Republicans are ignorant about the most basic FACTS about welfare in this country

[P@triot]

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

 

[P@triot]

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

Think it's a coincidence that unemployment hits it's absolute lowest point when conservatives control the Senate (Lott), the House (Gingrich), and the White House (Bush) and it is at it's absolute highest point when Dumbocrats control the Senate (Reid), the House (Pelosi), and the White House (Obama)?

Dumbocrats failed socialist policies = failed economy, high unemployment, nation in poverty

Conservatives ultra successful free market policies = prosperous nation

 

[Billy000]

I've got links, data, and common sense backing up everything I said. You have nothing - which is why you still can't answer a simple question.

I'll ask it for a third time just because I enjoy watching you run from it. It proves to everyone on the board that you're on the losing end here:

Would any business in the world move their operations to another country if it were cheaper for them to conduct business in the country they were already in?

Game over junior!

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

See my point? No matter how many links, you unhinged Dumbocrats just go "it doesn't count" even the media is radical left-wing.

The fact that you can't answer a simple question proves you lose this debate chief.

However, I will give you one link (not from Fox News or Forbes) just for shits & giggles...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

(Again, this is just common sense - something that weak-minded brainwashed Dumbocrats can't figure out. If costs are high because of taxes/regulations/labor/etc., businesses will take their jobs somewhere else)

Lol this is the kind of response I expected. Denial and deflection.

And you accuse me of being 19.

 

[P@triot]

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

See my point? No matter how many links, you unhinged Dumbocrats just go "it doesn't count" even the media is radical left-wing.

The fact that you can't answer a simple question proves you lose this debate chief.

However, I will give you one link (not from Fox News or Forbes) just for shits & giggles...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

(Again, this is just common sense - something that weak-minded brainwashed Dumbocrats can't figure out. If costs are high because of taxes/regulations/labor/etc., businesses will take their jobs somewhere else)

Lol this is the kind of response I expected. Denial and deflection.

And you accuse me of being 19.

First of all, I added a link as you requested.

Second, do you really want to discuss "denial and deflection" when you refuse to answer the following basic question for 4 pages now:

Would any business incur the costs, risk, and pain of moving their operations overseas if it were equal or cheaper to conduct their business here?

 

[Billy000]

See my point? No matter how many links, you unhinged Dumbocrats just go "it doesn't count" even the media is radical left-wing.

The fact that you can't answer a simple question proves you lose this debate chief.

However, I will give you one link (not from Fox News or Forbes) just for shits & giggles...

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

(Again, this is just common sense - something that weak-minded brainwashed Dumbocrats can't figure out. If costs are high because of taxes/regulations/labor/etc., businesses will take their jobs somewhere else)

Lol this is the kind of response I expected. Denial and deflection.

And you accuse me of being 19.

First of all, I added a link as you requested.

Second, do you really want to discuss "denial and deflection" when you refuse to answer the following basic question for 4 pages now:

Would any business incur the costs, risk, and pain of moving their operations overseas if it were equal or cheaper to conduct their business here?

Corporations do that to avoid paying taxes not regulations. Get a clue.

 

[Listening]

I think you two should go into the bull ring.

Billy0000.00000..your ass is getting kicked. But at least you'd get to have impartial judges tell you that.

 

[Billy000]

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

My bad. I didn't see this post til now.

Well let me tell you how stupid you are. Okay you ready? As I mentioned before the economy lost over 5 million jobs inbetween sept 08 and the first half of 2009. When the stimulus kicked in, that massive job loss rate turned to job growth. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. Unfortunately that wasn't enough to make up for the losses. That is why the unemployment rate didn't budge. Had he stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. Fortunately we have seen consistent job growth since The stimulus passed.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is what your dumbass isn't getting. Yes regulations can impede economic development, but the actual economic effect regulations have is insignificant.

I know you cons struggle with basic nuance but reality is what it is.

Insignificant! Are you on crack?

Regulation has MASSIVE impact on the cost of runni9ng a company. There are literally thousands of regulations to run even the simplest business. It is also the LARGEST factor in trying to start up a new business. Almost all of your startup costs come directly from attempting to comply with regulation that is largely without purpose. If you believe that regulation is insignificant then you have no idea what goes into running or maintaining a business. The costs are massive. Even something as simple as getting a license can crush your business entirely and typically take large amounts of time that ends most business ventures before they even begin. It took us a full year to get our license and just to comply with regulation that was unnecessary cost close to 10,000 dollars. Considering that miniscule scale of the business, that was entirely asinine. Here is a wonderful example of just how asinine the system can be:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFfUvrCgcAs]Logan Square Kitchen Grand Opening - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9cJMO4B18]Little American Dream Factory: Chicago Bureaucrats Put the Brakes on an Innovative Business - YouTube[/ame]

Further, your assertion that regulation cannot be a problem because business is sitting on massive profits is completely incorrect. Regulation is NOT a problem for massive corporations. Then have the means to deal with them. Primarily that is done through going to places that don’t have those regulations. One of the core reasons that companies offshore is because they don’t have to deal with regulation and the costs that come with it. Those that cannot move have the capitol to ride the changes and increased costs out until the prices and market stabilize. You know who does not though? Smaller companies and startups – the competition to those massive companies that you complain are making too much. IOW, regulation KILLS COMPETITION for the big companies.

