Fox News Sunday Anchors Upset About Obama's Job Growth:

[edthecynic]

you're a complete idiot and everybody knows it.obama "handled" what he was given by increasing food stamps by 13 MILLION MORE IN HIS SEVENTH YEAR than there were when Bush was President.

And Bush added more than 13 million to the food stamp rolls.

Fewer Americans receiving food stamps

In a further sign of the improving economy, the number of Americans receiving food stamps fell below 46 million people for the first time in more than three years.

As of February 2015, the most recent month available, 45.7 million people are receiving food stamps, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The main reason for the decrease is the improving economy, says Dorothy Rosenbaum, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities, a Washington think tank that advocates for the poor.

During the recession, when unemployment was high, the number of people eligible for food stamps increased. The federal government pumped more money into the program to increase the maximum benefit.

The program "responded as it was designed to, by expanding with an increase in need," Rosenbaum says.

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

this is why nobody takes you idiots seriously. when I mentioned Obama added 13 million to the food stamps rolls it was clear to normal people that this was OVER ABOVE THE LEVEL THEY WERE AT UNDER BUSH, SO OBVIOUSLY THAT NUMBER INDCLUDES THE ONES ADDED UNDER BUSH.

And Bush added more than 13 million over and above the level under Clinton and Clinton passed on a much better economy to Bush than Bush passed on to Obama.

 

[edthecynic]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

 

[bedowin62]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

YOU SEEM to be too stupid to want to admit obama'slevel comes on top of Bush's level. you're comparing the number of people on food stamps from what they were under Clinton to what they were at the end of the bush years you idiot.
that in no way negates or makes phony bush's AVERAGE 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. OBAMA WILL NEVER HAVE THAT.

 

[bedowin62]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

YOU SEEM to be too stupid to want to admit obama'slevel comes on top of Bush's level. you're comparing the number of people on food stamps from what they were under Clinton to what they were at the end of the bush years you idiot.
that in no way negates or makes phony bush's AVERAGE 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. OBAMA WILL NEVER HAVE THAT.

 

[edthecynic]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

YOU SEEM to be too stupid to want to admit obama'slevel comes on top of Bush's level. you're comparing the number of people on food stamps from what they were under Clinton to what they were at the end of the bush years you idiot.
that in no way negates or makes phony bush's AVERAGE 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. OBAMA WILL NEVER HAVE THAT.

You are trying to change the subject that Bush's increases started before his housing crash and then skyrocketed after Bush's housing crash, whereas Obama's numbers are coming down after the continuing damage of Bush's housing crash has been ended. And the fact that the number on food stamps was rising before the crash completely negates and exposes the phoniness of Bush's UE rate!

 

[Faun]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

Rightards are funny. They dump the worst recession in two generations on Obama and then criticize him for low GDP.

 

[healthmyths]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

Rightards are funny. They dump the worst recession in two generations on Obama and then criticize him for low GDP.

And people like you are totally made fools by a president who told you he would be lying to you! He hired a guy who said thanks to the "stupidity of American voter"ACA was passed.
Plus it just seems so strange that people like you have such selective amnesia.
Did a dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion starting under Clinton happen?
Did a minor event (obviously forgettable to you ) known as 9/11 not have any affect on economic growth etc.?
Or all those hurricanes, the worst in history ... no affect on people's lives, businesses, jobs. Right?
Yea ... those events either didn't occur or didn't have any affect on Americans.

That's what I see though. And historians will later consider Bush a great president for keeping America going. For NOT forgetting these events and for sure
NEVER calling our military out as Obama did when he said our military was "air-raiding villages, killing civilians."
It is so obvious how disliked Obama is by the majority of NON-FOOLs like our military who during a recent poll 86% disapproved Obama as Command in Chief.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A conservative institution's uneasy cultural evolution

Tell me you fools for Obama... why would the military hold Obama with such disapproval?
After all he did remove them from Iraq/Afghanistan? He was ONLY thinking of them wasn't he?

