The Obama legacy: 92898000 Americans not working

[IlarMeilyr]

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack bitch laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

siete, you are seven times as dull as I thought before. Now that's impressive.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

If you think you know what it means, then say what you think it is .... and who do you think determines what that rate is?

I already know and it is not necessary to demonstrate it to you. Afterall, you hack, you are the one whio introduced the full employment nonsense into the discussion. So, go get your own facts and definitions straight. Tell us in your own words what YOU meant when YOU used the term "full employment."

In the process, you WILL reveal what you imagine that term means, but it will not be at all consistent with the normal meaning of words.

The question you posted last is silly, too. It is not something determined by a "who."

I need no further evidence you don't have a clue to what the term means.

Thanks.

Economists declare: 'Full employment!'

Full Employment

Wrong as usual. My prior post wouldn't qualify as "evidence" (at all) of any such thing. So, accurately speaking, you would need SOME evidence. You have none.

But at least I goaded YOU in to finally answering a direct factually based question.

 

[Faun]

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack bitch laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

Since you reject BLS figures on unemployment, how do you determine a more accurate measurement of unemployment?

 

[Siete]

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack bitch laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

the u3 is the OFFICIAL measure of the BLS you stupid asshat. Its not that Liberals accept it, it's simply Republicans WON'T accept it.. ergo; its WRONG !

U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6


explain them ..

some shithead on a pissant message board opinion or the BLS ?

gee ..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What I reject (your misquote or fictionalized recounting of my words don't control what I have said, by the way) is the notion that a 5.5% unemployment rate is somehow FULL employment.

Even a complete hack imbecile (such as you) ought to appreciate that full means full.

If you were part of the 5.5 unemployed ( even as that figure is concocted by the BLS), you PROBABLY would find it sufficiently easy to be honest enough to dispute that the economy is at "full" employment. So would the others in that alleged 5.5%.

Here's a startling notion to you dishonest hack bitch lolberals. Words DO have actual meaning and 5.5% UNemployment is not the same as FULL employment.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack bitch laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

the u3 is the OFFICIAL measure of the BLS you stupid asshat. Its not that Liberals accept it, it's simply Republicans WON'T accept it.. ergo; its WRONG !

U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6


explain them ..

some shithead on a pissant message board opinion or the BLS ?

gee ..

Rejecting the words of a shithead on a message board is why nobody with a brain takes anything you spout seriously, you moron.

We all already know that the U3 is the official figure you twerp. That was not and is not the question.

Try to keep up. Get an adult (preferably one with a brain) to help you.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean this rate that is down 6%?

Thanks president Obama

Quite a drop, don't ya think?

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

Keystone has minimal I pact on employment. You could create more jobs by building a dozen McDonalds

Obama has been pumping money into the economy for six years, he prevented the banks and auto industries from collapsing......Republicans complained the whole time

The miracle of the Obama economy is that he did it in spite of Republicans dragging their feet

 

[Flash]

Ummm ... the U-6 rate is not even a measure of unemployment as it includes people who are working.

It looks like you are just as much of a moron as Rightwinger.

I always wonder why you Moon Bats were so damn stupid. You don't have a clue about anything, do you? No wonder you make bad choices at the polls. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

 

[Flash]

the u3 is the OFFICIAL measure of the BLS you stupid asshat. Its not that Liberals accept it, it's simply Republicans WON'T accept it.. ergo; its WRONG !

U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6


explain them ..

some shithead on a pissant message board opinion or the BLS ?

gee ..

Stop being a dumbass. It makes you look like a fool.

If the U3 rate doesn't include the millions of people that have given up looking for a job in Obama's dismal economy then what the fuck use is it?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

Keystone has minimal I pact on employment. You could create more jobs by building a dozen McDonalds

Obama has been pumping money into the economy for six years, he prevented the banks and auto industries from collapsing......Republicans complained the whole time

The miracle of the Obama economy is that he did it in spite of Republicans dragging their feet

It is quite nonsensical to claim that the Keystone Pipeline would have a minimal impact on our economy. It is flatly false.

