Misery Loves company.. Obama joins 6 other Presidents worst Misery!!!

[healthmyths]

Because you're a fruad. Asshole. Calm the fuck down before you have an aneurism.

And you are an idiot because you haven't
LEARNED HOW THE LITTLE RED LINE HELPS YOU IN YOUR DUMB ASS SPELLING!
It's "fraud" NOT FRUAD!
It's "aneurysm" dumb shit NOT "aneurism"!

Obviously you can't even pay attention to a little red dotted line telling you misspelled a word,
so it's no wonder YOU missed the entire points regarding Bush, dot.com/9/11/hurricanes... WENT WAY WAY OVER YOUR head didn't IT???

'Fruad' was a typo, 'aneurism' is still correct. You can spell it either way. And you're still a FRAUD, an asshole, and a lying sack of shit.

WRONG AGAIN!!!
The Correct spelling is: aneurysm http://www.how-do-you-spell.com/aneurism

Also your ignorance i.e. "IGNORING" the little red dotted line when spelling "fruad" is just an example of how little details go way over supposedly smart people like YOU and Obama for example... "corpse-man" from the Smartest president?

SO ONCE AGAIN prove I"M A FRAUD!
PROVE I'm an ASSHOLE because I point out stupidities like you can't even change a spelling error excusing it as "typo"... dumb f..k! Lazy is what you are!
And finally PROVE where ANYTHING I have written merits calling me a "lying sack of shit"??

PROVE as I've time and time again shown the ignorance of this president in just simple things... like saying there are 46 million uninsured! LIE!

 

[daveman]

Misery Loves company.. Obama joins 6 other Presidents worst Misery!!!

According to a number of polls Obama has been ranked as the 14th most successful president (tied with Lyndon Johnson), Carter is ranked 27th and George Bush at 34th (the lowest since Warren Harding).

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of polls?

Well, yes, 2 is a number.

From your link:

The surveys have been criticized for the way they have been organized.[21] At times, the surveys have had low responses.[21] The issue of the validity of the rankings has been of special interest to historians and political scientists, who have tried to specify the relative importance of personality, leadership, issues and partisanship. It has also been argued that those surveyed have tended to select their choices from personal preference rather than from a neutral perspective.​

In other words: Worthless, from an historical point of view.

Well, what if they polled the historians? In 1948 Schlesinger, a famous historian himself, asked historians to rate the presidents. Since that time other polls of historians, newspapers, people, and so forth have taken place. For me, the best and most accurate are the historians, however, and the latest historian poll is the Sienna taken in 2010.
The problem with asking ordinary citizens to rate the presidents is that most can name about ten presidents, and for them to rate President Polk is a waste.

Of course, if the historians find different from some posters they are quickly labeled by the posters as communist.

Ask historians to rate a Presidency that isn't even over yet, and the good ones will tell you they can't yet.

The hacks will go ahead and rate him.

 

[regent]

A number of polls?

Well, yes, 2 is a number.

From your link:

The surveys have been criticized for the way they have been organized.[21] At times, the surveys have had low responses.[21] The issue of the validity of the rankings has been of special interest to historians and political scientists, who have tried to specify the relative importance of personality, leadership, issues and partisanship. It has also been argued that those surveyed have tended to select their choices from personal preference rather than from a neutral perspective.​

In other words: Worthless, from an historical point of view.

Well, what if they polled the historians? In 1948 Schlesinger, a famous historian himself, asked historians to rate the presidents. Since that time other polls of historians, newspapers, people, and so forth have taken place. For me, the best and most accurate are the historians, however, and the latest historian poll is the Sienna taken in 2010.
The problem with asking ordinary citizens to rate the presidents is that most can name about ten presidents, and for them to rate President Polk is a waste.

Of course, if the historians find different from some posters they are quickly labeled by the posters as communist.

Ask historians to rate a Presidency that isn't even over yet, and the good ones will tell you they can't yet.

The hacks will go ahead and rate him.

The American people rate presidential candidates even before they have been elected and people rated Obama long before the first election, and many still rating Obama each day. Why would historians be restricted to voting before the president's term is over. In any case, in the last rating it was 238 noted historians and presidential experts that rated the presidents and they rated Obama on his first two years in office.
The historians and experts will rate Obama and all the president's again and the ratings do change, not always by much but when a new ex-president is added it does change the ratings. For example, Bush may have replaced Buchanan as fifth worst president?

