Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Poor self-justifying little snowflake.....Now that we have dispensed with your lie....
When you try to speak for someone you don't know, making false accusations you can't prove, then try to claim what you said was accurate you continue to make yourself look like an egotistical, reality-denying ass.
You don't know me. You have no clue what I do. Just like what you snowflakes do with Trump, you make false accusations while having no - zero - evidence to back up your false accusations. Claiming to have the power to speak for others just makes you look like a delusional ass. The only thing we have dispensed with is your psychotic claim that you can speak accurately for others.
You can continue to claim you can - whatever makes you happy and helps you become UN-triggered - but we will all know, when you do it, that you're just a delusional ass. Good luck with that.
Knowing that you will respond back by claiming that you can and attempting to justify your claims, I am ignoring you now. You have wasted enough of my time. Have a good day.
You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created. Someone will HAVE to pay for that private DEBT. I am sure Janet Yellow will spring that surprise on President Trump sometime soon.
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/obamas-4-trillion-gift-to-the-rich/PRAVDA would be proud of the Commies of the liberal party today.It has also allowed Washington to pay less for the money it borrows. US government debt, already more than $17.7 trillion, would be substantially higher if the Treasury had been forced to pay normal interest rates to lenders over the past six years.Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created.
There's a reason for that. The nature and scope of the OP is on an overall, national level. The OP doesn't, as you have, "cherry pick' specific elements and then attempt to extrapolate the downside(s) of them as the basis for denying that as a whole, the Obama years yielded an net improvement for the majority (majority >= 50%+1) of Americans.
Were the Obama years ideal and beneficial for literally everyone? No. Obama will be the first to admit that. But for whom Obama's presidency yielded positive economic outcomes and for whom it did not isn't the point of the OP. The point is simply that such outcomes were realized by more people and businesses than suffered negative economic outcomes during the same period.
No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
I would almost be embarrassed.
Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created. Someone will HAVE to pay for that private DEBT. I am sure Janet Yellow will spring that surprise on President Trump sometime soon.
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/obamas-4-trillion-gift-to-the-rich/PRAVDA would be proud of the Commies of the liberal party today.It has also allowed Washington to pay less for the money it borrows. US government debt, already more than $17.7 trillion, would be substantially higher if the Treasury had been forced to pay normal interest rates to lenders over the past six years.Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created.
There's a reason for that. The nature and scope of the OP is on an overall, national level. The OP doesn't, as you have, "cherry pick' specific elements and then attempt to extrapolate the downside(s) of them as the basis for denying that as a whole, the Obama years yielded an net improvement for the majority (majority >= 50%+1) of Americans.
Were the Obama years ideal and beneficial for literally everyone? No. Obama will be the first to admit that. But for whom Obama's presidency yielded positive economic outcomes and for whom it did not isn't the point of the OP. The point is simply that such outcomes were realized by more people and businesses than suffered negative economic outcomes during the same period.No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.
???You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created. Someone will HAVE to pay for that private DEBT. I am sure Janet Yellow will spring that surprise on President Trump sometime soon.
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/obamas-4-trillion-gift-to-the-rich/PRAVDA would be proud of the Commies of the liberal party today.It has also allowed Washington to pay less for the money it borrows. US government debt, already more than $17.7 trillion, would be substantially higher if the Treasury had been forced to pay normal interest rates to lenders over the past six years.Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created.
There's a reason for that. The nature and scope of the OP is on an overall, national level. The OP doesn't, as you have, "cherry pick' specific elements and then attempt to extrapolate the downside(s) of them as the basis for denying that as a whole, the Obama years yielded an net improvement for the majority (majority >= 50%+1) of Americans.
Were the Obama years ideal and beneficial for literally everyone? No. Obama will be the first to admit that. But for whom Obama's presidency yielded positive economic outcomes and for whom it did not isn't the point of the OP. The point is simply that such outcomes were realized by more people and businesses than suffered negative economic outcomes during the same period.No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.legitimately/humanelyMany things to be appropriated..........many....