And Obumbler has NOT been "pumping" money into our economy. He HAS no money. He is taking it from those who have it and redistributing it. (He can take no credit for that and evades full blame for the same reason).

And while that can obviously have an impact, it is not the creation of anything.

He and his actions (akin to Bush's before him) did not "save" the auto industry, either. That is another ignorant contention. He acted. And it surely had some short term impact. But assholes like him never contemplate the costs. FORD didn't take any of "his" largesse and guess what? They fucking thrived.

And if you think the GOP dragged its feet, then you don't get our GOP. They are like enablers to a drug addict. When the fuck have they ever succeeded in stopping that asshole from doing the agenda of the liberal Democraps?

 

[Faun]

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

If you think you know what it means, then say what you think it is .... and who do you think determines what that rate is?

I already know and it is not necessary to demonstrate it to you. Afterall, you hack, you are the one whio introduced the full employment nonsense into the discussion. So, go get your own facts and definitions straight. Tell us in your own words what YOU meant when YOU used the term "full employment."

In the process, you WILL reveal what you imagine that term means, but it will not be at all consistent with the normal meaning of words.

The question you posted last is silly, too. It is not something determined by a "who."

I need no further evidence you don't have a clue to what the term means.

Thanks.

Economists declare: 'Full employment!'

Full Employment

Wrong as usual. My prior post wouldn't qualify as "evidence" (at all) of any such thing. So, accurately speaking, you would need SOME evidence. You have none.

But at least I goaded YOU in to finally answering a direct factually based question.

Of course it is evidence of such. You first denied we are at full employment and then refused to say what you think it is despite repeated requests. Meanwhile, unlike you, I did not hesitate to offer up the definition or a link to economists declaring our current unemployment situation meets that definition.

The one with nothing is you. You won't say what your definition of "full employment" is nor do you offer anything but delusions to counter the fact that we have reached full employment.

 

[Siete]

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack bitch laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

the u3 is the OFFICIAL measure of the BLS you stupid asshat. Its not that Liberals accept it, it's simply Republicans WON'T accept it.. ergo; its WRONG !

U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6


explain them ..

some shithead on a pissant message board opinion or the BLS ?

gee ..

Rejecting the words of a shithead on a message board is why nobody with a brain takes anything you spout seriously, you moron.

We all already know that the U3 is the official figure you twerp. That was not and is not the question.

Try to keep up. Get an adult (preferably one with a brain) to help you.

Get an adult (preferably one with a brain) to help you

that leaves you out doesn't it. You totally disagree with the BLS yet you offer NO solutions/answers to support your OPINION ... gee, where have we heard that before ?

U1 through 6 .. which one(#'s) do YOU agree with and why

come on Mr Adult step up.

 

[Flash]

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

Keystone has minimal I pact on employment. You could create more jobs by building a dozen McDonalds

Obama has been pumping money into the economy for six years, he prevented the banks and auto industries from collapsing......Republicans complained the whole time

The miracle of the Obama economy is that he did it in spite of Republicans dragging their feet

It is quite nonsensical to claim that the Keystone Pipeline would have a minimal impact on our economy. It is flatly false.

And Obumbler has NOT been "pumping" money into our economy. He HAS no money. He is taking it from those who have it and redistributing it. (He can take no credit for that and evades full blame for the same reason).

And while that can obviously have an impact, it is not the creation of anything.

He and his actions (akin to Bush's before him) did not "save" the auto industry, either. That is another ignorant contention. He acted. And it surely had some short term impact. But assholes like him never contemplate the costs. FORD didn't take any of "his" largesse and guess what? They fucking thrived.

And if you think the GOP dragged its feet, then you don't get our GOP. They are like enablers to a drug addict. When the fuck have they ever succeeded in stopping that asshole from doing the agenda of the liberal Democraps?

