Got a real serious question for white folk....honestly

[Oldstyle]

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

Breaking News a pig just took flight, and Sharpton has been at MSNBC derp

So was Chelsea Clinton...that doesn't mean she had a REAL job...that just meant that NBC was willing to pay far left progressives for being far left progressives or the offspring of them! That "pig" just crashed and burned, Closed...

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

And I notice that you side stepped my question about Obama's pledge that the ACA would save Middle Class families an average of $2,500 a year! Gosh, Faun...you're not "running away" from that one...are you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

Breaking News a pig just took flight, and Sharpton has been at MSNBC derp

So was Chelsea Clinton...that doesn't mean she had a REAL job...that just meant that NBC was willing to pay far left progressives for being far left progressives or the offspring of them! That "pig" just crashed and burned, Closed...

What you define as "real" doesnt matter...you have to answer questions first before being taken seriously.

You cannot

 

[Faun]

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

And I notice that you side stepped my question about Obama's pledge that the ACA would save Middle Class families an average of $2,500 a year! Gosh, Faun...you're not "running away" from that one...are you?

Nope, not running away from it. Even though you run away from me.

Sounds like at best, a broken promise; at worst, an outright lie.

Now then, are you going to keep running from me or are you going to answer.... prove the unemployment rate is lower since 1994 given the changes made that year regarding the age range in the U-3 rate.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Race relations were not good because of the race baiters such as Jackson and Sharpton. The problem with Obama is that he is the first clean, articulate black man to come around. WE thought he would make things better. WE thought he had the best chance of anyone considering he grew up "white." We thought that the election of a black president would ease race relations but exactly the opposite has happened. As it is always with liberals.

You sir, are a Bigot.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You never had a president say "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Well no shit, moron, no President before was black.

You never heard of riots in the streets before when blacks were shot under Bush or under Clinton.

Are you actually contending riots didn't happen before Obama? Ever heard of the LA riots? What are you like 12 years old?

 

[Faun]

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

 

[Faun]

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

Explain why you'd even NEED to create a new statistic that purports to measure "jobs saved" other than the obvious reason...because you didn't create jobs and desperately want to hide that fact from the American people who's money you've just frittered away with the Obama Stimulus? Do you deny that the "jobs saved" totals are subjective AT BEST and a total fabrication at worst? When I say that you progressives played fast and loose with the numbers...the entire "jobs saved" statistic is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about!

I disagree it was subjective or fabricated since it was an estimate made prior to the plan even going into effect. I would say it was Obama hedging his bet.

 

[Oldstyle]

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

And how many of those "jobs" supposedly created by Barack Obama was a full time job and how many were part time jobs that people were forced to take out of sheer desperation...yet still counted as a "whole" job instead of the portion of a whole job it really was?

 

[Oldstyle]

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

Explain why you'd even NEED to create a new statistic that purports to measure "jobs saved" other than the obvious reason...because you didn't create jobs and desperately want to hide that fact from the American people who's money you've just frittered away with the Obama Stimulus? Do you deny that the "jobs saved" totals are subjective AT BEST and a total fabrication at worst? When I say that you progressives played fast and loose with the numbers...the entire "jobs saved" statistic is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about!

I disagree it was subjective or fabricated since it was an estimate made prior to the plan even going into effect. I would say it was Obama hedging his bet.

Oh, so totally misleading the American public is now defined as "hedging"? The Obama Administration didn't come up with "jobs saved" as an estimate before the Obama Stimulus was rolled out, Faun...they came up with that economic statistic AFTER the stimulus created so few jobs that they were scared to tell the American voters HOW few!

 

[Oldstyle]

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

How many trillion dollars did Barry have to spend to get that extra 1.2%, Faun? When you've spent more than every other President combined...subjecting future generations to crushing debt...is what we GOT from Barry's economic policies worth what we paid for it?

 

[tigerred59]

so do remind those of us who blinked and missed those moments, when was race relations ever ever ever good in this country?

Let's put it in more quaint terms. Race relations weren't great before Obama, but got worse after he became president.

What got worse, is an economy that GW Lush left us with and white people who for what ever reasons, needed to point fingers at someone and low and behold it was the black guy. Because God forbid, the white man has to struggle in America like the rest of us.

 

[tigerred59]

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

How many trillion dollars did Barry have to spend to get that extra 1.2%, Faun? When you've spent more than every other President combined...subjecting future generations to crushing debt...is what we GOT from Barry's economic policies worth what we paid for it?

