire gop is on welfare. You cut taxes then spend like drunken sailors. You’re deficits are record breaking every time you come  to power. No one wants something for nothing more then idiot conservatives. Your recessions prove it. You love  your Medicare and SS and whine because you say Dems are socialists; hypocrites.


39 Million people on welfare.They all voted Democrat. ---Seems you are forgetting the 5 TRILLION Biden just spent. What a moron.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 7, 2022)

San Souci said:


> 39 Million people on welfare.They all voted Democrat. ---Seems you are forgetting the 5 TRILLION Biden just spent. What a moron.


Hilarious. Look at the gop. They are all on corporate welfare. You lazy ass frauds spend like drunken sailors then cut corporate taxes. Too fking lazy to understand science, the gop literally, let’s corporate donors write their budgets. The gop has been sucking from the govt and corporate trough for decades…..since idiot trickle down advocate Reagan.


----------



## Likkmee (Oct 7, 2022)

Worst ? Gerald Ford ?


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 7, 2022)

San Souci said:


> 39 Million people on welfare.They all voted Democrat. ---Seems you are forgetting the 5 TRILLION Biden just spent. What a moron.


Really ? Everyone on SS and Medicare are all democrats ? 
Seems like fat old white retired Humpers still love their monthly govt checks and Medicare healthcare.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 7, 2022)

San Souci said:


> AOC tell ya that? Or was it that ugly Spaz Greta Thornbird?


Hilarious. Being * an idiot non science believer and trickle down buffoon   is the the basic initiation into the MAGA QANON derangement syndrome which now dominates the fat cats of the gop. You’re just jealous because you have so many  coyote ugly brainless female Humpers.


----------



## U2Edge (Oct 8, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for September 2022 was 3.5%. This is the 21st unemployment report with Biden in office, his 21st month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.69% in August 2022 to 4.63% in September 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.63%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.3% for September 2022, down from 62.4% in August 2022.



Joe Biden is on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment rate of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## San Souci (Oct 11, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hilarious. Being * an idiot non science believer and trickle down buffoon   is the the basic initiation into the MAGA QANON derangement syndrome which now dominates the fat cats of the gop. You’re just jealous because you have so many  coyote ugly brainless female Humpers.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 12, 2022)

San Souci said:


>


Had to did deep for that one.....they’re few and far between. And most you had to pay.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 13, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Had to did deep for that one.....they’re few and far between. And most you had to pay.


Fact. Feminazis are ALL UGLEEEE!


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 14, 2022)

San Souci said:


> Fact. Feminazis are ALL UGLEEEE!


The minion speaks. They have nothing tell us.....


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2022)

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2022 was 3.7%. This is the 23rd unemployment report with Biden in office, his 23rd month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.63% in September 2022 to 4.55% in November 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.55%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.1% for November 2022, down from 62.2% in October 2022.



Joe Biden is on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment rate of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## gipper (Dec 13, 2022)

Do you think he had anything to do with this?


----------



## Dayton3 (Dec 13, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2022 was 3.7%. This is the 23rd unemployment report with Biden in office, his 23rd month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.63% in September 2022 to 4.55% in November 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...



And why do you (and others) give Biden any credit for this?


----------



## Concerned American (Dec 13, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2022 was 3.7%. This is the 23rd unemployment report with Biden in office, his 23rd month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.63% in September 2022 to 4.55% in November 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


You want to buy a bridge?


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 13, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> You want to buy a bridge?


Why...does Elon have to sell one to keep twitter afloat?


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 13, 2022)

gipper said:


> Do you think he had anything to do with this?



The U.S. Federal government plays a significant role in the economic health of the nation. With Joe Biden being the President for nearly two years, the answer to your question is yes.


----------



## gipper (Dec 13, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The U.S. Federal government plays a significant role in the economic health of the nation. With Joe Biden being the President for nearly two years, the answer to your question is yes.


He certainly does like to screw the working class.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 13, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for November 2022 was 3.7%. This is the 23rd unemployment report with Biden in office, his 23rd month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.63% in September 2022 to 4.55% in November 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...


It seems you wait until you forget that when we post the underlying details, Biden looks like a clown.
And no, I will not post what has already been posted several dozen times.


----------



## Dayton3 (Dec 13, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The U.S. Federal government plays a significant role in the economic health of the nation. With Joe Biden being the President for nearly two years, the answer to your question is yes.


Exactly what did President Joe Biden do to lower the unemployment rate?


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 13, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Exactly what did President Joe Biden do to lower the unemployment rate?