You provided a good economics lesson for these Moon Bats. Too bad they are too stupid to understand what you are talking about.

They think a job is "created" by taking money from a person that earned and giving it to someone that didn't earn it. In their sizable ignorance they forget about the jobs that are lost that would have been created by the person that originally earned the money.

It is just as dumb as these idiots that think it is an economic boost to increase minimal wage. They forget about the lost jobs that happen because the consumer is then paying more for goods and services.

All these Moon Bats fail at understanding simple economics. Beaucoupe Dinky Dau.

You are also right in that the GOP are just as bad when it comes to big government spending.

 

[rightwinger]

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

Keystone has minimal I pact on employment. You could create more jobs by building a dozen McDonalds

Obama has been pumping money into the economy for six years, he prevented the banks and auto industries from collapsing......Republicans complained the whole time

The miracle of the Obama economy is that he did it in spite of Republicans dragging their feet

It is quite nonsensical to claim that the Keystone Pipeline would have a minimal impact on our economy. It is flatly false.

And Obumbler has NOT been "pumping" money into our economy. He HAS no money. He is taking it from those who have it and redistributing it. (He can take no credit for that and evades full blame for the same reason).

And while that can obviously have an impact, it is not the creation of anything.

He and his actions (akin to Bush's before him) did not "save" the auto industry, either. That is another ignorant contention. He acted. And it surely had some short term impact. But assholes like him never contemplate the costs. FORD didn't take any of "his" largesse and guess what? They fucking thrived.

And if you think the GOP dragged its feet, then you don't get our GOP. They are like enablers to a drug addict. When the fuck have they ever succeeded in stopping that asshole from doing the agenda of the liberal Democraps?

The Federal Government can print money. Which Obama managed to do without devaluing the dollar or creating inflation. Quantitative easement enabled a crashing economy to stabilize

Bush started TARP but it was too little and did not require any restructuring. Obama stopped the auto companies from failing in an economic collapse. Ford had restructured prior to the Bush meltdown so was able to obtain private financing.......GM and Chrysler could not

The recovery would have happened much sooner if Republicans had allowed a larger stimulus and had not insisted on tackling debt at a time we were trying to have an economic recovery

Yes, Obama impacted the recovery

 

[Faun]

What I reject (your misquote or fictionalized recounting of my words don't control what I have said, by the way) is the notion that a 5.5% unemployment rate is somehow FULL employment.

Even a complete hack imbecile (such as you) ought to appreciate that full means full.

If you were part of the 5.5 unemployed ( even as that figure is concocted by the BLS), you PROBABLY would find it sufficiently easy to be honest enough to dispute that the economy is at "full" employment. So would the others in that alleged 5.5%.

Here's a startling notion to you dishonest hack bitch lolberals. Words DO have actual meaning and 5.5% UNemployment is not the same as FULL employment.

As if more evidence was needed that you have no clue what "full employment" means. It does not mean that 100% of every able-bodied individual is working. You're drawn to shiny objects;and in this case, the shiny object is the word, "full," which you seem to think is meant to ignore frictional unemployment.

It's no one else's fault you fail because you have your own definition for words and your own sources for statistics.

 

[rightwinger]

Ummm ... the U-6 rate is not even a measure of unemployment as it includes people who are working.

It looks like you are just as much of a moron as Rightwinger.

I always wonder why you Moon Bats were so damn stupid. You don't have a clue about anything, do you? No wonder you make bad choices at the polls. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

U6 is down over 6 percent. Why aren't you thrilled?

 

[Faun]

Ummm ... the U-6 rate is not even a measure of unemployment as it includes people who are working.

It looks like you are just as much of a moron as Rightwinger.

I always wonder why you Moon Bats were so damn stupid. You don't have a clue about anything, do you? No wonder you make bad choices at the polls. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

Holyfuckingshit!

Just how rightarded are you, wingnut?

