Median Household Incomes D O W N under Obama! I Do Mean D-O-W-N

[pinqy]

The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.

To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

Finally you get to the heart of what we conservatives have been saying is wrong with BLS stats.

"We conservatives"????
You'll find yourself alone if you want such ambiguous classifications in statistics.

It's not a matter of conservative or liberal...it's a matter of measurement.

Oh yeah.............measurements with fucked up assumptions have no bias.


Boy.....................you number crunchers........................about to get a big dose of reality.

Ok, explain exactly how you measure that a person is both employed and unemployed in any meaningful way?

And I note you keep complaining about "assumptions" and claiming things are "Keynesian" without EVER saying what assumptions you object to or what makes labor statistic definitions Keynesian.

But let's try: Tell me what the wrong assumptions and what the Keynesian indoctrinated thinking is behind Unemployment being defined as "Unemployment is the condition of somebody who is capable of working, actively seeking work, but unable to find any work"

 

[pinqy]

U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

(keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive).

This is where you utterly fail.

How on earth did you pass statistics? Exclusivity of classifications is rule number one.

You can't have say age 16-20 and age 20-25 and age 25-30 etc as your groupings. You can't say a person is both employed and unemployed.

 

[jillian]

Despite manipulation of economic statistics by libs to pretend the economy is great, everyday Americans know better. There is malaise in the air. All Americans have to do is look at their own household incomes. Study after study shows those median incomes are down under Obama. Many say it's an average of about $4,000 less.

Obama s Economy We ve Fallen And We Can t Get Up - Investors.com

riiiiiight. we can pretend.... teatards standing in the way of every economic advance? I figure we're doing pretty well... and if wages have flatlined, which they have, it's the result of 20 years of trickle down nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman says Obama is great so, er that must mean that incomes are up under Obama, um, er, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Despite manipulation of economic statistics by libs to pretend the economy is great, everyday Americans know better. There is malaise in the air. All Americans have to do is look at their own household incomes. Study after study shows those median incomes are down under Obama. Many say it's an average of about $4,000 less.

Obama s Economy We ve Fallen And We Can t Get Up - Investors.com

riiiiiight. we can pretend.... teatards standing in the way of every economic advance? I figure we're doing pretty well... and if wages have flatlined, which they have, it's the result of 20 years of trickle down nonsense.

What? Obama got and passed his failed Stimulus AND ObamaCare. What are the bad, bad Teatards doing to po' little helpless Obola?

 

[EconChick]

You're unbelievable.

Typical big spending, Keynesian trained government statistician.

If someone is part time..................that means they're one foot IN and one foot OUT.

No one is voluntarily part time in your world? Besides which, the U-6 doesn't include part timers, or even a significant percent. So even if we assume your ludicrous premise, how could the U-6 be "real" when it ignores so many part timers?

And how do you measure "one foot in and one foot out?" From 1976 to 1993 there was an alternative measure that included half of all part time workers in the numerator, but that's just arbitrary.

This is how statistics work: you have to have clear, unambiguous definitions without overlap. Otherwise your results will be nonsense.

Finally you get to the heart of what we conservatives have been saying is wrong with BLS stats.

"We conservatives"????
You'll find yourself alone if you want such ambiguous classifications in statistics.

It's not a matter of conservative or liberal...it's a matter of measurement.

Oh yeah.............measurements with fucked up assumptions have no bias.


Boy.....................you number crunchers........................about to get a big dose of reality.

Ok, explain exactly how you measure that a person is both employed and unemployed in any meaningful way?

And I note you keep complaining about "assumptions" and claiming things are "Keynesian" without EVER saying what assumptions you object to or what makes labor statistic definitions Keynesian.

But let's try: Tell me what the wrong assumptions and what the Keynesian indoctrinated thinking is behind Unemployment being defined as "Unemployment is the condition of somebody who is capable of working, actively seeking work, but unable to find any work"

Goooood Lord.

Some things do not fit nice and neatly into one unambiguous category.

Think Venn Diagram. You think all the circles overlap 100%.

What statistician thinks all things in life fit perfectly like that??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[EconChick]

WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

(keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive).

This is where you utterly fail.

How on earth did you pass statistics? Exclusivity of classifications is rule number one.

You can't have say age 16-20 and age 20-25 and age 25-30 etc as your groupings. You can't say a person is both employed and unemployed.

Pinqy!!!!!!!!!! That's the goal. It's not reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kaz]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

 

[EconChick]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

LOL, didn't turn around on a football field.......

(Oh, wait, K....just read the rest....we disagree to the degree of B's liberalism but your overall point is right, LOL.)

 

[Mac1958]

.

Just the latest intellectually dishonest thread by a hardcore partisan ideologue, so popular on USMB.

As if Obama inherited a thriving, growing economy and wrecked it.

.

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

 

[EconChick]

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

 

[EconChick]

Oh, look....my favorite idiot that doesn't know difference between MEAN and MEDIAN. LOL, you will never live down how little you understand about doing economic stats.


Oooops.


Show me where Obama has brought median income up to $55, 589 like Bush did.



I'm waiting........



Crickets

















LMAO

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.




You also don't give a fuck about facts. If you did you wouldn't be such a fence sitter

 

[Mac1958]

See what I mean?

.