Biden gave out extra checks so no one bothered to look for a job and thus could not file for unemployment.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2022)

gipper said:


> Do you think he had anything to do with this?


Here we go with this shit again.  

Yes, the infrastructure bill alone has made a huge impact.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Biden gave out extra checks so no one bothered to look for a job and thus could not file for unemployment.


Aren't they fixing the roads, bridges and schools in your state?  They are in MI.


----------



## Dayton3 (Dec 13, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Here we go with this shit again.
> 
> Yes, the infrastructure bill alone has made a huge impact.



How?   Be specific please.


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The U.S. Federal government plays a significant role in the economic health of the nation. With Joe Biden being the President for nearly two years, the answer to your question is yes.


So glad Trump lost because otherwise the war in Yemen would still be going and the Iran deal would still be dead and Roe v Wade would've been repealed and there'd still be immigrant kids in cages. The bastard would probably have us on the brink of World War Three by now.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 14, 2022)

gipper said:


> Do you think he had anything to do with this?


Do you think Trump had anything to do with inheriting a growing economy…..nope. Old shit fir brains orange man spent his time handling out false information.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 14, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Aren't they fixing the roads, bridges and schools in your state?  They are in MI.


They started a few months after Trump’s tax break.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> How?   Be specific please.


If you have to ask....


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Do you think Trump had anything to do with inheriting a growing economy…..nope. Old shit fir brains orange man spent his time handling out false information.


So glad Trump lost because otherwise the war in Yemen would still be going and the Iran deal would still be dead and Roe v Wade would've been repealed and there'd still be immigrant kids in cages. The bastard would probably have us on the brink of World War Three by now.

If only you could think.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 14, 2022)

Dayton3 said:


> Exactly what did President Joe Biden do to lower the unemployment rate?


Targeted government spending towards sectors of the economy that helped GDP grow after the downturn caused by the pandemic. Better relationships and trade with other countries around the world, as opposed to Trump's protectionism. Better health care policy and strategy towards fighting the pandemic, helping bring infections and death down, and allow the market to breath again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> Targeted government spending towards sectors of the economy that helped GDP grow after the downturn caused by the pandemic. Better relationships and trade with other countries around the world, as opposed to Trump's protectionism. Better health care policy and strategy towards fighting the pandemic, helping bring infections and death down, and allow the market to breath again.



LOL!
Good one.
No, really, what did he do?


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 14, 2022)

gipper said:


> So glad Trump lost because otherwise the war in Yemen would still be going and the Iran deal would still be dead and Roe v Wade would've been repealed and there'd still be immigrant kids in cages. The bastard would probably have us on the brink of World War Three by now.
> 
> If only you could think.


That could be the most  accurate post you ever made, even in jest. Up is down, down is up for Humpers.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...


This hasn't aged well.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL!
> Good one.
> No, really, what did he do?


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That could be the most  accurate post you ever made, even in jest. Up is down, down is up for Humpers.


You need to pay attention to my posts. You’ll learn so much.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 14, 2022)

gipper said:


> You need to pay attention to my posts. You’ll learn so much.


HumpERs and science deniers have nothing of any consequence   to say. If they think they  make a valid point, it’s by mistake and unintentional.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> This hasn't aged well.


Inheriting a deep recession on Inauguration Day will make you look bad. The gop still whines when they burn a house down with a recession, then complain because the carpenter isn’t repairing it fast enough. Repugnants were at the head of every recession where unemployment begins, for decades.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Inheriting a deep recession on Inauguration Day will make you look bad. The gop still whines when they burn a house down with a recession, then complain because the carpenter isn’t repairing it fast enough. Repugnants were at the head of every recession where unemployment begins, for decades.


There's a thin line between Love and Bait...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Inheriting a deep recession on Inauguration Day will make you look bad. The gop still whines when they burn a house down with a recession, then complain because the carpenter isn’t repairing it fast enough. Repugnants were at the head of every recession where unemployment begins, for decades.



Plus, he made things worse.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Plus, he made things worse.


How so?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> How so?



Attacking business, sucking up to our enemies, insulting our friends, adding stupid regulations.
I could go on and on.


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> HumpERs and science deniers have nothing of any consequence   to say. If they think they  make a valid point, it’s by mistake and unintentional.


Lol. Who’s a humper and science denier?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Attacking business, sucking up to our enemies, insulting our friends, adding stupid regulations.
> I could go on and on.


Let me know if you have anything measurable


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Let me know if you have anything measurable



Like the slowest recovery ever?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like the slowest recovery ever?


Before Grifty snuffed it, it became the longest ever...

