One Graph Says It All.

[g4racer]

Grafts and Polls are tools for Politicians. A graph is made by collecting data and plotting it. I’m don’t question the accuracy of the graph, I question the accuracy of the data. The item of importance are:
Why was the graph made?
Who produced the graph?
Where did the data originate?
Do the same conditions exist for all conditions used?
Polls are easier to rig as they usually allow you to select one from three provided answers. The first answer written is the one you want most people to pick. The other two optional answers are created to be avoided by most people being polled, regardless of political view.
Back to graphs! Reagan liked graphs for the rate of inflation, the problem with graphs is that it takes longer to see the results. Most graphs created after he had been in office for 6 months showed a major decline in the rate of inflation. How was the reduced inflation achieved? The rate of inflation did not change, what did change was the way inflation was calculated. Some items that contributed a considerable amount to inflation were removed from the list dropping the calculated rate. He simply took credit for reducing inflation.
Both parties are known to use graphs and polls to make themselves look better.

 

[g4racer]

The other thing when comparing Reagan and Obama is a comparison is meaningless in that the base and conditions are completely different. Reagan had to deal with the standard 10 year cycle recession and President Obama had to not only deal with a major depression; and the GOP/Tea Party mentality refused to even talk about various aspects. Democrats were willing to work things out and that is a major difference.
I did not believe the Bailouts should have taken place. The reason the GOP wasn't in favor of the bailouts was probably they would have liked to see GM and Chrysler go under and re-emerge without unions.

 

[Siete]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

ok, so the population grew ... what else ya got for us ? the outsourcing chart of all the jobs the went to other countries?




http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

 

[Erand7899]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

The simple fact that the economy of 2014 is not the same economy of 1982 is why our problems exist. You liberal/socialists have fundementally changed our economic reality, and the results of that change are not only obvious, they are obviously not good for the American people.

You, and your like minded ilk, have successfully choked off the economic engine through regulation and public policy. Meanwhile, you all hold the dumbass belief that we can somehow regain prosperity by passing money around from hand to hand.

 

[Faun]

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

The simple fact that the economy of 2014 is not the same economy of 1982 is why our problems exist. You liberal/socialists have fundementally changed our economic reality, and the results of that change are not only obvious, they are obviously not good for the American people.

You, and your like minded ilk, have successfully choked off the economic engine through regulation and public policy. Meanwhile, you all hold the dumbass belief that we can somehow regain prosperity by passing money around from hand to hand.

Despite your empty bitching and moaning, the private sector is booming in terms of job growth. May's employment figures came out yesterday and showed job growth again in the private sector which represents the 51st consecutive month of job growth. That ties Obama with Clinton with the longest stretch of employment growth in the private sector since the BLS has recorded such statistics. G'head, keeping whining about our "ilk."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

The simple fact that the economy of 2014 is not the same economy of 1982 is why our problems exist. You liberal/socialists have fundementally changed our economic reality, and the results of that change are not only obvious, they are obviously not good for the American people.

You, and your like minded ilk, have successfully choked off the economic engine through regulation and public policy. Meanwhile, you all hold the dumbass belief that we can somehow regain prosperity by passing money around from hand to hand.

Really? So what regulation is primarily responsible for our losing millions of manufacturing jobs to places like China?

 

[The Rabbi]

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

The simple fact that the economy of 2014 is not the same economy of 1982 is why our problems exist. You liberal/socialists have fundementally changed our economic reality, and the results of that change are not only obvious, they are obviously not good for the American people.

You, and your like minded ilk, have successfully choked off the economic engine through regulation and public policy. Meanwhile, you all hold the dumbass belief that we can somehow regain prosperity by passing money around from hand to hand.

Despite your empty bitching and moaning, the private sector is booming in terms of job growth. May's employment figures came out yesterday and showed job growth again in the private sector which represents the 51st consecutive month of job growth. That ties Obama with Clinton with the longest stretch of employment growth in the private sector since the BLS has recorded such statistics. G'head, keeping whining about our "ilk."

There are almost as many people working as when Bush left office. Wow. It only took trillions of dollars and the trashing of our currency to do it.

 

[Faun]

The simple fact that the economy of 2014 is not the same economy of 1982 is why our problems exist. You liberal/socialists have fundementally changed our economic reality, and the results of that change are not only obvious, they are obviously not good for the American people.