???You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created. Someone will HAVE to pay for that private DEBT. I am sure Janet Yellow will spring that surprise on President Trump sometime soon.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/obamas-4-trillion-gift-to-the-rich/ PRAVDA would be proud of the Commies of the liberal party today.Notice that she left out the 4 trillion dollars of FAUX money that the FED created.
There's a reason for that. The nature and scope of the OP is on an overall, national level. The OP doesn't, as you have, "cherry pick' specific elements and then attempt to extrapolate the downside(s) of them as the basis for denying that as a whole, the Obama years yielded an net improvement for the majority (majority >= 50%+1) of Americans.
Were the Obama years ideal and beneficial for literally everyone? No. Obama will be the first to admit that. But for whom Obama's presidency yielded positive economic outcomes and for whom it did not isn't the point of the OP. The point is simply that such outcomes were realized by more people and businesses than suffered negative economic outcomes during the same period.No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.legitimately/humanelyMany things to be appropriated..........many....
Gotcha. TY.???You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....There's a reason for that. The nature and scope of the OP is on an overall, national level. The OP doesn't, as you have, "cherry pick' specific elements and then attempt to extrapolate the downside(s) of them as the basis for denying that as a whole, the Obama years yielded an net improvement for the majority (majority >= 50%+1) of Americans.
Were the Obama years ideal and beneficial for literally everyone? No. Obama will be the first to admit that. But for whom Obama's presidency yielded positive economic outcomes and for whom it did not isn't the point of the OP. The point is simply that such outcomes were realized by more people and businesses than suffered negative economic outcomes during the same period.No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.legitimately/humanelyMany things to be appropriated..........many....
Rhetorical rigor.....with a soupçon of whimsy.....
it's a good look.
All good....Gotcha. TY.???You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.legitimately/humanelyMany things to be appropriated..........many....
Rhetorical rigor.....with a soupçon of whimsy.....
it's a good look.
Rigor and whimsy do go nicely together. What better way be there to convey that one's "keeping it real."
Selective sprinkling of argot is highly recommended.....Gotcha. TY.???You are so full of shit, I would almost be embarrassed. But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is. Yes Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started. Yet, you listen to the lickspittle, liberal, lapdog media, and then goose step right along with them. Seig Heil....No, I'm not. As goes the topic under discussion in the OP and that you specifically addressed above, here's why:You are so full of shit
- My initial response to you explained the contextual difference between what the OP-er noted in the OP and what you opted to mention in your post about "what s/he didn't mention." I did that because the nature and scope of the commentary in your post and the OP are not the same, thus not comparable, thereby making remarks about what the OP neither mentioned nor alluded to off-topic and, by definition, non sequitur.
It takes strong reading comprehension and cognition (logic) skills to realize that, and you clearly haven't got the ones needed to do so. Having those skills, one would have given credence to the content noted in the OP and then proceed to introduce different information that at a more detailed level identifies one/several caveats pertaining to the data the OP presents and the nature and extent of conclusions one can legitimately/humanely draw based on them.
Even though you crafted valid sentences to communicate your point, the expressed flow of thought reflected by those sentences (and no transitional remarks to connect the very high level points of the OP with the considerably more detailed ones you shared) being presented in isolated reply to the OP is non sequitur with regard to the OP's content; thus the statements demonstrably display the writer's incoherence.
I would almost be embarrassed.
In short, your post -- consisting as it did of nothing but a blurted out a fact unrelated to the OP's content and scope -- that I responded to is the compositional analogue of Tourette's syndrome. If you have indeed completed the 10th grade, you should be embarrassed for, unlike typos and mere misspellings, inadequacy in the organization of one's thoughts a core weakness that one can ascribe to nobody but oneself. I, on the other hand, am merely embarrassed for you because even after my having explained to you what was going on, you still (1) rejected the explanation and (2) attempted to defend the virtue of your comments. It's clear you, like Trump, do not "know more than the generals."Obama made the Rich definitely RICHER and put the most in POVERTY since the War on Poverty started.