In short, one of the reasons that those companies make massive profits is because those same regulations make it impossible to compete. When you have the market virtually to yourself or shared between 5 companies across the entire nation you better damn well believe that they make huge sums of money. Increased regulation simply ensures that no one will ever challenge that income flow either.


I know you libs struggle with basic facts and logic but that is what it is.

Nothing to do with liberal versus conservative whatsoever in most instances.
Most regulations are set up so a company can PROTECT itself from competition.
They have theirs and want it to be very hard on anyone else entering into their field.
Big business lobbies for more and more and more regulations of what they already have.
Seen it many times in my business.
Home cooking protectionism. Countries do it also.

True but that was the point I was trying to make. You state that it has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal but you are incorrect here. I has little to do with republican vs. democrat as they are both crony capitalist statists in practices but one of the core arguments here between the right and the left is about regulation and how the left can’t get enough while the right wants to roll it back. You see that exact argument here between me and Billy where he claims that regulation has virtually no impact on business. How it costs them very little and then ‘backs’ that claim up with a poll of business giving the reasons that they closed down. Let’s not point out that the poll completely ignores business is going to see regulation as a background noise and ever present – not likely to cite as a reason though it causes all the other reasons on the list.

What I fond ironic is that the left seems to refuse to realize that big business (the ones they are upset about record profits) want those regulations so they can control the market. Big business is NOT a reason that regulation needs to increase – that only helps them.

 

[P@triot]

Oh really? You have data. This ought to be good. Ok back up your claim Obama caused the loss of 10 million jobs to start. Then show me the source that says There has been no job growth under Obama.

Oh and using bullshit partisan crap like Fox News or Forbes is not permitted.

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

My bad. I didn't see this post til now.

Well let me tell you how stupid you are. Okay you ready? As I mentioned before the economy lost over 5 million jobs inbetween sept 08 and the first half of 2009. When the stimulus kicked in, that massive job loss rate turned to job growth. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. Unfortunately that wasn't enough to make up for the losses. That is why the unemployment rate didn't budge. Had he stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. Fortunately we have seen consistent job growth since The stimulus passed.

Ah yes - the same old tired failed policies of the Dumbocrats. "We didn't allow government to spend enough". "We needed more debt". "$17 trillion in debt is not enough".

Barack Obama has spent $7 trillion dollars in 5 years junior. He bailed out Wall Street. He bailed out GM. He bailed out Chrysler. He handed over an astounding $535 million to Solyndra and they still went bankrupt and closed their doors. And all we've seen in return for the ignorant toss-the-money around marxist stupidity is crushing debt, higher unemployment, and more failure (so basically what Dumbocrats always give us).

The chart above speaks for itself and the source is the federal government chief. You're inability to accept reality is comical.

 

[RKMBrown]

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

My bad. I didn't see this post til now.

Well let me tell you how stupid you are. Okay you ready? As I mentioned before the economy lost over 5 million jobs inbetween sept 08 and the first half of 2009. When the stimulus kicked in, that massive job loss rate turned to job growth. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. Unfortunately that wasn't enough to make up for the losses. That is why the unemployment rate didn't budge. Had he stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. Fortunately we have seen consistent job growth since The stimulus passed.

Ah yes - the same old tired failed policies of the Dumbocrats. "We didn't allow government to spend enough". "We needed more debt". "$17 trillion in debt is not enough".

Barack Obama has spent $7 trillion dollars in 5 years junior. He bailed out Wall Street. He bailed out GM. He bailed out Chrysler. He handed over an astounding $535 million to Solyndra and they still went bankrupt and closed their doors. And all we've seen in return for the ignorant toss-the-money around marxist stupidity is crushing debt, higher unemployment, and more failure (so basically what Dumbocrats always give us).

The chart above speaks for itself and the source is the federal government chief. You're inability to accept reality is comical.

But the democrats that receive checks from the backs of taxpayers are doing well. Don't be such a hater. Open up your arms and empty your pockets.

 

[P@triot]

Lol this is the kind of response I expected. Denial and deflection.

And you accuse me of being 19.

First of all, I added a link as you requested.

Second, do you really want to discuss "denial and deflection" when you refuse to answer the following basic question for 4 pages now:

Would any business incur the costs, risk, and pain of moving their operations overseas if it were equal or cheaper to conduct their business here?