 

[Dad2three]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

Rightards are funny. They dump the worst recession in two generations on Obama and then criticize him for low GDP.

And people like you are totally made fools by a president who told you he would be lying to you! He hired a guy who said thanks to the "stupidity of American voter"ACA was passed.
Plus it just seems so strange that people like you have such selective amnesia.
Did a dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion starting under Clinton happen?
Did a minor event (obviously forgettable to you ) known as 9/11 not have any affect on economic growth etc.?
Or all those hurricanes, the worst in history ... no affect on people's lives, businesses, jobs. Right?
Yea ... those events either didn't occur or didn't have any affect on Americans.

That's what I see though. And historians will later consider Bush a great president for keeping America going. For NOT forgetting these events and for sure
NEVER calling our military out as Obama did when he said our military was "air-raiding villages, killing civilians."
It is so obvious how disliked Obama is by the majority of NON-FOOLs like our military who during a recent poll 86% disapproved Obama as Command in Chief.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A conservative institution's uneasy cultural evolution

Tell me you fools for Obama... why would the military hold Obama with such disapproval?
After all he did remove them from Iraq/Afghanistan? He was ONLY thinking of them wasn't he?

View attachment 51675

"The Military Times survey is not scientific and relies on a voluntary response from the publication's readers."

Survey: Obama gets a thumbs down from the troops - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Rustic]

Just a 200+ trillion fiscal gap...

 

[Faun]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

Rightards are funny. They dump the worst recession in two generations on Obama and then criticize him for low GDP.

And people like you are totally made fools by a president who told you he would be lying to you! He hired a guy who said thanks to the "stupidity of American voter"ACA was passed.
Plus it just seems so strange that people like you have such selective amnesia.
Did a dot.com bust that cost $5 trillion starting under Clinton happen?
Did a minor event (obviously forgettable to you ) known as 9/11 not have any affect on economic growth etc.?
Or all those hurricanes, the worst in history ... no affect on people's lives, businesses, jobs. Right?
Yea ... those events either didn't occur or didn't have any affect on Americans.

That's what I see though. And historians will later consider Bush a great president for keeping America going. For NOT forgetting these events and for sure
NEVER calling our military out as Obama did when he said our military was "air-raiding villages, killing civilians."
It is so obvious how disliked Obama is by the majority of NON-FOOLs like our military who during a recent poll 86% disapproved Obama as Command in Chief.

AMERICA'S MILITARY: A conservative institution's uneasy cultural evolution

Tell me you fools for Obama... why would the military hold Obama with such disapproval?
After all he did remove them from Iraq/Afghanistan? He was ONLY thinking of them wasn't he?

View attachment 51675

You're all over the place.

Well, not everywhere. You never did respond to my post over there --> The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

 

[ninja007]

The tea party wants to abolish the best science and r&d instittions on the planet! For what? Because they hate government. They want the poor to die on the street and don't give two shits about our economy.

Fuck the tea party.

infrastructure!

 

[Faun]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

YOU SEEM to be too stupid to want to admit obama'slevel comes on top of Bush's level. you're comparing the number of people on food stamps from what they were under Clinton to what they were at the end of the bush years you idiot.
that in no way negates or makes phony bush's AVERAGE 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. OBAMA WILL NEVER HAVE THAT.

You are trying to change the subject that Bush's increases started before his housing crash and then skyrocketed after Bush's housing crash, whereas Obama's numbers are coming down after the continuing damage of Bush's housing crash has been ended. And the fact that the number on food stamps was rising before the crash completely negates and exposes the phoniness of Bush's UE rate!

Factoring in population, Bush expanded SNAP by 65.3% over levels he inherited from Clinton. Obama expanded it by 39.2% over levels he inherited from Bush. But unlike the economy Bush inherited, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

 

[Rustic]

As the economy has improved, the rolls of those receiving SNAP benefits has been slowly but steadily shrinking.

it is obvious to anybody that isn't a brainwashed left-wing loser that 13 million more than were ever on food stamps under bush GOING INTO OBAMA'S EIGHTH YEAR tells you something about Obama's unemployment figure

And Bush adding MORE than 13 million, and RISING after his 8 years tells you even more about Bush's phony UE numbers.