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

 

[EconChick]

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Yeah the adults are talking alright.....you're not one of them.

You also don't know the difference between Mean and Median.

You also don't understand fuck about this topic.............

 

[EconChick]

I see you've been completely TROUNCED throughout this thread over and over and over, LMAO.

MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN UNDER OBAMA.

Ooops

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

 

[pinqy]

What 6th rate unaccredited degree mill did you get your degree from that you would consider people who have jobs as "really unemployed?"

Oh, some of those fancy schools you dumbasses put on a pedestal.

As for not GRASPING that part time means that most of those people would rather be fully employed is why you're a great example of why BLS is so fucked up.

You changed the parameters. The question wasn't whether some would rather be fully employed, but whether they should be classified the same as those with NO employment.

And no one in the history of ever has included people who have jobs as unemployed (with the exception of those on government work projects during the Depression. And not everyone agreed with that)

One of your many problems is that you are utterly incapable of objective, empirical, analysis, and then assume that no one else is either.

So...back in the classroom:
Starting from square one, let's construct our models for examining the labor situation.
What do we want to measure? What definitions or characteristics will best allow us to look at it (keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive). And also we must try for as much objectivity as possible in our definitions so that neither two analysts could classify the same person in different categories nor could two people in identical situations be classified in two different categories.

Important things to consider: There is a difference between economic and non-economic factors:

I think I'll win my mental bet that you are neither capable nor interested in actually attempting such an exercise.

Bonus points if you can find any serious proposal by an actual economist to classify part time workers as unemployed.

(keeping in mind that all classifications must be exclusive).

This is where you utterly fail.

How on earth did you pass statistics? Exclusivity of classifications is rule number one.

You can't have say age 16-20 and age 20-25 and age 25-30 etc as your groupings. You can't say a person is both employed and unemployed.

Pinqy!!!!!!!!!! That's the goal. It's not reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But neither is it reality that someone can be both employed and unemployed in any meaningful defintions of the words.

To actually measure something you have to objectively define it. Fuzzy thinking of "they're both" is meaningless.

Let's look further. In the denominator for the U-6 we have "part time for economic reasons." These are defined as people who are willing AND available to work 35+ hours but worked less due to slow business or inability to find full time work. You want to say they are Unemployed. But then we have a problem: Using that definition of Unemployed, you can have Person A and Person B working side by side at the same job for the same hours, but you're calling one unemployed (and therefore the same as someone with no job at all) and the other employed based solely on what they say they would prefer. That's pointless and contradictory.

Under current definitions, where Part time for economic reasons is considered "underutilization" it is that Person A and Person B are both employed, but Person B is underutilized because she's willing and able to work more. That makes more sense and can be worked with.

 

[Mac1958]

I see you've been thoroughly intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

The economy didn't turn around on a dime after Bush left office because the damage was too deep and too severe.

Ooooops.

.

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

You're really trying too hard.

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Your constant meltdowns are embarrassing.

.

 

[EconChick]

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

You're really trying too hard.

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Your constant meltdowns are embarrassing.

.

Your constant displays of abject ignorance about anything to do with this topic is embarrassing. LOL

You think ANY economy turns on a dime??????

You don't know we're discussing MEDIAN when it's right in the title?

You've been thoroughly discredited. But thanks for bumping. You couldn't plz me more......

 

[EconChick]

Didn't turn around on a dime? It hasn't turned around on a football field.

W was a tax and spend liberal, he was replaced by tax and spend Obama. Why would it turn around when the patient is continuing to be exposed to the disease rather than the cure?

It always cracks me up when liberals thing W showed some sort of failure of conservatism. W didn't have a conservative bone in his body. The first MBA President was a clueless shill. It was obvious that daddy made his success in life. He had no concept he was taking and spending money that someone had actually earned.

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

You're really trying too hard.

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Your constant meltdowns are embarrassing.

.

Trying to hard to keep this TRUE title in people's faces?? LOL

Oh, you dummies are more than useful for that....I barely have to lift a finger, LOL.

 

[Mac1958]

As I've said elsewhere, this is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

I don't like Obama's economic policies, I think the economy would have done better with someone who wasn't clueless about business and business psychology, and I don't like looking like I'm defending Obama.

I just don't care for liars, and this thread was an example. This wasn't just another recession, it was a collapse of historic proportions and its effects are still felt, regardless of the party of the current White House occupant. The two parties will, of course, point the finger at each other, but I don't give a flying fuck about partisan politics.

.

Well to show your stupidity......the crash wasn't all Bush's doing.........dumbass...if you were steeped in economic training, you'd know that.

I invite you to show me where I have ever said that the crash was all Bush's doing.

Go ahead.

You're incapable of honest conversation. Go away, child, the adults are talking.

.

Well when you whine about poooooooooooooor Obama inheriting Boooooooooooooooooooooosh's economy, where do you caveat that??????????????????????

You're really trying too hard.

Bush was President before Obama, whether you want to deny that or not.

Your constant meltdowns are embarrassing.

.

Your constant displays of abject ignorance about anything to do with this topic is embarrassing. LOL

You think ANY economy turns on a dime??????

You don't know we're discussing MEDIAN when it's right in the title?

You've been thoroughly discredited. But thanks for bumping. You couldn't plz me more......

My pleasure.

.