Corporations do that to avoid paying taxes not regulations. Get a clue.

High School kids say the damdest things....

Regulations are costly. To be compliant with regulations, businesses have to spend excessive dollars. They have to complete mountains of paperwork. That takes time. Time is money junior. They have to hire staff to over see compliance, and/or to complete paperwork, and/or to have the expertise required by the regulation. Labor costs money junior. Sometimes they have to implement very costly systems to be compliant (as in the case of Sarbanes Oxley which requires business to have an archive of data for a set number of years). How you don't comprehend this is truly unbelievable. Your average 2nd grader understands this and yet you don't.

I realize the following information is a little above you but I thought I would post it for others on the board. Maybe you could have a parent or a teacher help you with this?

Research on the effects of government regulations

 

[P@triot]

Lol this is the kind of response I expected. Denial and deflection.

And you accuse me of being 19.

First of all, I added a link as you requested.

Second, do you really want to discuss "denial and deflection" when you refuse to answer the following basic question for 4 pages now:

Would any business incur the costs, risk, and pain of moving their operations overseas if it were equal or cheaper to conduct their business here?

Corporations do that to avoid paying taxes not regulations. Get a clue.

So you admit that the high tax policies of the Dumbocrats are driving jobs overseas (just like I said 6 pages ago)! Thank you!!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, I added a link as you requested.

Second, do you really want to discuss "denial and deflection" when you refuse to answer the following basic question for 4 pages now:

Would any business incur the costs, risk, and pain of moving their operations overseas if it were equal or cheaper to conduct their business here?

Corporations do that to avoid paying taxes not regulations. Get a clue.

High School kids say the damdest things....

Regulations are costly. To be compliant with regulations, businesses have to spend excessive dollars. They have to complete mountains of paperwork. That takes time. Time is money junior. They have to hire staff to over see compliance, and/or to complete paperwork, and/or to have the expertise required by the regulation. Labor costs money junior. Sometimes they have to implement very costly systems to be compliant (as in the case of Sarbanes Oxley which requires business to have an archive of data for a set number of years). How you don't comprehend this is truly unbelievable. Your average 2nd grader understands this and yet you don't.

I realize the following information is a little above you but I thought I would post it for others on the board. Maybe you could have a parent or a teacher help you with this?

Research on the effects of government regulations

Regs are expensive... but I think a valid point is that larger corporations can deal with regulatory costs more easily than small companies. Thus regs are in that sense barriers to entry and as such benefit monopolies.

 

[Truthmatters]

why don't you guys ever want to actually LINK to your "proof"?

Here you go [MENTION=5217]Truthmatters[/MENTION] - indisputable facts that proves everything I have said is 100% accurate. This is data directly from the IRS (that's your precious federal government dear). And all you will do is one of the 3 Dumbocrat techniques that you teach each other (none of you can even be original or entertaining in your denial of reality): (A.) attempt to discredit the source (B.) claim it doesn't matter because it's not "cause and effect" (usually followed up with the laughable buzz word "critical thinking"), or (C.) try to deny it the facts.

Ready? Go!

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

news Opinion



that was an opinion page you unable to understand how to determine what a fact is idiot



I gave you court documented FACTS from our own system all the way to the SCOTUS.

 

[bedowin62]

why don't you guys ever want to actually LINK to your "proof"?

Here you go [MENTION=5217]Truthmatters[/MENTION] - indisputable facts that proves everything I have said is 100% accurate. This is data directly from the IRS (that's your precious federal government dear). And all you will do is one of the 3 Dumbocrat techniques that you teach each other (none of you can even be original or entertaining in your denial of reality): (A.) attempt to discredit the source (B.) claim it doesn't matter because it's not "cause and effect" (usually followed up with the laughable buzz word "critical thinking"), or (C.) try to deny it the facts.

Ready? Go!

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

news Opinion



that was an opinion page you unable to understand how to determine what a fact is idiot



I gave you court documented FACTS from our own system all the way to the SCOTUS.

YOU LIKE FACTS?

RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IN OBAMA'S 6TH YEAR

the lowest level of participation in the labor market in 40 years


idiots and hypocrites

 

[Redfish]

funny how all the libs leave the thread when the facts are presented.

libs cannot deal with facts because facts destroy their entire philosophy of life.

liberalism is a failure, always has been, always will be.

 

[Listening]

Here you go [MENTION=5217]Truthmatters[/MENTION] - indisputable facts that proves everything I have said is 100% accurate. This is data directly from the IRS (that's your precious federal government dear). And all you will do is one of the 3 Dumbocrat techniques that you teach each other (none of you can even be original or entertaining in your denial of reality): (A.) attempt to discredit the source (B.) claim it doesn't matter because it's not "cause and effect" (usually followed up with the laughable buzz word "critical thinking"), or (C.) try to deny it the facts.