The "War on Poverty" began in 1964. Your assertion about Obama "putting" more people in poverty than since it began, though correct based on merely counting the quantity of people in poverty, is not relevant other than as a piece of abstract information suited to playing "Trivial Pursuit." To see the gravitas and relevant state of poverty in a nation, one must one look, not at the quantity of people in poverty but at the poverty rate. Why? [1] From 1959 to 2015, the number of families in poverty (families, rather than individuals, at or below the poverty level) and individuals increased, most likely due to mere population growth. (see the attached files: hstpov13.pdf and hstpov7-By year-Declining.pdf)
What does one observe by looking at poverty rates over time?
What conclusions can one draw from that information?
- The highest poverty rate for families during the Obama years was 11.8%. Looking at the attached document containing the U.S. Census Bureau's data about the poverty rate for families, one sees that rate was higher in several years between 1964 and 2016, including a pair of years each in the early 1980s and early 1990s. (see the attached file: hstpov13.pdf)
- When the impact of the Great Recession -- the worst economic downturn the U.S. had since the the "War on Poverty" began, and one that G.W. Bush had seven years to avert, and yet he didn't -- reached its zenith in 2010, the poverty rate among people reached the highest it's been since 1966. (see attached file: hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf)
- After 2010, the impact of the Great Recession began to percolate out of the economy and poverty rate among families and people began to decline. It reached its lowest point in 2015 (see attached file hstpov7 - By rate-Declining.pdf). (I don't have the "hstpov" Census Bureau table that includes 2016 because it's not yet been published.)
You'll recall that above I wrote that I'm embarrassed for you. Now it's clearer why. With the content you provided in the post to which I replied, you exhibited a willingness to delivered "in depth" facts, however, your discussion of the data point you there shared and your subsequent remarks in post 198 show us that whereas you are quick to "consume" and share in isolation detailed pieces of data, you are not willing to perform the detailed analysis required to fully make sense of its merit and draw valid conclusions based on it. And guess what? That too is yet another form of incoherence.
- Well, that after having been handed the worst economy since the "War on Poverty" began, Obama managed to lower the poverty rate over the course of his tenure as POTUS.
- While a POTUS must, technically speaking, "own" whatever happens in their Administration, rational and substantive analysis of the Obama years' poverty rates reveals they were not caused by him, but rather endured and managed down by him. Had it been so that Obama was handed a stable or growing economy and the poverty rate yet increased, then it would literally and contextually appropriate to say Obama "put" more people in poverty than any POTUS before him from the start of the "War on Poverty" to the end of his term.
But since you are a liberal, I know how far up Uranus, your head is.
Oh, and one more reason you should be embarrassed for yourself....You debased yourself even further by deigning to levy trite and unfounded insults at me. You'll notice I didn't need to do that to show the insufficiency of your cognition. I didn't because merely describing it and then providing evidence of the description's aptness is quite adequate. You may now consider yourself "schooled." I suggest you grow up before you again try to take me on with puerile effrontery and epithets.legitimately/humanelyMany things to be appropriated..........many....
Rhetorical rigor.....with a soupçon of whimsy.....
it's a good look.
Rigor and whimsy do go nicely together. What better way be there to convey that one's "keeping it real."
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Did you not see the link to the BLS in his post?
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
I did dummy, just click the link and give me my modicum.
^^^ those who can't refute the data, divert away from it ^^^
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
I did dummy, just click the link and give me my modicum.
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of "liberals" on this board don't HAVE their own opinions on much of anything! Far too many of you troll sites like The Daily Kos for your daily helping of anti conservative propaganda points. Without those sites most of you couldn't carry on an intelligent dinner conversation on the economy because most of you don't seem to know the first thing about Economics.
It's obvious that the "Obama Economy" wasn't as good for the Middle Class as it was for the wealthy...yet people like yourself want to claim it a rousing success! The fact is...Barack Obama didn't have a coherent strategy to grow the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer left nearly seven years ago following the Obama Stimulus's failure to create jobs. .
There are fewer than half a million people who are not in the labor force because they "gave up." And that's not necessarily due to being unemployed for a long time....Some who lost his job, looked once for work and then gave up would be not in the labor force for discouraged reasons 4 weeks later.
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
You forgot the highest percentage of people out of the workforce (due to being unemployed for so long and giving up), and the highest amount of people on welfare.
