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

[EconChick]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

Kaz is one of the straightest shooters I've seen on the internet, dum dum. He's the kind of well informed, critical thinker we need in politics but usually his type can't stand the bull shitters and liars like you they have to work around.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

Kaz is one of the straightest shooters I've seen on the internet, dum dum. He's the kind of well informed, critical thinker we need in politics but usually his type can't stand the bull shitters and liars like you they have to work around.

He may be...but you aren't. I'm glad to see you kissing his ass. That is as it should be.

 

[EconChick]

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

The mafia has more ethics than you do, moron. And they certainly understand economics a lot more than you do. They could school you very well on this topic.

No one takes you seriously on this board.

 

[EconChick]

Econchick wrote "And this still remains one stat Obama can't manipulate." The GDP is a stat, so if household income is the one stat he can't manipulate, it follows that the GDP is a stat that he can manipulate.

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

Kaz is one of the straightest shooters I've seen on the internet, dum dum. He's the kind of well informed, critical thinker we need in politics but usually his type can't stand the bull shitters and liars like you they have to work around.

He may be...but you aren't. I'm glad to see you kissing his ass. That is as it should be.

It's fun watching you melt down.

It's fun watching all the Dems meltdown.

It's fun watching desperate people like Mary Landrieu insult the people she's asking to vote for her by race bating. You're the same caliber.

What's hilarious is how many prominent liberals agree with the OP that Obama has not lived up to the hype and they point to the median income.

 

[EconChick]

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

I want everyone to read this pathetic post. Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but perfectly in keeping with mob union tactics.

Just PURE SICKENING manipulation tactics.

And you stoop that low because you know the OP is right and it burnssss you to hell.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

I want everyone to read this pathetic post. Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but perfectly in keeping with mob union tactics.

Just PURE SICKENING manipulation tactics.

And you stoop that low because you know the OP is right and it burnssss you to hell.

When you are involved....we gots ta go low. You are my pet project.

 

[pinqy]

[

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[EconChick]

[

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

It's been explained over and over, Pinqy.

 

[EconChick]

I react to what I read. What you wrote was seriously petty. Write better than she does and I'll agree with you.

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

I want everyone to read this pathetic post. Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but perfectly in keeping with mob union tactics.

Just PURE SICKENING manipulation tactics.

And you stoop that low because you know the OP is right and it burnssss you to hell.

When you are involved....we gots ta go low. You are my pet project.

It's fun watching you come unhinged.


You don't shit about how the economy works, dummy. How many times we all have to tell ya, darlin

LOL

You still haven't figured out the difference between mean and median.

 

[pinqy]

[

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

It's been explained over and over, Pinqy.

No, it has not. It gets avoided, like kaz and you are doing in this thread. And yes, you're part of it, because you agreed with him.

One more time: How have who is counted supposedly been changed or being changed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bullshit. That bitch has lied about her credentials. Call her out on it. She is not an economist. It is not possible. No economist ignores data and history. No economist doesn't know where the charts and graphs they use come from. None.

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

I want everyone to read this pathetic post. Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but perfectly in keeping with mob union tactics.

Just PURE SICKENING manipulation tactics.

And you stoop that low because you know the OP is right and it burnssss you to hell.

When you are involved....we gots ta go low. You are my pet project.

It's fun watching you come unhinged.


You don't shit about how the economy works, dummy. How many times we all have to tell ya, darlin

LOL

You still haven't figured out the difference between mean and median.

You see me coming unhinged? I see me laughing at you. Isn't it weird how perspective matters?

 

[kaz]

Wow, that's seriously petty, you're proud of that?

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans," you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is somehow wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

As for me, they both sucked. W had no appreciation for that someone worked to earn the money that he freely confiscated and spent. He was born with a silver spoon and lived his whole career under his daddy's wing. Obama isn't racist, but he's a race baiter. He doesn't give a shit about black people, he just manipulates them.

That the POTUS got the most people to vote for them isn't a reason to respect them. In fact in the case of W and Obama who both lied to become President repeatedly, getting the most votes is a great reason to not respect them.