YOU SEEM to be too stupid to want to admit obama'slevel comes on top of Bush's level. you're comparing the number of people on food stamps from what they were under Clinton to what they were at the end of the bush years you idiot.
that in no way negates or makes phony bush's AVERAGE 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT. OBAMA WILL NEVER HAVE THAT.

You are trying to change the subject that Bush's increases started before his housing crash and then skyrocketed after Bush's housing crash, whereas Obama's numbers are coming down after the continuing damage of Bush's housing crash has been ended. And the fact that the number on food stamps was rising before the crash completely negates and exposes the phoniness of Bush's UE rate!

Factoring in population, Bush expanded SNAP by 65.3% over levels he inherited from Clinton. Obama expanded it by 39.2% over levels he inherited from Bush. But unlike the economy Bush inherited, Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression.

And spent like a whole fleet of drunk'n sailors.... For no reason.

 

[ninja007]

Obama doesn't do anything to help the country- he only wants to hurt it. And punish those who are successful or not liberal, period.

 

[BULLDOG]

Obama doesn't do anything to help the country- he only wants to hurt it. And punish those who are successful or not liberal, period.

And you really believe that crap. Sad for you.

 

[Faun]

Obama doesn't do anything to help the country- he only wants to hurt it. And punish those who are successful or not liberal, period.

Sure, uh-huh. Obama is doing a better job with regards to unemployment than every Republican president except for Reagan going back as far as BLS data goes. Here's a list of presidents, along with the level of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 80 months in office...

Clinton	-3.2	-44%
Johnson!	-2.3	-40%
Obama	-2.7	-35%
Reagan	-1.5	-20%
Kennedy**	-0.9	-14%
Carter***	0.0	0%
Bush	+0.5	+12%
GHW Bush***	+1.9	+35%
Ford*	+2.0	+36%
Nixon!!	+2.1	+62%
Eisenhower	+2.8	+97%

* = in office 29 months
** = in office 34 months
*** = in office 48 months
! = in office 62 months
!! = in office 67 months

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data​

 

[auditor0007]

What A Short Memory They Have:

We've had about six years of continuous job growth:

This is why they're upset, numskull:

Obama could have had that same job growth if he had nearly doubled the size of the Federal Government like Reagan did. When it comes to the government, Obama has pretty much been forced by Republicans to be the conservative while Reagan used liberal policy as promoted by the Democratic Congress during his administration. What is so obnoxiously disturbing is that you loons don't understand this.

 

[bripat9643]

Hope and change is full of sh!t... Without the gun related and oil related jobs his job growth percentage would be near zero.

Renewable
Car industry
etc

What is funny is you think he is anti-oil but we're pulling more oil out of the ground then at any point in our history. Pretty good for someone attempting to stop it.

Only the terminally stupid aren't aware of the fact that Obama had nothing to do with it. In fact, he has been trying to reduce the production of oil in America.

 

[bripat9643]

What A Short Memory They Have:

We've had about six years of continuous job growth:

This is why they're upset, numskull:

Obama could have had that same job growth if he had nearly doubled the size of the Federal Government like Reagan did. When it comes to the government, Obama has pretty much been forced by Republicans to be the conservative while Reagan used liberal policy as promoted by the Democratic Congress during his administration. What is so obnoxiously disturbing is that you loons don't understand this.