It was also the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Before Grifty snuffed it, it became the longest ever...
> 
> It was also the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970...



Slowest recovery ever.

*It was also the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970..*

What?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Slowest recovery ever.
> 
> *It was also the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970..*
> 
> What?


That's right..


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> That's right..



Besides the slowest recovery ever, how was the 2008 recession "*the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970.."?*


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Besides the slowest recovery ever, how was the 2008 recession "*the one with the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970.."?*


I just showed you, Toddy.

Can't you read a chart?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


>



Nearly $10 trillion added to the debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> I just showed you, Toddy.
> 
> Can't you read a chart?



Almost doubling the debt is "*the least fiscal support of all recessions since 1970.."*?

That's funny.


----------



## Toro (Dec 14, 2022)

U2Edge said:


> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> *Barrack Obama: 8.86%*
> 
> ...



LOL  no


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 14, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nearly $10 trillion added to the debt.


No, Toddy...

That's StupidMath.

Method 3: How Obama's Policies Increased the Debt​The third method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done that for many of them.

When all of this is added up, Obama and his policies increased the national debt by $2.8 trillion.

How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?


----------



## Toro (Dec 14, 2022)

Reagan at 7.51%, based on average monthly unemployment rates.

Biden?

< Trump

LOL






Data can be downloaded from here.









						Unemployment Rate
					

View data of the unemployment rate, or the number of people 16 and over actively searching for a job as a percentage of the total labor force.



					fred.stlouisfed.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> No, Toddy...
> 
> That's StupidMath.
> 
> ...



Poor helpless Obama.
He dindu nuffin'.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Poor helpless Obama.
> He dindu nuffin'.


RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists


#8, with a bullet, Toddy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> RANKED: The greatest US presidents, according to political scientists
> 
> 
> #8, with a bullet, Toddy.



Idiots like idiots, eh?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Idiots like idiots, eh?


Toddy,


Do you like Grifty?

Do you hold a PhD?

Will this require a crayon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Toddy,
> 
> 
> Do you like Grifty?
> ...



Slowest recovery ever.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Slowest recovery ever.


The longest expansion in US History..

All while cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> The longest expansion in US History..
> 
> All while cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.



Added nearly $10 trillion to the debt.
While we had the weakest recovery ever.

*The longest expansion in US History..*

Obama's recovery was weak.........but it was long too.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Added nearly $10 trillion to the debt.
> While we had the weakest recovery ever.
> 
> *The longest expansion in US History..*
> ...


We just went over this, Toddy...

Are you slow?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> We just went over this, Toddy...
> 
> Are you slow?



I know. I'm still waiting for your math showing I was wrong.

Do you need help with math? I know it was difficult for you.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know. I'm still waiting for your math showing I was wrong.
> 
> Do you need help with math? I know it was difficult for you.


What math did you post, Toddy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> What math did you post, Toddy?



Obama added nearly $10 trillion to the debt.
You have math showing he didn't?

Obama had the weakest recovery ever. 
You have math showing he didn't?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obama added nearly $10 trillion to the debt.
> You have math showing he didn't?
> 
> Obama had the weakest recovery ever.
> You have math showing he didn't?




CBO's math says he didn't...

That's because CBO understands the idea of "structural deficit"...before Obama was inaugurated, the CBO projected nearly 6 trillion in deficits over the next decade before Obama spent a dime.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> CBO's math says he didn't...
> 
> That's because CBO understands the idea of "structural deficit"...before Obama was inaugurated, the CBO projected nearly 6 trillion in deficits over the next decade before Obama spent a dime.



Obama was powerless to change anything that happened before he came into office?

Poor guy. Who knew he was so weak?

*the CBO projected nearly 6 trillion in deficits over the next decade before Obama spent a dime.*

And that was even before his weakest recovery ever.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obama was powerless to change anything that happened before he came into office?
> 
> Poor guy. Who knew he was so weak?
> 
> ...


Toddy,

I think it is well established that you aren't equipped for this debate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Toddy,
> 
> I think it is well established that you aren't equipped for this debate.



Still waiting for your math.

Maybe you can use math to show he didn't have the weakest recovery?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still waiting for your math.
> 
> Maybe you can use math to show he didn't have the weakest recovery?



What math shows he did?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> What math shows he did?











						Obama Wins The Gold For Worst Economic Recovery Ever
					

If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accepting the gold medal.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obama Wins The Gold For Worst Economic Recovery Ever
> 
> 
> If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accepting the gold medal.
> ...


Toddy,

You went for a random Google hunt and found Louis Woodhill.