Since when is some website called, "portal seven," the nation's authority on unemployment??



The BLS is and they do not call the U-6 rate a measurement of "unemployment." And why would they when it includes people who are working?

I hate going back to Stephanie's post ... buuuuut ......... this is yet another reason why so many on the left think you are stupid -- Because you are.

 

[Faun]

Ummm ... the U-6 rate is not even a measure of unemployment as it includes people who are working.

It looks like you are just as much of a moron as Rightwinger.

I always wonder why you Moon Bats were so damn stupid. You don't have a clue about anything, do you? No wonder you make bad choices at the polls. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

U6 is down over 6 percent. Why aren't you thrilled?

One reason and one reason only ....... because it happened while a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

Keystone has minimal I pact on employment. You could create more jobs by building a dozen McDonalds

Obama has been pumping money into the economy for six years, he prevented the banks and auto industries from collapsing......Republicans complained the whole time

The miracle of the Obama economy is that he did it in spite of Republicans dragging their feet

It is quite nonsensical to claim that the Keystone Pipeline would have a minimal impact on our economy. It is flatly false.

And Obumbler has NOT been "pumping" money into our economy. He HAS no money. He is taking it from those who have it and redistributing it. (He can take no credit for that and evades full blame for the same reason).

And while that can obviously have an impact, it is not the creation of anything.

He and his actions (akin to Bush's before him) did not "save" the auto industry, either. That is another ignorant contention. He acted. And it surely had some short term impact. But assholes like him never contemplate the costs. FORD didn't take any of "his" largesse and guess what? They fucking thrived.

And if you think the GOP dragged its feet, then you don't get our GOP. They are like enablers to a drug addict. When the fuck have they ever succeeded in stopping that asshole from doing the agenda of the liberal Democraps?

The Federal Government can print money. Which Obama managed to do without devaluing the dollar or creating inflation. Quantitative easement enabled a crashing economy to stabilize

Bush started TARP but it was too little and did not require any restructuring. Obama stopped the auto companies from failing in an economic collapse. Ford had restructured prior to the Bush meltdown so was able to obtain private financing.......GM and Chrysler could not

The recovery would have happened much sooner if Republicans had allowed a larger stimulus and had not insisted on tackling debt at a time we were trying to have an economic recovery

Yes, Obama impacted the recovery

The massive printing of money DOES devalue it.

You libs refuse to accept fundamental reality. You regurgitate the silly tripe you are told and you even choose to believe the plainly unbelievable (and untrue).

Obumbler and his actions did NOT stop the auto companies from failing. It is a "success" story without a basis in truth. It is propaganda and it is fiction. Dangerous nonsense.

No. Obumbler did not "impact" shit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What I reject (your misquote or fictionalized recounting of my words don't control what I have said, by the way) is the notion that a 5.5% unemployment rate is somehow FULL employment.

Even a complete hack imbecile (such as you) ought to appreciate that full means full.

If you were part of the 5.5 unemployed ( even as that figure is concocted by the BLS), you PROBABLY would find it sufficiently easy to be honest enough to dispute that the economy is at "full" employment. So would the others in that alleged 5.5%.

Here's a startling notion to you dishonest hack bitch lolberals. Words DO have actual meaning and 5.5% UNemployment is not the same as FULL employment.

As if more evidence was needed that you have no clue what "full employment" means. It does not mean that 100% of every able-bodied individual is working. You're drawn to shiny objects;and in this case, the shiny object is the word, "full," which you seem to think is meant to ignore frictional unemployment.

It's no one else's fault you fail because you have your own definition for words and your own sources for statistics.

You remain a wholly dishonest cun't.

The PROBLEM, you moron, is not what it does or does not mean. The PROBLEM, you twat, is that it DOESN'T "mean" what it SHOULD mean.

God damn, you are a rancid hack propagandist cu'nt.

Your make believe fantasy daffynition denies reality its due.