Libs can't make up their minds as to whether Reagan exploded government or starved it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yeah for Obambam. he's a rip roaring success. well a few still falls at feet and will spin for him

SNIP:

Obama’s lousy new normal: Job growth disappoints yet again

By Herman Cain -- Bio and Archives October 5, 2015

One of the biggest wastes of time imaginable is to read news stories about what’s expected in upcoming economic reports. Late last week, we were regaled with stories about how economists were expecting news of robust job growth, and how this would be followed by serious consideration on the part of the Federal Reserve Board to finally raise interest rates—which have been kept artificially low for years in the hope of spurring job growth.

But as is so often the case, the reality didn’t meet the expectations. Job growth stumbled again, with only 142,000 nonfarm jobs added to payrolls in September. And that follows an August that was even worse, at just 136,000. We’re not even adding enough jobs to keep up with the growth in population, which means that glorious 5.1 percent unemployment rate you keep hearing about is only because so many people are leaving the workforce and no longer being counted.

Some folks are trying to blame China’s economic problems for this, just like they’ve tried to blame George W. Bush, cold weather and whatever else they can come up with. Outside forces will always play some sort of role in your economic performance, but the fact remains that a fundamentally strong economy is going to do well over the long term. The Obama economy has consistently given us sluggish job growth and annual GDP growth of barely 2.0 percent.

And it’s not hard to see why: Higher taxes, heavier regulation, intervention in health care markets, hostility toward businesses by the NLRB, EPA, IRS and others . . . and of course, the administration’s refusal to embrace domestic energy exploration on federally controlled lands, which combined with Obama’s war on coal adds up to higher and higher energy costs and an overall higher cost of doing business.

Take it from someone who has run multiple businesses: No one feels confident about adding to their payrolls in an environment like this. You never know if the federal government is going to do something to stomp out economic momentum or punish you for a run of success.

all of it here:
Obama’s lousy new normal: Job growth disappoints yet again

Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax "burden" on the "job creators" since before Harding/Coolidge's great depression, lowest Corp tax burden in 40 years, lowest labor costs EVER

Tell us some more about the job killing regulations.

"Corporate profits" are usually associated with large businesses.

President Obama has said that “small businesses have always formed the backbone of the American economy.
So taking him at his word... Why then is his administration so willing to destroy them???
“You, there: stop complaining and start hiring!”

That is essentially the Obama administration’s message to businesses. This is an administration that seems to believe that $1 million spent on pollution control will create more than 1.5 net jobs. Who comes up with such numbers?

These entrepreneurial pioneers embody the spirit of possibility, the tireless work ethic, and the simple hope for something better that lies at the heart of the American ideal.”
But the rate of growth for regulatory restrictions was approximately 38 percent larger for the Obama administration between 2009 and 2012 as it was during a similar number of years for President George W. Bush (2001 to 2004).
Restrictions are actual regulatory requirements telling business what they “must’ or “shall” do. But, of course, these are just additions to regulatory restrictions that have been piling up since the 1870’s and now number more than 1 million. And yet Obama, more than any other president, has made decreasing the overall regulatory burden a high priority, issuing a specific executive order to require agencies to decrease the enormous volume of regulations.
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

Again I'm not saying it "small businesses" are the ones that have lower revenue to hire people to keep up with the rules and regulations.

A simple perusal of the Federal Register shows over 430 rules costing over $65 billion so far this year alone, let alone the entire Crain universe of rules, which stops at 2008. As the Crains note, regulatory costs are often “indirect,” compared with direct taxation.
Significantly, they also note that the “totality” of rules under $99 million are not reviewed by OIRA. That is important because “major” rules — those estimated to cost $100 million or more — comprise likely less than 10% of the regulatory pipeline at any given time. Thus, a rule that is not considered “major” could still impose significant costs in real-world terms.

MORE OF YOUR RIGHT WING BULLSHIT NOT BASED IN REALITY. Shocking

Corps are responsible for 40% of US jobs (100+ employees)

The "job creator" has the lowest t sustained tax burden since 1932!

UPDATE YOUR BS TALKING POINTS

We all know that you hate america and small business owners.

Fetuses and puppies too Bubba

No, y'all love puppies but sure don't mind aborting little babies in the womb.