^^^ those who can't refute the data, divert away from it ^^^The Daily Kos? LOL Sure, Skews...sure...
For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
I did dummy, just click the link and give me my modicum.
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of "liberals" on this board don't HAVE their own opinions on much of anything! Far too many of you troll sites like The Daily Kos for your daily helping of anti conservative propaganda points. Without those sites most of you couldn't carry on an intelligent dinner conversation on the economy because most of you don't seem to know the first thing about Economics.
It's obvious that the "Obama Economy" wasn't as good for the Middle Class as it was for the wealthy...yet people like yourself want to claim it a rousing success! The fact is...Barack Obama didn't have a coherent strategy to grow the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer left nearly seven years ago following the Obama Stimulus's failure to create jobs. .
No, ya lyin' con tool -- I'm talking about....^^^ those who can't refute the data, divert away from it ^^^For fucks sakes those are the numbers and they will be same no matter where you source them from.
Here is the BLS data, so now you can have a nice hot cup of STFU
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
I did dummy, just click the link and give me my modicum.
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of "liberals" on this board don't HAVE their own opinions on much of anything! Far too many of you troll sites like The Daily Kos for your daily helping of anti conservative propaganda points. Without those sites most of you couldn't carry on an intelligent dinner conversation on the economy because most of you don't seem to know the first thing about Economics.
It's obvious that the "Obama Economy" wasn't as good for the Middle Class as it was for the wealthy...yet people like yourself want to claim it a rousing success! The fact is...Barack Obama didn't have a coherent strategy to grow the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer left nearly seven years ago following the Obama Stimulus's failure to create jobs. .
Divert away from the data? Would that be like inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs Created or Saved...to hide how few jobs you actually created? Is that the kind of diversion that you're speaking of, Faun?
We now have 7 full years of economic data since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). So, as Republicans in Washington continue their relentless assault on the ACA, it’s a good time to take stock of how America actually fared in the Obamacare Economy.
Before turning to the facts, a reminder of the narrative that the GOP has been pushing about the ACA for so long:
“It will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy! … This health care law … is already destroying jobs in our country.” — John Boehner, 2011
“We now know that Obamacare has been one of the single biggest drags on job creation since early 2010.” — Mitch McConnell, 2012
“[T]his is going to blow a hole through the deficit even more than we had already thought.” — Paul Ryan, 2012
“Obamacare is directly responsible for destroying jobs and lowering wages for workers” — Senate Republican Policy Committee, 2014
“It is the biggest job-killer in this country.” — Ted Cruz, 2016
“Obamacare is devastating businesses." — Donald Trump, 2016
“Obamacare … this disastrous policy that's been killing jobs." — Mike Pence, 2016
Let’s tackle these false “job-killing, wage-reducing, deficit-busting” myths one by one:
The Obamacare Economy: 7 Years, 16 Million Jobs Created, Middle-Class Incomes Up $3K
You have no idea what you are talking about, you are just a far left droneNo, ya lyin' con tool -- I'm talking about....^^^ those who can't refute the data, divert away from it ^^^So quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Antonto! I'll have a modicum of respect for your opinions if you're forming them using your brain and an unbiased source! When you come here to spam the board with crap that you pulled out of sites like the Daily Kos I have zero respect for your "opinion" because it isn't YOURS...it's a talking point you've been fed by some liberal propagandist!
I did dummy, just click the link and give me my modicum.
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of "liberals" on this board don't HAVE their own opinions on much of anything! Far too many of you troll sites like The Daily Kos for your daily helping of anti conservative propaganda points. Without those sites most of you couldn't carry on an intelligent dinner conversation on the economy because most of you don't seem to know the first thing about Economics.
It's obvious that the "Obama Economy" wasn't as good for the Middle Class as it was for the wealthy...yet people like yourself want to claim it a rousing success! The fact is...Barack Obama didn't have a coherent strategy to grow the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer left nearly seven years ago following the Obama Stimulus's failure to create jobs. .
Divert away from the data? Would that be like inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs Created or Saved...to hide how few jobs you actually created? Is that the kind of diversion that you're speaking of, Faun?
