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

[bedowin62]

ONCE AGAIN; because you're an idiot. job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot. you're unclear of the concept of job creation so arguing with you is senseless. grow a brainstem

But it wasn't at full employment. Interestingly enough, it is now, yet rightards still bitch and moan on the first Friday of every month when the jobs numbers come out that they're not good enough. Yet according to morons like you, the number of new jobs could be zero but that would be ok since we are at full employment. And full employment doesn't mean we stop growing jobs.

you're making a fool of your self idiot. how can it be full employment now but not when it was UNDER 5.2% when bush was in office??
you're simply a loser who lies to himself

Can someone explain to bedwetter how the full employment range changes? That what it is now is not what it was a decade ago. I don't have the heart to embarrass him like that, bless his heart.

you cant embarrass me moron, like i said you're making a fool of yourself. literall MILLIONS ARENT BEING COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED...................
you losers cry that things are being counted the same way; but you leave out the fact that millions are out of the job market altogether; NOT EVEN LOOKING .....................AND NO, THEY ARENT ALL RETIRED BABY BOOMERS..........................ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE AMERICANS are dropping out of the workforce

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Great, now the bedwetter loser points to the 94 million who are not in the labor force, though he's too stupid to comprehend that 88 million of them don't want to work.

Let morons like bedwetter serve as a prime example why parents should educate their kids unless they want them to be as dumb as bedwetter.

Oh, and bedwetter -- no one is saying the drop in the LFPR is 100% due to retiring baby boomers. That is a strawman put out by imbeciles like you who can't deal with reality.

actually nutjob many of you losers on the Left are saying exactly that; that all or even most of the drop in LFPR is due to retiring Baby Boomers

try again................

 

[Wyatt earp]

more LONG-TERM unemployment under obama, RECORD NUMBERS on some kind of federal disability, THIRTEEN MILLION MORE on food stamps

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

WTF?

Now we have a smaller population, what happened California finally sink in the Pacific?

 

[bedowin62]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

 

[Faun]

more LONG-TERM unemployment under obama, RECORD NUMBERS on some kind of federal disability, THIRTEEN MILLION MORE on food stamps

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

yes loon; as YOU noted "with a smaller population". taking into account population increases under obama AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET ALTOGETHER THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST ZERO job growth under obama

thanks!!

Showing you as the rightard you are is always my pleasure, bedwetter ...

Civilian non-institutional population under Bush grew by 21 million and 17 million under Obama.

Meanwhile, Bush added 5 million jobs compared to Obama's 8. That makes Obama's job creation even better than Bush's when not factoring in population growth. And that's even factoring in how Bush dumped his Great Recession on Obama.

 

[Wyatt earp]

liberals are idiots. fewer jobs were "created" under Bush because under Bush MOST OF THE EIGHT YEARS WERE GREAT!!

unlike obama, despite the crybaby whines of what he was handed (Bush was handed 9-11 by a Democrat President who NEVER noticed EVERY ONE of the hijackers came over on his watch, and handed over the country with the plot in its final stages), most of the Bush years unemployment was very low. that's how come bush has an AVERAGE OF 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT over 8 years. unless you're a brainwashed left-wing idiot who lies to himself you ought to be able to figure out what this means. Nobody on the Right denies a massive recession happened at the end of the Bush years and that unemployment went WAY UP. but for Bush to have an AVERAGE OF 5.2% OVER EIGHT YEARS which of course counts the bad years at the end, unemployment had to be LESS THAN 5% FOR MUCH OF THE BUSH TIME IN OFFICE.

hard to create jobs when unemployment is that low. i live the way left-wing idiots have none of the critical-thinnking skills they like to brag about!!

Great, another imbecile who thinks Bush did a better job than Reagan when it came to jobs.

Oh, and imbecile, even ignoring the Great Recession, Bush still comes in dead last in job creation. Even by this point in his presidency, only 5.4 million jobs were created. There have been 8.4 million jobs added in Obama's first 80 months, and that is including the Great Recession.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Again if Obama created all those jobs why didn't they go to the blue state's?

Because the president doesn't determine which state hires.

So how does he create jobs? Name the policy?

 

[bedowin62]

more LONG-TERM unemployment under obama, RECORD NUMBERS on some kind of federal disability, THIRTEEN MILLION MORE on food stamps

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

yes loon; as YOU noted "with a smaller population". taking into account population increases under obama AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET ALTOGETHER THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST ZERO job growth under obama

thanks!!

Showing you as the rightard you are is always my pleasure, bedwetter ...

Civilian non-institutional population under Bush grew by 21 million and 17 million under Obama.