Here we go again......white people stressing a budget because a democrat is in office, cause you morons are silent when a conservative who always always always always leave a huge deficit when they leave.....NEXT?

 

[tigerred59]

It is fact, since Obama took office, gun sales in this nation soured to unprecedented levels, mostly in white communities, waiting and hoping for a race war.

Always nice to start an "honest question" topic with a lie.

One thing I don't do is lie.....google the shit if you don't believe me.

65.4 Million Gun Purchases Since Obama Took Office, 91% More Than Bush's First-Term Total

 

[Correll]

The complaints being directed at Obama, are because he is President and a

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

How many trillion dollars did Barry have to spend to get that extra 1.2%, Faun? When you've spent more than every other President combined...subjecting future generations to crushing debt...is what we GOT from Barry's economic policies worth what we paid for it?

Here we go again......white people stressing a budget because a democrat is in office, cause you morons are silent when a conservative who always always always always leave a huge deficit when they leave.....NEXT?

Wait.

Is it because he is a democrat? Or because he is black?

You keep jumping back and forth on that one.

Could it be because some people aren't happy with his policies?

 

[Oldstyle]

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

How many trillion dollars did Barry have to spend to get that extra 1.2%, Faun? When you've spent more than every other President combined...subjecting future generations to crushing debt...is what we GOT from Barry's economic policies worth what we paid for it?

Here we go again......white people stressing a budget because a democrat is in office, cause you morons are silent when a conservative who always always always always leave a huge deficit when they leave.....NEXT?

What's laughable is how you progressives will describe the deficit amassed by Reagan as "huge" when if you compare it to what Barry has been ringing up each and every year it's actually TINY! Next?

 

[tigerred59]

Obama was so clean and articulate and had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted one, I mistook him for a whitey at first

Oh, so only white people can be clean and articulate? Clearly your not from the south, cause you sorry hillbillies reeeeeek of dumb!!

 

[Correll]

Obama was so clean and articulate and had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted one, I mistook him for a whitey at first

Oh, so only white people can be clean and articulate? Clearly your not from the south, cause you sorry hillbillies reeeeeek of dumb!!

Jesus Christ! He is ridiculing Joe Biden who said that about Obama!

He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left who give dems a pass for rhetoric that they would crucify republicans for.

 

[tigerred59]

The complaints being directed at Obama, are because he is President and a

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives

Your point was to make up a number you liked because it was lower than the current unemployment rate. You justified that based on a change made to how they calculated that rate by being less inclusive of people who were out of work, which would logically lower the unemployment rate. However, you ignored other changes to that calculation, which included a change in the age range of those in the U-3 rate, which would have logically increased the U-3 rate.

Now you confess you were ignorant of those changes, which is hysterical since you were Projecting onto me that I was the one who was either unaware of the changes in 1994 or ignoring them; when the reality shows it was actually you who fits that description.

All of which renders your made up number of 5.3% even more ridiculous.

But hey, I can prove my point about how much better the U-3 rate has performed under Obama than under Reagan without crossing the 1994 changes... by comparing each to the start of their respective presidencies....

Reagan:
1/1981: 7.5%
4/1987: 6.3%
1.2 point decrease

Obama:
1/2009: 7.8%
4/2015: 5.4%
2.4 point decrease ... twice as much as Reagan

How many trillion dollars did Barry have to spend to get that extra 1.2%, Faun? When you've spent more than every other President combined...subjecting future generations to crushing debt...is what we GOT from Barry's economic policies worth what we paid for it?

Here we go again......white people stressing a budget because a democrat is in office, cause you morons are silent when a conservative who always always always always leave a huge deficit when they leave.....NEXT?

Wait.

Is it because he is a democrat? Or because he is black?

You keep jumping back and forth on that one.

Could it be because some people aren't happy with his policies?

Look, don't go there with the bs policy crap.....President Obama is no more responsible for white people's anger than Bush is responsible for reading a book. The only thing he did was be black in nation that is use to having white people in the white house...end of story

 

[tigerred59]

Obama was so clean and articulate and had no Negro dialect, unless he wanted one, I mistook him for a whitey at first

Oh, so only white people can be clean and articulate? Clearly your not from the south, cause you sorry hillbillies reeeeeek of dumb!!

Jesus Christ! He is ridiculing Joe Biden who said that about Obama!

He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left who give dems a pass for rhetoric that they would crucify republicans for.

JB is a moron, will be a moron to the grave....in essence he's just another good ol boy.