Is Louis an economist?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Toddy,
> 
> You went for a random Google hunt and found Louis Woodhill.
> 
> Is Louis an economist?



So you still have no math that shows Obama didn't have the weakest recovery ever?

How badly did I kick the ass of your previous screen names?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you still have no math that shows Obama didn't have the weakest recovery ever?
> 
> How badly did I kick the ass of your previous screen names?


Toddy,

Your only evidence is Mr. Woodhill...

Mr. Woodhill is an amateur


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Toddy,
> 
> Your only evidence is Mr. Woodhill...
> 
> Mr. Woodhill is an amateur



You think that's the only evidence for Obama's weak GDP numbers?

Are you drunk? Hillary? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> Toddy,
> 
> Your only evidence is Mr. Woodhill...
> 
> Mr. Woodhill is an amateur












						Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era
					

Despite longevity, total growth during this economic expansion is lower than for much shorter business cycles.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You think that's the only evidence for Obama's weak GDP numbers?
> 
> Are you drunk? Hillary? LOL!


How do they compare to Grifty's?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> How do they compare to Grifty's?



Bad at math and ESL?


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you still have no math that shows Obama didn't have the weakest recovery ever?
> 
> How badly did I kick the ass of your previous screen names?



Makes no difference, since we all know Bush caused it and it eventually got better under Obama.
Could be it would have gotten better under almost anyone other than Bush.
But it does not appear Obama did badly.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era
> 
> 
> Despite longevity, total growth during this economic expansion is lower than for much shorter business cycles.
> ...


_The economy has grown at a 2.1% annual rate since the U.S. recovery began in mid-2009, according to gross-domestic-product data the Commerce Department released Friday._

Which is better than the avg annual growth rate of the past 3 republican administrations


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Makes no difference, since we all know Bush caused it and it eventually got better under Obama.
> Could be it would have gotten better under almost anyone other than Bush.
> But it does not appear Obama did badly.



*Makes no difference, since we all know Bush caused it *

How did Bush do that?

*But it does not appear Obama did badly.*

Besides the weakest recovery ever. And the nearly $10 trillion in new debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2022)

The5thHorseman said:


> _The economy has grown at a 2.1% annual rate since the U.S. recovery began in mid-2009, according to gross-domestic-product data the Commerce Department released Friday._
> 
> Which is better than the avg annual growth rate of the past 3 republican administrations



*Economic growth is now tracking at a 1% rate in 2016—the weakest start to a year since 2011—when combined with a downwardly revised reading for the first quarter. That makes for an annual average rate of 2.1% growth since the end of the recession, the weakest pace of any expansion since at least 1949.*

Weakest pace? Weird.

_Which is better than the avg annual growth rate of the past 3 republican administrations_

Show your math.


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Makes no difference, since we all know Bush caused it *
> 
> How did Bush do that?
> 
> ...


Where is your math, Toddy?


----------



## The5thHorseman (Dec 15, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Economic growth is now tracking at a 1% rate in 2016—the weakest start to a year since 2011—when combined with a downwardly revised reading for the first quarter. That makes for an annual average rate of 2.1% growth since the end of the recession, the weakest pace of any expansion since at least 1949.*
> 
> Weakest pace? Weird.
> 
> ...


----------



## U2Edge (Friday at 9:11 AM)

The monthly unemployment rate for December 2022 was 3.5%. This is the 24th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 24th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.55% in November 2022 to 4.50% in December 2022.

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

*Gerald Ford: 7.77%*

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
*03. Joe Biden: 4.50%*
04. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
05. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
*06. Donald Trump: 5.01%*
07. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
08. George W. Bush: 5.27%
09. John Kennedy: 5.98%
10. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
11. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
*12. Barack Obama: 7.45%*
13. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
14. Gerald Ford: 7.77%

The labor force Participation rate was 62.3% for December 2022, up from 62.2% in November 2022.



Joe Biden is on track to have the lowest average monthly unemployment rate of any U.S. President in history!


----------



## Likkmee (Friday at 9:12 AM)

U2Edge said:


> The monthly unemployment rate for December 2022 was 3.5%. This is the 24th unemployment report with Biden in office, his 24th month recorded for this list. This brings Biden's average unemployment rate for his term in office to date, down from 4.55% in November 2022 to 4.50% in December 2022.
> 
> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?
> 
> ...











						Cooler hiring and milder pay gains could aid inflation fight
					

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s employers added a solid 223,000 jobs in December, evidence that the economy remains healthy even as the Federal Reserve is rapidly raising interest rates to try to slow economic growth and the pace of hiring .




					apnews.com


----------