Meanwhile, Bush added 5 million jobs compared to Obama's 8. That makes Obama's job creation even better than Bush's when not factoring in population growth. And that's even factoring in how Bush dumped his Great Recession on Obama.

once again you choose to embarrass youself provinig your ignorance for all to see. bush had a MUCH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR MOST OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE; often in the 4% range; so of course job creation didnt need to happen on the scale.

you're the one using a false narrative loser

and nothing you post about me can change that fact

 

[Faun]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

 

[Faun]

liberals are idiots. fewer jobs were "created" under Bush because under Bush MOST OF THE EIGHT YEARS WERE GREAT!!

unlike obama, despite the crybaby whines of what he was handed (Bush was handed 9-11 by a Democrat President who NEVER noticed EVERY ONE of the hijackers came over on his watch, and handed over the country with the plot in its final stages), most of the Bush years unemployment was very low. that's how come bush has an AVERAGE OF 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT over 8 years. unless you're a brainwashed left-wing idiot who lies to himself you ought to be able to figure out what this means. Nobody on the Right denies a massive recession happened at the end of the Bush years and that unemployment went WAY UP. but for Bush to have an AVERAGE OF 5.2% OVER EIGHT YEARS which of course counts the bad years at the end, unemployment had to be LESS THAN 5% FOR MUCH OF THE BUSH TIME IN OFFICE.

hard to create jobs when unemployment is that low. i live the way left-wing idiots have none of the critical-thinnking skills they like to brag about!!

Great, another imbecile who thinks Bush did a better job than Reagan when it came to jobs.

Oh, and imbecile, even ignoring the Great Recession, Bush still comes in dead last in job creation. Even by this point in his presidency, only 5.4 million jobs were created. There have been 8.4 million jobs added in Obama's first 80 months, and that is including the Great Recession.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Again if Obama created all those jobs why didn't they go to the blue state's?

Because the president doesn't determine which state hires.

So how does he create jobs? Name the policy?

Ending Bush's Great Recession.

 

[Faun]

more LONG-TERM unemployment under obama, RECORD NUMBERS on some kind of federal disability, THIRTEEN MILLION MORE on food stamps

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

yes loon; as YOU noted "with a smaller population". taking into account population increases under obama AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET ALTOGETHER THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST ZERO job growth under obama

thanks!!

Showing you as the rightard you are is always my pleasure, bedwetter ...

Civilian non-institutional population under Bush grew by 21 million and 17 million under Obama.

Meanwhile, Bush added 5 million jobs compared to Obama's 8. That makes Obama's job creation even better than Bush's when not factoring in population growth. And that's even factoring in how Bush dumped his Great Recession on Obama.

once again you choose to embarrass youself provinig your ignorance for all to see. bush had a MUCH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR MOST OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE; often in the 4% range; so of course job creation didnt need to happen on the scale.

you're the one using a false narrative loser

and nothing you post about me can change that fact

We're within the full employment range now. According to bedwetter, we no longer need to create new jobs.

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

 

[Wyatt earp]

liberals are idiots. fewer jobs were "created" under Bush because under Bush MOST OF THE EIGHT YEARS WERE GREAT!!

unlike obama, despite the crybaby whines of what he was handed (Bush was handed 9-11 by a Democrat President who NEVER noticed EVERY ONE of the hijackers came over on his watch, and handed over the country with the plot in its final stages), most of the Bush years unemployment was very low. that's how come bush has an AVERAGE OF 5.2% UNEMPLOYMENT over 8 years. unless you're a brainwashed left-wing idiot who lies to himself you ought to be able to figure out what this means. Nobody on the Right denies a massive recession happened at the end of the Bush years and that unemployment went WAY UP. but for Bush to have an AVERAGE OF 5.2% OVER EIGHT YEARS which of course counts the bad years at the end, unemployment had to be LESS THAN 5% FOR MUCH OF THE BUSH TIME IN OFFICE.

hard to create jobs when unemployment is that low. i live the way left-wing idiots have none of the critical-thinnking skills they like to brag about!!

Great, another imbecile who thinks Bush did a better job than Reagan when it came to jobs.

Oh, and imbecile, even ignoring the Great Recession, Bush still comes in dead last in job creation. Even by this point in his presidency, only 5.4 million jobs were created. There have been 8.4 million jobs added in Obama's first 80 months, and that is including the Great Recession.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Again if Obama created all those jobs why didn't they go to the blue state's?

Because the president doesn't determine which state hires.

So how does he create jobs? Name the policy?

Ending Bush's Great Recession.

How did Obama do that? Name the policy?

 

[Faun]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

And again, since it fails to penetrate you armor of ignorance, Bush added as many people onto food stamps as Obama, only with a smaller population and without being handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. Did you vote for him? You helped create this nanny state.

 

[g5000]

Dear Donald Trump: China, Japan and Mexico are not ‘killing us’

Last quarter, the U.S. economy grew at a 3.7 percent clip. Annual growth now is almost twice that of Europe and four times that of Japan. Unemployment is at 5.1 percent, the lowest in seven years. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product (2.8 percent in 2014) is at its lowest since 2007.

