Obamagas to drop below $2 a gallon nationwide

[Faun]

Lagging Indicator Definition | Investopedia

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, when you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

 

[bedowin62]

please show everybody here the part of your own source that shows lagging indicators can last seven years.

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, when you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

watching you cry is FUNNY! I was off by the one year; the other years; AS I HAVE SAID, there were more Dems than Repubs; and those majorities were MUCH LARGER than the four you mention in that year

I have to give you credit, you seem to not mind being slapped around

 

[Faun]

Hey, retard. You didn't even know unemployment was a lagging indicator. You sound pretty funny trying to talk like a smart person who knows how economies work.

This crash would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic if the government and the Fed had not intervened they way they did.

Nevertheless, we still had a -4.4 percent loss to GDP. A figure not seen since the Great Depression.

When we had a -1.4% loss to GDP in 1990, it took 29 months before unemployment returned to the pre-recession figure.

I have already provided cites, which you obviously did not read, which showed how it can take years for lagging indicators to recover from a crash in the economy.

One last note. Our unemployment has returned to pre-crash levels. It did not take seven years.

Nice try.

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, when you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

watching you cry is FUNNY! I was off by the one year; the other years; AS I HAVE SAID, there were more Dems than Repubs; and those majorities were MUCH LARGER than the four you mention in that year

I have to give you credit, you seem to not mind being slapped around

Yeah, you're slapping me around by claiming 284 is more than 288.

Hell, you can't even get your correction right. Now you think 2008 was 2009, the year there actually were more Democrats than Republicans during Bush's terms. Too funny.

 

[bedowin62]

again you're making a fool of yourself long after you should have been man enough to admit you lost

what a joke!

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, when you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

watching you cry is FUNNY! I was off by the one year; the other years; AS I HAVE SAID, there were more Dems than Repubs; and those majorities were MUCH LARGER than the four you mention in that year

I have to give you credit, you seem to not mind being slapped around

Yeah, you're slapping me around by claiming 284 is more than 288.

Hell, you can't even get your correction right. Now you think 2008 was 2009, the year there actually were more Democrats than Republicans during Bush's terms. Too funny.

you're making a fool of yourself like you always do

I have said Democrat majorities were bigger than Democrat majorities; and they were of course.


too bad you lack a sense of shame; then again if you had one you and your loser friends wouldn't be crying that republicans were magically able to do things with THEIR majorities that you BIGGER Democrat majorities were not able to do



ok continue drooling

 

[Faun]

Like you did when I showed you 288 is more than 284, right?

Oh.. wait... no, you actually dug your shovel deeper and kept digging.

you poor self-deluding idiot. you mean when I showed you 3 years is more than one year and 78 is more than 4..
just to let everybody here know what a pathetic loser you are this idiot is referring to a post I wrote where I said the Democrat majority was bigger "from Day One" then any Republican majority Bush had.
I was off by one year; by the 4 member margin of 288 to 284 this loser mentions above.

the other years democrats held the majority of BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS their majority was MUCH LARGER, including one year when the House had 78 more democrats than republicans. THAT doesn't even count the senate; or the 2 "Independents" that caucus with Democrats, Bernie Sanders being one of them

so readers, the normal people here, can decide for themselves which is closer to correct, and who is the loser still obviously butthurt over that exchange!!!


libs are losers who lie to themselves

No, when you said there were more Democrats in 2007 than there were Republicans in 2005.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

watching you cry is FUNNY! I was off by the one year; the other years; AS I HAVE SAID, there were more Dems than Repubs; and those majorities were MUCH LARGER than the four you mention in that year

I have to give you credit, you seem to not mind being slapped around

Yeah, you're slapping me around by claiming 284 is more than 288.

