Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[IcebergSlim]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

Pretty sure you're supposed to end that with a question mark, given that it's a question.

Give me one single piece of legislation Obama has passed to help any of those things.

Actually, yes, had he done nothing, the Nation's economy would have repaired itself quicker.

You also seem to be under the impression that it makes sense to compare two Establishment Servants to each other, when in fact, they serve the same masters.

Actually, yes, had he done nothing, the Nation's economy would have repaired itself quicker.


Please elaborate.....

 

[kaz]

Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

 

[IcebergSlim]

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

Fallacy of the single cause

Bray that mantra to the idiot arguing such "single causes".....

It ain't me...

It is you, donkey, "Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009...."

Textbook single cause fallacy. Jesus, it was in your quote. I know you're not reading other people's quotes, but you aren't even reading your own?

 

[kaz]

Already did, multiple times. You really are lost

I'm multitasking........how about linking me to the post in this exchange where you do so....

Why would I waste 30 seconds when you either can't or don't read posts when you respond to them?

It would have taken you much less time to post the link......

The other possibility is that you were lying.....

So because you want me to give you the link in this thread to you that was to you and you didn't process and I won't go find it for you I'm "lying." Got it. Another cookie for you. Moron

You claimed that you had done something.....I asked you to provide the link to it......you declined.......I suggested that one possible reason for you doing so is that you are lying....

How does that make me a "moron"?

It makes you a moron for saying I'm "lying" if I don't want to go fetch posts that were written to you in this thread

 

[KissMy]

There is no such thing as a Tax Cut without Spending Cuts. All that does is multiply as an Inflation Tax on workers & inflate assets owned by wealthy. This is why Trumps Goal is to Devalue the US Dollar.

Bush & the Republican Congress did away with the balanced budget PAYGO rules. The federal surplus in 2000 & 2001 evaporated to record deficit in 2002 & beyond.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?

OK...so you weren't talking about anything that is actually happening......you are hyperventilating over something which you insist is being plotted....

It would be lovely if labor market dynamics organically changed the distribution of income and spread the wealth around to that segment of the population with a high MPC....perhaps it will.....it would certainly be my preference

If it DOESN'T, then the crude tool of distribution through federal tax policy may be necessary.......but what Supply Side steeped morons continually overlook is the benefit of increased demand which results from facilitating consumer spending....I'm of the belief that the reason the Clinton era saw better economic outcomes than the Reagan years was that the share of the "national income" going to labor was at the high end of the historical range...EVERYBODY did better.

Thanks for your concern about how I feel, gay boy, but I'm good. You suck at reading emotions for someone who wants to be a chick. Let's focus on the content, OK?

As for, "How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?"

Strawman

As for how it's a strawman, even though I pointed out it was a strawman, I answered your question in point number 2.

You don't actually read posts, do you?

I do........and it is entirely clear that you "reason" in the manner of a hysterical crack whore.....

That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today

There's only Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow....You've ruled out today......and I am disinclined to believe that you are reminiscing.......

As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do


Looks pretty "Not-Today-or-Yesterday" to me.......

Let me dumb this down for you, don't know if I can enough.

I responded to someone who wants to tax the rich more. That's future. Hence, your brilliant insight that this point wasn't about today is right, but what you didn't grasp is that was on purpose since the point I responded to wasn't about today. Here's a cookie

No...you responded to someone who countered the suggestion that Obama is at fault for the increasing concentration of wealth at the top by pointing out that Congress, not POTUS, has the power to address that.....that is NOT a call for confiscatory taxation - it is merely a comment on the process....

here is the string...

No president can stop the concentration of wealth at the top. But congress can. Who's in charge there, anyway?

You mindless leftists endlessly repeat that inane point without ever saying your plan for how an economy that removes the incentive from job providers to work won't kill jobs down the chain. Why are you so much more obsessed with what others have rather than what you have?

What incentive for job providers to work has been removed?

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

He said more than that in the post I was responding to. So your contention is he was in favor of "the concentration of wealth at the top?"

 

[kaz]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

This is actually a pretty lucid post for you. Well done. No sarcasm intended, though I am mocking you for your usual fare

Now let's see if you can reciprocate....

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

When the Roll of the Incurably Stupid is called.....

Winner x 3 SassyIrishLass gipper kaz​

I guess knowledge beyond yours needs to be ignored, we have to convince you that you're wrong meaning with only information you do know, not tell you things you don't know. But that doesn't leave us much ...

I DEMONSTRATED earlier why the "It's all because of the Fed" theory is total bullshit.......if you didn't understand it, just raise your hand and we'll go over it again....more slowly....

Post #? Note unlike your request to me for a post #, the post I'm asking for wasn't written to me ...

 

[kaz]

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

Look man, if you want to argue with what is being reported constantly on the business news as to the labor participation rate being low and why and people dropping out for the last decade, then I can work with that. If you want me to tell you what is being reported in the news, I'm not interested

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ray

You apparently have no idea what full employment means....

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.

The Marxism is strong in this one

Market wages?

What market remains flat for three decades?

Well, you're wrong about "three" decades, but it has been one and a half decades, and 16 years of W and Obama will do that to you

Really?

 

[kaz]

And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.

The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

The US from 1929 until the 1950s for one. Again, repeating your lie that it's been "three decades" doesn't make it so. It started in the late 90s when the dot com bubble burst. That isn't "nearly three decades" it's a little over 1 and a half

 

[Faun]

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

You're kidding, right?

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.

The Marxism is strong in this one

Market wages?

What market remains flat for three decades?

Well, you're wrong about "three" decades, but it has been one and a half decades, and 16 years of W and Obama will do that to you

Really?

View attachment 88344

How does that contradict what I said?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?

A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?

People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry

Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?

They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.

I mean duh

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

You're full of shit per usual. Please provide a link.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.

The Marxism is strong in this one

Market wages?

What market remains flat for three decades?

Well, you're wrong about "three" decades, but it has been one and a half decades, and 16 years of W and Obama will do that to you

Really?

View attachment 88344

How does that contradict what I said?

Look at the flat line from '79 until '09 there dope.

 

[nat4900]

You have to remember, kaz calls virtually everyone he argues with either gay or a girl. It's his obsessive reaction to getting bitch-slapped with such an astonishingly high rate of frequency.

Didn't know that........Freud would have had something to say about our friend, Kaz's latent urges......LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?

Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

The US from 1929 until the 1950s for one. Again, repeating your lie that it's been "three decades" doesn't make it so. It started in the late 90s when the dot com bubble burst. That isn't "nearly three decades" it's a little over 1 and a half

You didn't answer the question in any way.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

Fallacy of the single cause

Bray that mantra to the idiot arguing such "single causes".....

It ain't me...

It is you, donkey, "Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009...."

Textbook single cause fallacy. Jesus, it was in your quote. I know you're not reading other people's quotes, but you aren't even reading your own?

It was in response to THIS

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

I was REFUTING Ray's "single cause" assertion......

One of us isn't reading........I, on the other hand, sport a magnificent conk....