You, and your like minded ilk, have successfully choked off the economic engine through regulation and public policy. Meanwhile, you all hold the dumbass belief that we can somehow regain prosperity by passing money around from hand to hand.

Despite your empty bitching and moaning, the private sector is booming in terms of job growth. May's employment figures came out yesterday and showed job growth again in the private sector which represents the 51st consecutive month of job growth. That ties Obama with Clinton with the longest stretch of employment growth in the private sector since the BLS has recorded such statistics. G'head, keeping whining about our "ilk."

There are almost as many people working as when Bush left office. Wow. It only took trillions of dollars and the trashing of our currency to do it.

Great, yet more hallicinatory ramblings from the insane right. Tell me, Loser, which is more? 142 million or 146 million?

Jan-2009: 142,152,000
May-2014: 145,814,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[The Rabbi]

Despite your empty bitching and moaning, the private sector is booming in terms of job growth. May's employment figures came out yesterday and showed job growth again in the private sector which represents the 51st consecutive month of job growth. That ties Obama with Clinton with the longest stretch of employment growth in the private sector since the BLS has recorded such statistics. G'head, keeping whining about our "ilk."

There are almost as many people working as when Bush left office. Wow. It only took trillions of dollars and the trashing of our currency to do it.

Great, yet more hallicinatory ramblings from the insane right. Tell me, Loser, which is more? 142 million or 146 million?

Jan-2009: 142,152,000
May-2014: 145,814,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Given the population has grown during the last 5 years the 145 number is smaller. I doubt you'd understand that, though.

 

[Faun]

There are almost as many people working as when Bush left office. Wow. It only took trillions of dollars and the trashing of our currency to do it.

Great, yet more hallicinatory ramblings from the insane right. Tell me, Loser, which is more? 142 million or 146 million?

Jan-2009: 142,152,000
May-2014: 145,814,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Given the population has grown during the last 5 years the 145 number is smaller. I doubt you'd understand that, though.

Too bad that wasn't what you said, huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Great, yet more hallicinatory ramblings from the insane right. Tell me, Loser, which is more? 142 million or 146 million?

Jan-2009: 142,152,000
May-2014: 145,814,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Given the population has grown during the last 5 years the 145 number is smaller. I doubt you'd understand that, though.

Too bad that wasn't what you said, huh?

As I predicted, you didnt get it.

Your views have been utterly refuted here. You should be totally humiliated at your lack of knowledge, your inability to frame a coherent argument, and your pathetic attempts to defend yourself. Any more posting by you simply reinforces these points.

 

[Faun]

Given the population has grown during the last 5 years the 145 number is smaller. I doubt you'd understand that, though.

Too bad that wasn't what you said, huh?

As I predicted, you didnt get it.

Your views have been utterly refuted here. You should be totally humiliated at your lack of knowledge, your inability to frame a coherent argument, and your pathetic attempts to defend yourself. Any more posting by you simply reinforces these points.

Wrong, Loser, I totally get that you made the idiotic claim that there are fewer people working today than when Bush left office, so now you're trying (and failing) to redeem your idiocy by factoring in folks such as baby boomer retirees (among others) to change your moronic comment into something more defensible.

And speaking of humiliation (on your own thread, no less), have you figured out yet the chart you posted is limited to government job growth?

 

[FireFly]

Why don't you pussies post the employment of working age population chart?

What about the 27 million Baby Boomers that retired since 2008?

Are you afraid of Obama's success? Don't worry he won't run again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Too bad that wasn't what you said, huh?

As I predicted, you didnt get it.

Your views have been utterly refuted here. You should be totally humiliated at your lack of knowledge, your inability to frame a coherent argument, and your pathetic attempts to defend yourself. Any more posting by you simply reinforces these points.

Wrong, Loser, I totally get that you made the idiotic claim that there are fewer people working today than when Bush left office, so now you're trying (and failing) to redeem your idiocy by factoring in folks such as baby boomer retirees (among others) to change your moronic comment into something more defensible.

And speaking of humiliation (on your own thread, no less), have you figured out yet the chart you posted is limited to government job growth?

Proving my point.
Just how stupid are you?