 

[daveman]

Well, what if they polled the historians? In 1948 Schlesinger, a famous historian himself, asked historians to rate the presidents. Since that time other polls of historians, newspapers, people, and so forth have taken place. For me, the best and most accurate are the historians, however, and the latest historian poll is the Sienna taken in 2010.
The problem with asking ordinary citizens to rate the presidents is that most can name about ten presidents, and for them to rate President Polk is a waste.

Of course, if the historians find different from some posters they are quickly labeled by the posters as communist.

Ask historians to rate a Presidency that isn't even over yet, and the good ones will tell you they can't yet.

The hacks will go ahead and rate him.

The American people rate presidential candidates even before they have been elected and people rated Obama long before the first election, and many still rating Obama each day. Why would historians be restricted to voting before the president's term is over. In any case, in the last rating it was 238 noted historians and presidential experts that rated the presidents and they rated Obama on his first two years in office.
The historians and experts will rate Obama and all the president's again and the ratings do change, not always by much but when a new ex-president is added it does change the ratings. For example, Bush may have replaced Buchanan as fifth worst president?

History isn't American Idol, you know. And until Obama's second term is over, it's not history -- it's current events.

Your opinion that Obama is the *sigh* bestest President EVAR!! is just that -- your opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still blaming Bush for the current state of the Obama economy? This President's policies are also very much to blame for the job market under his term, to include submerging small business in further costly government regulations. It's also convenient, that this administration has chosen to DELAY the employer mandate of Obamacare rather than allow its burden onto small business to reveal this new law's effects on the economy.

You're an idiot.

The single biggest drag on the employment numbers has been the massive cutbacks in government jobs.

OK let's grant your argument.. "cut back in government jobs drag on numbers..."!

Are you saying there should be more government jobs?

If so where does the money come to pay the salaries and wages of these government jobs?

Do you agree taxes revenues pay the salaries/wages of government jobs?

Where will the tax revenue come from if MORE People were working for the government?

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

 

[regent]

Ask historians to rate a Presidency that isn't even over yet, and the good ones will tell you they can't yet.

The hacks will go ahead and rate him.

The American people rate presidential candidates even before they have been elected and people rated Obama long before the first election, and many still rating Obama each day. Why would historians be restricted to voting before the president's term is over. In any case, in the last rating it was 238 noted historians and presidential experts that rated the presidents and they rated Obama on his first two years in office.
The historians and experts will rate Obama and all the president's again and the ratings do change, not always by much but when a new ex-president is added it does change the ratings. For example, Bush may have replaced Buchanan as fifth worst president?

History isn't American Idol, you know. And until Obama's second term is over, it's not history -- it's current events.

Your opinion that Obama is the *sigh* bestest President EVAR!! is just that -- your opinion.

Ten minutes ago is history. I'm not certain any law has been passed, maybe in the House, that historian can't rate presidents at any time. And even after the historians have rated, new information might arise or another president leaves office and they then re-rate. In a way it is an ongoing process. FDR moved from third to first and Reagan has moved three times.

 

[healthmyths]

You're an idiot.

The single biggest drag on the employment numbers has been the massive cutbacks in government jobs.

OK let's grant your argument.. "cut back in government jobs drag on numbers..."!

Are you saying there should be more government jobs?

If so where does the money come to pay the salaries and wages of these government jobs?

Do you agree taxes revenues pay the salaries/wages of government jobs?

Where will the tax revenue come from if MORE People were working for the government?

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

Again.. WHERE does the revenue come to support more people that earn be it private or government workers for the government?
You didn't answer the question.
Let me make it simpler.

Two cases.

A) Private for profit firm contracts with Government to perform services. Where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the firm?
B) Govt. hires people and where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the peoples' salaries?

The Govt. doesn't pay taxes.
If more people work for the govt. or get contracts from the govt. the govt. still has to have revenue to pay. Where does the revenue come from?

HERE I'll help you with some facts:

In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!

• Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
• Excise taxes 72 3.1%
• Estate & Gift 7 0.4%

Total: $2,302 100%
Federal Revenues by Source
So where does almost 90% of revenue come from?? Payroll taxes, personal taxes, corporate taxes.
If more people work for the govt.. the govt. has to get revenue from where to pay them?
Please explain where the revenue will come from???

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You're an idiot.

The single biggest drag on the employment numbers has been the massive cutbacks in government jobs.

OK let's grant your argument.. "cut back in government jobs drag on numbers..."!

Are you saying there should be more government jobs?

If so where does the money come to pay the salaries and wages of these government jobs?