Hell, you can't even get your correction right. Now you think 2008 was 2009, the year there actually were more Democrats than Republicans during Bush's terms. Too funny.

you're making a fool of yourself like you always do

I have said Democrat majorities were bigger than Democrat majorities; and they were of course.


too bad you lack a sense of shame; then again if you had one you and your loser friends wouldn't be crying that republicans were magically able to do things with THEIR majorities that you BIGGER Democrat majorities were not able to do



ok continue drooling

Now you think Democrat majorities were bigger than Democrat majorities??



Calm down, bedwetter, you're getting yourself too excited.

 

[guno]

$1.98 per gallon in my part of NC today

 

[bedowin62]

107th 2001–2003 100 50/50[22] 50/49[23] 0/1[24]— — 435 212 221 2 — George W. Bush
108th 2003–2005 100 48 51 1[24] — 435 205 229 1 —
109th 2005–2007 100 44 55 1[24] — 435 202 231 1 1
110th 2007–2009 100 49 49 2[25] — 435 236 199 — —
111th 2009–2011 100 56–58[26] 40–42[27] 2[25] 0-1 435 257 178 — — Barack Obama
112th 2011–2013 100 51 47 2[28] — 435 193 242 — —
113th 2013–2015 100 53 45 2[29] — 435 201 234 — —
114th 2015–2017 100 44 54 2[30] — 435 188 247 — —
Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others Vacan
cies Total Democrats Republicans Others Vacan
cies President


here it is again leftard

don't cry too hard ok?

 

[bedowin62]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

1. Jump up ^ The Democratic Party controlled the 107th Congress from January 3 to January 20, 2001 (50/50 tie with Vice President Gore as the deciding vote) and from May 24, 2001 to January 3, 2003 (after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats).
2. Jump up ^ The Republican Party controlled the 107th Congress from January 20, 2001 (50/50 tie with Vice President Cheney as the deciding vote) until May 24, 2001, when Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats.
3. ^ Jump up to: abcIn the 107th Congress (after May 24, 2001), and in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress, Independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont, chose to caucus with the Democratic Party.
4. ^ Jump up to: abIn the 110th Congress and 111th Congress, the two independent members of the Senate, chose to caucus with the Democratic Party, and thus are considered to be a part of the majority.
5. Jump up ^From January 27 to April 28, 2009, when Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) joined the Democratic caucus, there were 56 Democratic Senators, 41 Republicans, two independents and one undecided seat in Minnesota. That vacancy was filled as an additional Democratic seat on July 7, 2009, with the swearing-in of Al Franken, bringing the totals to 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 independents. Seven weeks later, on August 25, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) died, lowering the Democratic total to 57 for a month until Paul G. Kirk Jr. (D) was appointed and sworn in as Sen. Kennedy's interim replacement on September 25, 2009. Just over four months later, on February 4, 2010, Scott Brown (R) who had won a special election for the seat, succeeded Paul Kirk, returning the Republican caucus to 41, and again reducing the Democratic caucus to 57 plus two independents. [The Democratic caucus dropped again briefly to 56 in the 18 days between the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) on June 28, 2010 and the seating of his interim successor, Carte Goodwin (also D) on July 16.] The appointed Democratic Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris was succeeded on November 29, 2010 by Mark Kirk, a Republican elected earlier that month, once again dropping the Democratic caucus to 56 with 2 independents facing 42 Republicans for the last month of the 111th Congress. December 2011 Congressional Directory, page 324
6. Jump up ^From January 3 to April 28, 2009, prior to Senator Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, there were 41 Republican Senators. The Republican caucus returned to 41 on February 4, 2010, with the swearing in of Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to fill the Democratic seat of Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk. After Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) replaced Roland Burris as Senator from Illinois on November 29, 2010, the Senate in the last month of the 111th Congress stood at 42 Republicans, 56 Democrats and 2 independents.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

1. ^ From January 3 to April 28, 2009, prior to Senator Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, there were 41 Republican Senators. The Republican caucus returned to 41 on February 4, 2010, with the swearing in of Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to fill the Democratic seat of Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk. After Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) replaced Roland Burris as Senator from Illinois on November 29, 2010, the Senate in the last month of the 111th Congress stood at 42 Republicans, 56 Democrats and 2 independents.
2. Jump up ^In the 112th Congress, the two independent members of the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democrat of Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, chose to caucus with the Democratic Party, and thus are considered to be a part of the majority.
3. Jump up ^In the 113th Congress, the two independent members of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Angus King of Maine, chose to caucus with the Democratic Party, and thus are considered to be a part of the majority.