Ready? Go!

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

news Opinion



that was an opinion page you unable to understand how to determine what a fact is idiot



I gave you court documented FACTS from our own system all the way to the SCOTUS.

YOU LIKE FACTS?

RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS IN OBAMA'S 6TH YEAR

the lowest level of participation in the labor market in 40 years


idiots and hypocrites

She doesn't like those FACTS.

 

[P@triot]

why don't you guys ever want to actually LINK to your "proof"?

Here you go [MENTION=5217]Truthmatters[/MENTION] - indisputable facts that proves everything I have said is 100% accurate. This is data directly from the IRS (that's your precious federal government dear). And all you will do is one of the 3 Dumbocrat techniques that you teach each other (none of you can even be original or entertaining in your denial of reality): (A.) attempt to discredit the source (B.) claim it doesn't matter because it's not "cause and effect" (usually followed up with the laughable buzz word "critical thinking"), or (C.) try to deny it the facts.

Ready? Go!

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

news Opinion

that was an opinion page you unable to understand how to determine what a fact is idiot

I gave you court documented FACTS from our own system all the way to the SCOTUS.

It wasn't "opinion" sweetie - it was an analysis of IRS tax data! You lose!!! You can't deal with reality...

 

[P@triot]

Here you go [MENTION=5217]Truthmatters[/MENTION] - indisputable facts that proves everything I have said is 100% accurate. This is data directly from the IRS (that's your precious federal government dear). And all you will do is one of the 3 Dumbocrat techniques that you teach each other (none of you can even be original or entertaining in your denial of reality): (A.) attempt to discredit the source (B.) claim it doesn't matter because it's not "cause and effect" (usually followed up with the laughable buzz word "critical thinking"), or (C.) try to deny it the facts.

Ready? Go!

In the United States, no- and low-income tax states are experiencing booms, while high-income tax states are threatened with busts. This is no mere hypothesis. Fifteen years' worth of data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that net adjusted gross incomes (net AGI) move from states that levy high income taxes to those with low or no income tax. Our analysis of more than 134 million individual taxpayer records revealed that, between 1995 and 2010, more than $2 trillion dollars moved between the states. Using this unimpeachable data, we can see – down to the county level – which areas are gaining wealth and residents, and which are losing them.

Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3 percent, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period. (Recently, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took advantage of this reality by running ad campaigns that woo California businesses to move to Texas.)

High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News

news Opinion

that was an opinion page you unable to understand how to determine what a fact is idiot

I gave you court documented FACTS from our own system all the way to the SCOTUS.

It wasn't "opinion" sweetie - it was an analysis of IRS tax data! You lose!!! You can't deal with reality...

So our little LIESmatters here went with option C (deny it is factual). How funny is it that I could predict her behavior in advance?

Dumbocrats are so predictable - they are only capable of those three responses...

 

[Billy000]

My friend, I genuinely feel sorry for you. You're so brainwashed that you have truly lost all sense of reality. The "source" which shows there has been no job growth under Obama is called "unemployment". And it has been much higher under Obama than it as under Bush. Now how do you explain that there has been much higher unemployment under Obama if he has created job growth?

Since you won't accept honest/trustworthy sources like Fox News and Forbes, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics work for you?

My bad. I didn't see this post til now.

Well let me tell you how stupid you are. Okay you ready? As I mentioned before the economy lost over 5 million jobs inbetween sept 08 and the first half of 2009. When the stimulus kicked in, that massive job loss rate turned to job growth. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. Unfortunately that wasn't enough to make up for the losses. That is why the unemployment rate didn't budge. Had he stimulus been bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. Fortunately we have seen consistent job growth since The stimulus passed.

Ah yes - the same old tired failed policies of the Dumbocrats. "We didn't allow government to spend enough". "We needed more debt". "$17 trillion in debt is not enough".

Barack Obama has spent $7 trillion dollars in 5 years junior. He bailed out Wall Street. He bailed out GM. He bailed out Chrysler. He handed over an astounding $535 million to Solyndra and they still went bankrupt and closed their doors. And all we've seen in return for the ignorant toss-the-money around marxist stupidity is crushing debt, higher unemployment, and more failure (so basically what Dumbocrats always give us).

The chart above speaks for itself and the source is the federal government chief. You're inability to accept reality is comical.

And yet you repubs are too stupid to realize that tax cutting leads to more debt. What is the difference between Bush's tax cuts and Obama's stimulus package when it comes to more debt! NOTHING. In fact, 287 billion of the 787 billion stimulus was a tax cut you ass clown. If it weren't for the stimulus we would be in a Great Depression right now.

Your ignorance astounds me.

Oh and by the way. The auto bail out worked and is paid for.