Do you agree taxes revenues pay the salaries/wages of government jobs?

Where will the tax revenue come from if MORE People were working for the government?

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

It's not the Federal Governments role to hire the unemployed and try to sustain the weight of the economy upon its shoulders, they don't have the revenue to maintain such a burden. All of Obama's efforts to have the Federal Government bribe consumers into buying Chevy Volts with incentives, or fund financially unstable green corportations, has burdened taxpayers with an escalating national debt.

The key to any growing economy is to encourage the private sector to spend its OWN capital, to develop new ideas, expand, and hire more workers to meet production needs. You are not going to achieve this through the burden of higher taxes and the costs of meeting an additional 854 (active, completed, and long-term) government regulations. It's policies such as this that has left the Obama economy pretty much limping in hopes... by chance... to one day see a recovery.

Small Business Regulations Surge Under Obama - Forbes

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK let's grant your argument.. "cut back in government jobs drag on numbers..."!

Are you saying there should be more government jobs?

If so where does the money come to pay the salaries and wages of these government jobs?

Do you agree taxes revenues pay the salaries/wages of government jobs?

Where will the tax revenue come from if MORE People were working for the government?

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

Again.. WHERE does the revenue come to support more people that earn be it private or government workers for the government?
You didn't answer the question.
Let me make it simpler.

Two cases.

A) Private for profit firm contracts with Government to perform services. Where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the firm?
B) Govt. hires people and where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the peoples' salaries?

The Govt. doesn't pay taxes.
If more people work for the govt. or get contracts from the govt. the govt. still has to have revenue to pay. Where does the revenue come from?

HERE I'll help you with some facts:

In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!

• Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
• Excise taxes 72 3.1%
• Estate & Gift 7 0.4%

Total: $2,302 100%
Federal Revenues by Source
So where does almost 90% of revenue come from?? Payroll taxes, personal taxes, corporate taxes.
If more people work for the govt.. the govt. has to get revenue from where to pay them?
Please explain where the revenue will come from???

God damn you are one stupid fuck. Unbelievable.

The reason unemployment remains high is because so many government jobs are being eliminated.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

this POTUS sucks..... worse then Bush jr and Carter put together...

I'm sorry you are so f...ing wrong about BUSH!!!
HOW stupid are you to totally drink the MSM koolaid without even recognizing THESE EVENTS occurred NONE of which were caused by Bush!
THESE EVENTS have NEVER happened in ONE Presidency! NEVER!
AND you have the stupidity to repeat that old worn out cliche about George W. Bush who will be recognized by historians as one of the GREAT
Presidents who had THESE EVENTS occur!
Dumb sh...t YOU can't even read all this but
REFUTE THESE FACTS OR APOLOGIZE AS BEING a dumb f...k!

DID THIS HAPPEN??
1) Dot.com bust cost $5 trillion in lost market value.. this means every year for 30 years now starting in 2000 the federal revenue is over $20 billion written off against taxes owed.
How many people LOST jobs due to the bust??
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 -
and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion ? Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

DID THIS HAPPEN??
2) Did YOU forget that 9/11 occurred and it cost $2 trillion over the next 30 years again $8 billion will NOT BE PAiD.. was that Bush's fault?
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York!!
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

DID THIS HAPPEN??
3) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history!
The worst Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Hurricane Rita quickly followed Katrina only to make matters worse. Between the two, more than $200 billion in damage was done. 400,000 jobs were lost and 275,000 homes were destroyed. Many of the jobs and homes were never to be recovered. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and over 1,000 were killed and more are missing. The effect on oil and gasoline prices was long-lasting.

400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita
145,000 jobs in NYC alone due to 9/11
300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts.

Almost 1 million jobs alone from those 3 events

All of this while having almost $60 billion a year in tax revenue due to the above losses !

FACT! The HIGHEST gross REVENUE to the Federal Government in HISTORY.. 2007 2,567,985,000 Revenues ; Expenses:$2,728,686,000 -160,701 deficit decline
Historical Tables | The White House

• Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–)
• 2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
• 2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 Dot.com Bust, 9/11, Recession
• 2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
• 2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 tax cuts took affect worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
• 2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 biggest deficit..,, worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
• 2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 deficit decline,,worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
• 2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 deficit decline,,worst hurricanes SEASONS in history
• 2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 deficit decline
• 2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 housing bubble
• 2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 TARP,Stimulus
• 2010 2,162,706 3,457,079 -1,294,373 This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
• 2011 2,303,466 3,603,059 -1,299,593 This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
• 2012 2,450,164 3,537,127 -1,086,963 This doesn't look like $600 billion deficit???
• 2013 2,712,045 3,684,947 -972,902 estimate
• 2014 3,033,618 3,777,807 -744,189 estimate
• 2015 3,331,685 3,908,157 -576,472 estimate
• 2016 3,561,451 4,089,836 -528,385 estimate
• 2017 3,760,542 4,247,448 -486,906 estimate
• 2018 3,973,974 4,449,240 -475,266 estimate

Gross Domestic Product Largest in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.