 

[Faun]

107th 2001–2003 100 50/50[22] 50/49[23] 0/1[24]— — 435 212 221 2 — George W. Bush
108th 2003–2005 100 48 51 1[24] — 435 205 229 1 —
109th 2005–2007 100 44 55 1[24] — 435 202 231 1 1
110th 2007–2009 100 49 49 2[25] — 435 236 199 — —
111th 2009–2011 100 56–58[26] 40–42[27] 2[25] 0-1 435 257 178 — — Barack Obama
112th 2011–2013 100 51 47 2[28] — 435 193 242 — —
113th 2013–2015 100 53 45 2[29] — 435 201 234 — —
114th 2015–2017 100 44 54 2[30] — 435 188 247 — —
Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others Vacan
cies Total Democrats Republicans Others Vacan
cies President


here it is again leftard

don't cry too hard ok?

Why would I cry because you keep making an ass of yourself?

The numbers you're posting are false. Why? Because you're posting numbers from non-authoritative sites while ignoring the actual numbers posted by the government.

Here it is again ...

House
109th (2005–2007) D:201 R:233 I:1
110th (2007–2009) D:233 R:202 I:1

Senate
109th (2005–2007) D:44 R:55 I:1
110th (2007–2009) D:49 R:49 I:2

 

[Faun]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

 

[bedowin62]

Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
... in which the majority party changed mid-Congress. Historical graph of party control of the Senate and ... Congress Years Total Democrats Republicans Others




YAWN

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Wikipedia??

Seriously, bedwetter ... what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not even realize everyone sees what a moron you are by posting from wikipedia because you're afraid of the government's actual numbers since those numbers expose you as the moron you are?

House
Senate

Thanks for playing!

yawn

you poor pathetic clown. you cant say what is inaccurate with the source; because inside you know you're wrong

so sad


tsk tsk tsk

 

[bedowin62]

Reason #1 you're a pathetic loser. from YOUR source;

(more to follow! ) lol

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

 

[bedowin62]

your own sources prove democrat majorities were larger than republican majorities

as anybody can see from the post above from YOUR source even when repubs had a majority it was slim; in THIS congress even going back and forth from one party to the other


MORE TO FOLLOW!!

LOL

 

[bedowin62]

More from YOUR SOURCE:
in this Congress the 1 Independent caucused with Dems making the Repub majority a whopping TWO MEMBERS

gosh what a desperate loser you are. did you think, hope, nobody would take the time to notice your own sources make my point for me even as you tried to ridicule my source?

lol

 

[bedowin62]

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) (caucused with the Democrats)

Total Seats: 100


wow ur cooking with gas loser; in this Congress the Repub Senate majority was a whole 10 members!!


hang on moron; we're getting to the years when Dems held the majority, where I said their majorities were BIGGER. then we'll do the same for the House majorities for each party ok?

i'm going to stick with the source YOU PROVIDED if you don't mind ok idiot??

snicker

 

[bedowin62]

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat (both caucus with the Democrats)

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.


slim democrat majority here

 

[bedowin62]

111th Congress (2009-2011)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.

DEMOCRAT MAJORITY IS 16 WITH TWO INDEPENDENTS THAT CAUCUSED WITH DEMOCRATS = 18
already this Congress's Senate majority is bigger than ALL REPUB SENATE MAJORITIES UNDER BUSH


more to follow...............

 

[bedowin62]

still using your source; another + 18 Dem majority counting the 2 independents that caucused with dems

idiot

112th Congress (2011-2013)
Majority Party: Democrat (51 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (47 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100