“The U.S. has come out of the 2008 crisis better than all the others,” says Ruchir Sharma, head of global macro investing at Morgan Stanley. “Americans have reduced their debt burden more than the Europeans, while China’s debt has skyrocketed to extremely dangerous levels. If you look outside of China, U.S. growth is actually faster even than the emerging markets. Since the 2008 crisis, U.S. equity markets have outperformed all others — in fact 9 out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world are now American. The dollar is the currency of choice. Global growth is not what it used to be, but in a bad neighborhood, the U.S. has the best house by far.” Sharma points out that for the past four years, the United States’ share of global GDP has increased while Europe’s and Japan’s have moved down.




The Wall Street Journal notes that in the past five years, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have increased in value by $254.6 billion. In the same period, their European competitors, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland added just $9.5 billion. In July, Barclays Chairman John McFarlane was asked by the Wall Street Journal if America’s banks were eating European lenders’ lunch. He replied: “They are doing a good job of it.” He added that the U.S. banks “are the only ones that really claim to be global and successful.”

To compare the United States’ performance and leadership to Mexico’s, Japan’s and China’s is particularly ill-timed. Trump might be stuck in a 1980s time warp on Japan. When his “The Art of the Deal” was published in 1987, Americans were envious of Japan’s brilliant leaders, who were said to be outsmarting the United States at every turn. Since then, Japan has become the poster child for economic stagnation and political paralysis. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been unwilling or unable to get his promised reforms enacted, and the country’s economy continues to shrink.

Mexico is watching its growth collapse. While its president, Enrique Peña Nieto, is a courageous and intelligent leader who has made some very bold decisions, he has also made some significant missteps. Most important, the country was ill-prepared for plunging oil prices that have battered government revenues and growth.

China has had three decades of supercharged growth and competent government policy. But in the past few years, Beijing went on a borrowing binge, running up its total debt to levels that are unprecedented, according to Sharma. And in the past two months it has made mistakes in managing both its equity markets and currency — mistakes that have cost $400 billion, theFinancial Times reports.

 

[bedowin62]

more LONG-TERM unemployment under obama, RECORD NUMBERS on some kind of federal disability, THIRTEEN MILLION MORE on food stamps

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

yes loon; as YOU noted "with a smaller population". taking into account population increases under obama AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET ALTOGETHER THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST ZERO job growth under obama

thanks!!

Showing you as the rightard you are is always my pleasure, bedwetter ...

Civilian non-institutional population under Bush grew by 21 million and 17 million under Obama.

Meanwhile, Bush added 5 million jobs compared to Obama's 8. That makes Obama's job creation even better than Bush's when not factoring in population growth. And that's even factoring in how Bush dumped his Great Recession on Obama.

once again you choose to embarrass youself provinig your ignorance for all to see. bush had a MUCH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR MOST OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE; often in the 4% range; so of course job creation didnt need to happen on the scale.

you're the one using a false narrative loser

and nothing you post about me can change that fact

We're within the full employment range now. According to bedwetter, we no longer need to create new jobs.

no we're not idiot; because unlike under bush, under obama record numbers of WORKING-AGE AMERICANS who are ABLE-BODIED arent participating in the Labor Force. i guess you're right if you count the WELFARE STATE INCREASE under obama though leftard!

 

[bedowin62]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

And again, since it fails to penetrate you armor of ignorance, Bush added as many people onto food stamps as Obama, only with a smaller population and without being handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. Did you vote for him? You helped create this nanny state.

YAWN

obama's increases on food stamp enrollment come on top of bush's


keep trying...................................

 

[Faun]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

You said job creation isn't necessary when we're at full employment (which Bush wasn't at anyway). That's not my strawman, that's you being a retard.

And we are at full employment now. According to you, there is no need to create new jobs.

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

poor poor idiot.; that is the difference between Bush's 5.2% unemployment and obamas bullshit 5.2% unemployment. that IS what i've been saying dummy

 

[Faun]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

And again, since it fails to penetrate you armor of ignorance, Bush added as many people onto food stamps as Obama, only with a smaller population and without being handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. Did you vote for him? You helped create this nanny state.

YAWN

obama's increases on food stamp enrollment come on top of bush's


keep trying...................................

Nice to see you're still exercising your jaw. Bush added as many but with a smaller population and without inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression.

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

You said job creation isn't necessary when we're at full employment (which Bush wasn't at anyway). That's not my strawman, that's you being a retard.

And we are at full employment now. According to you, there is no need to create new jobs.

no idiot; bush's unemployment number was real, obama's is fake idiot.
just like his deportation numbers, and his drone strike casualty numbers.

just everything idiot