Bush growth of the GDP was greater then Clinton in 2005 GDP grew at 6.5% Clinton's best:6.4%
Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage

NOW you dumb f...k! Please refute THESE FACTS???

1. That is why we should own all the natural resourses in Iraq, A-fag-a-stan, and fudge-a-Pakistan, and any other fucking rag head hell hole we need to go into in the future.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[R.C. Christian]

Facepalm Alert^^

 

[mudwhistle]

So it's been coming down since he got in, in the middle of the SECOND Pub Great Meltdown, despite never ending, mindless Pub obstruction and fear mongering? That's what I thought...

The "misery index" was a transparent PR trick from the get-go. But make one slight adjustment and it works pretty well (also makes R pres look worse). Just subtract 4% from the unemployment figure and 3% for inflation ("normalizing" both to a target instead of to zero). Treat all resulting negative numbers as zero. I used to have this all on Excell but I will have to recreate it.

The way Obama counts unemployment is a cute PR trick as well.

He uses UE3 when he should be using UE6.....UE3 which cuts unemployment every time somebody drops out of the labor force. He also counts all jobs as the same when only 47% of us have full-time jobs.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

Again.. WHERE does the revenue come to support more people that earn be it private or government workers for the government?
You didn't answer the question.
Let me make it simpler.

Two cases.

A) Private for profit firm contracts with Government to perform services. Where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the firm?
B) Govt. hires people and where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the peoples' salaries?

The Govt. doesn't pay taxes.
If more people work for the govt. or get contracts from the govt. the govt. still has to have revenue to pay. Where does the revenue come from?

HERE I'll help you with some facts:

In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!

• Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
• Excise taxes 72 3.1%
• Estate & Gift 7 0.4%

Total: $2,302 100%
Federal Revenues by Source
So where does almost 90% of revenue come from?? Payroll taxes, personal taxes, corporate taxes.
If more people work for the govt.. the govt. has to get revenue from where to pay them?
Please explain where the revenue will come from???

God damn you are one stupid fuck. Unbelievable.

The reason unemployment remains high is because so many government jobs are being eliminated.

Noooooo.....because we're not creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth and other factors. Folks stopping working because it's easier to collect Social Security Disability.

 

[healthmyths]

this is what i'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

again.. Where does the revenue come to support more people that earn be it private or government workers for the government?
You didn't answer the question.
Let me make it simpler.

Two cases.

A) private for profit firm contracts with government to perform services. Where does the govt. Get the revenue to pay the firm?
B) govt. Hires people and where does the govt. Get the revenue to pay the peoples' salaries?

The govt. Doesn't pay taxes.
If more people work for the govt. Or get contracts from the govt. The govt. Still has to have revenue to pay. Where does the revenue come from?

Here i'll help you with some facts:

in 2011 this was the total federal revenues and sources:repeat this is total revenue sources for federal government!!!

• personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• social security/medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• customs,duties, misc. 131 5.7%
• excise taxes 72 3.1%
• estate & gift 7 0.4%

total: $2,302 100%
federal revenues by source
so where does almost 90% of revenue come from?? Payroll taxes, personal taxes, corporate taxes.
If more people work for the govt.. The govt. Has to get revenue from where to pay them?
Please explain where the revenue will come from???

god damn you are one stupid fuck. Unbelievable.

the reason unemployment remains high is because so many government jobs are being eliminated.

And where does the government get the money to pay the workers???

 

[daveman]

The American people rate presidential candidates even before they have been elected and people rated Obama long before the first election, and many still rating Obama each day. Why would historians be restricted to voting before the president's term is over. In any case, in the last rating it was 238 noted historians and presidential experts that rated the presidents and they rated Obama on his first two years in office.
The historians and experts will rate Obama and all the president's again and the ratings do change, not always by much but when a new ex-president is added it does change the ratings. For example, Bush may have replaced Buchanan as fifth worst president?