My standard is consistent. Now that you've made this claim that your standard is the POTUS is to be respected just because they were voted for, I'll try to remember that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That is not petty. That is fucking brilliantly done. Your hero is a fraud, dude. You have far greater Econ cred than she does. If yiu didn't fall victim to saying batshit crazy things about the motives of your fellow Americans..you'd be a valuable person to bounce shit off of.

Please..stop caressing that bitch's ego. It's sad.

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans, you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

Read.

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

 

[kaz]

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

LOL, you say the first sentence, then completely contradict it in the second one. I realize as a collectivist you don't grasp not being on a side any more than as people who achieved little to nothing on their own, W and Obama don't appreciate money earned by others, but that I argue a point I think it's working anyone's threads for them.

Econchick isn't as articulate as I am, particularly in a debate. The first person to admit that is Econchick. But she's sure on the right side a lot. I won't support a point I don't agree with and I won't not argue a point because you don't like the OP.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And it's my job to enforce your indignation? I like EconChick, but I only agree with what I agree with. Do you have any content on this or are you just trying to ostracize her and expecting me to help?

I'm not trying to "ostracize" anyone. I'm trying to help you.

You don't seem to want any help. Cool. Keep working that idiot's threads for her.

LOL, you say the first sentence, then completely contradict it in the second one. I realize as a collectivist you don't grasp not being on a side any more than as people who achieved little to nothing on their own, W and Obama don't appreciate money earned by others, but that I argue a point I think it's working anyone's threads for them.

Econchick isn't as articulate as I am, particularly in a debate. The first person to admit that is Econchick. But she's sure on the right side a lot. I won't support a point I don't agree with and I won't not argue a point because you don't like the OP.

Whatever.........dude. You come off like her bitch when you don't call her out on her obvious misrepresentation of the facts and data. Then again....you do the same thing. So...what is to be expected?

Here is a little test. Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question with integrity.

Here goes:

Is the US economy better now than it was in January 2009?

Yes........or no?

 

[Geaux4it]

BTW, what motive of a fellow American did I say crazy things about? I said how employment numbers are manipulated, I didn't say Obama specifically did it, i answered the question asked. Also, the stench of the double standard of what you say about W and what you are now chastising me for even if I did say that, wow, reeks ...

I'll let you know the next time you shit on the motives of the POTUS or liberal Americans. You shouldn't have to wait long.

You mean like you do to W? So your philosophy is do as you say, not as you do?

Find ONE unsolicited comment from me regarding "W". I'll wait.

What does unsolicited have to do with it? You said "shit on th emotives of the POTUS or liberal Americans, you shit on Republicans and their motives all the time, I've never seen you make that point to a liberal that questioning W's motives is wrong. A standard you apply to others and not yourself isn't a standard, it's just another form of attack.

Read.

I said COMMENT. I have never even uttered that guy's name without being prompted to by another post.

I've never questioned his motives. You have, however, questioned Obama's. Meaning....you think Obama does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart. That's bullshit and you have thrown it.

Huge difference.

Finally, a key difference at the fundamental level. No, no... the glass is half empty- Obama INDEED does not have America's best interest at heart. I'm a firm believer he does not. His actions warrant no other assessment.

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

[

Exactly. And Pinqy knows that.

Same with GDP number.

No, I don't know what kaz means by "changing who you count."

They count underemployed as employed and don't count discouraged workers as unemployed.

But you said "changing who you count." What's the change?

I didn't say that moron, I answered your question. EconChick said that.

You didn't say

As for employment/unemployment, the way it's done is changing who you count. You don't make up numbers, you say unemployment is down by just not counting people.

Weird

But since neither of you are willing to explain what that means, I guess it doesn't matter.

Yes, that was the answer to the question you asked how the numbers are manipulated. Nowhere in there did I say Obama specifically manipulated them. You just proved nothing. Do you have a content point or do you just want to bicker? I'm sick of bickering liberals and I"m going to just ignore it. You got content I'm here.

 

[kaz]

It's been explained over and over, Pinqy.

No, it has not. It gets avoided, like kaz and you are doing in this thread. And yes, you're part of it, because you agreed with him.

One more time: How have who is counted supposedly been changed or being changed.

Dude, now she agreed with me? Learn to read. She made the statement. You asked how they can do that and I answered your question. I took no position on Obama specifically doing it. What is wrong with you? Seriously?