History isn't American Idol, you know. And until Obama's second term is over, it's not history -- it's current events.

Your opinion that Obama is the *sigh* bestest President EVAR!! is just that -- your opinion.

Ten minutes ago is history. I'm not certain any law has been passed, maybe in the House, that historian can't rate presidents at any time. And even after the historians have rated, new information might arise or another president leaves office and they then re-rate. In a way it is an ongoing process. FDR moved from third to first and Reagan has moved three times.

Any historian that rates Obama anywhere near the top is a partisan hack.

 

[healthmyths]

Just to show how f...king dumb some people are.. here is a statement made by one of those idiots:

"the reason unemployment remains high is because so many government jobs are being eliminated."

Now this is SO DUMB so INACCURATE ON SO MANY levels!

FACTS First which idiots like these seem to think are available!
1) In 2011 there were 131,159,000 people working in this country ... counting Govt. workers!
Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/2011/ces/tableb1_201112.pdf
2) In March 2011, there were 16.4 million full-time equivalent employees working in state and local governments in the U.S.
down 1.4 percent from 2010 State and Local Governments Employ 16.4 Million Full-Time Equivalent Employees in 2011, Census Bureau Reports - Governments - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

Simple MATH here folks..
Dividing 16.4 million by 131.1 million means 12.5% of total population works for Government!
Unemployment rate is 7.6% today.
Bringing back the government to 2011 level would mean 232,860 more government workers!!! WOW!
232,860 people represents.... 2% of the total 11.7
million unemployed!

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 11,742,000 working age Americans that are officially unemployed.
In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that there are 89,967,000 working age Americans that are "not in the labor force". That is a new all-time record, and that number increased by a whopping 663,000 during the month of March alone.

When you add 11,742,000 working age Americans that are officially unemployed to the 89,967,000 working age Americans that are "not in the labor force", you come up with a grand total of 101,709,000 working age Americans that do not have a job.
More Than 101 Million Working Age Americans Do Not Have A Job | Zero Hedge

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This is what I'm saying:

1. Conservatives want smaller government.

2. Making government smaller means getting rid of government jobs, including private sector jobs that do business with the government.

3. Fewer of those jobs means higher unemployment, or at best slower employment growth.

4. Since conservatives want number 2 to happen, they must want, or at least accept, number 3 happening.

5. Conservatives trying to blame number 3 on Obama, and trying to score political points off that,

when that is what they want,

is extremely disengenuous.

Again.. WHERE does the revenue come to support more people that earn be it private or government workers for the government?
You didn't answer the question.
Let me make it simpler.

Two cases.

A) Private for profit firm contracts with Government to perform services. Where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the firm?
B) Govt. hires people and where does the govt. get the revenue to pay the peoples' salaries?

The Govt. doesn't pay taxes.
If more people work for the govt. or get contracts from the govt. the govt. still has to have revenue to pay. Where does the revenue come from?

HERE I'll help you with some facts:

In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!

• Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
• Excise taxes 72 3.1%
• Estate & Gift 7 0.4%

Total: $2,302 100%
Federal Revenues by Source
So where does almost 90% of revenue come from?? Payroll taxes, personal taxes, corporate taxes.
If more people work for the govt.. the govt. has to get revenue from where to pay them?
Please explain where the revenue will come from???

God damn you are one stupid fuck. Unbelievable.

The reason unemployment remains high is because so many government jobs are being eliminated.

of the Class of 2013, gives unemployment and underemployment rates for college graduates under age 25 who are not enrolled in further schooling. The unemployment rate of this group over the last year averaged 8.8 percent, but the underemployment rate was more than twice that, at 18.3 percent. In other words, in addition to the substantial share who are officially unemployed, a large swath of these young, highly educated workers either have a job but cannot attain the hours they need, or want a job but have given up looking for work.

47 percent of employed college graduates under age 25 were working in jobs that didn't require a four-year degree in 2007. By 2012, this percentage had risen to 52 percent.

Daily Kos :: Unemployment and underemployment rate among college graduates shows the problem isn't lack of skills

I didn't realize there was a HUGE boom of college grads that were all fighting to get into the same government jobs.

 

[daveman]

Recovery woes: America's second-largest employer is a temp agency | WashingtonExaminer.com

It's a sad state of affairs for our country. While part-time and temp jobs reached highs last month, full-time jobs decreased by another 240,000. The recovery, or lack thereof, is being fueled by a shift from full-time to part-time work.​