The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[The Rabbi]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

Ironic that liibs turn around and claim Republicans only represent the rich when their own facts show Democrats are the party of the rich, Republicans are the party of the middle class.

 

[Faun]

You're links are the same link. I've clicked on two of them and they show the same graph in both of them. One was the link provided during the Reagan administration and the other supposedly covering Johnson and Clinton administrations.

Also the graph doesn't take into account how many jobs were lost during this period. It only shows the total growth. So Reagan was in office and had a net increase of just under 17 million, yet how many new jobs were created in that time period. That was what I was talking about. The total jobs created, not the net increase.

Obama constantly talked about the 6 million jobs he ether saved or created piling both into one figure to inflate it. Fact is, if you look at he net gain like you did Reagan he only oversaw the creation of slightly over 3 million yet is still less jobs than we had Jan of 08' by close to a million. 5 plus years later and we're still not above what Bush had the beginning of his last year in office.

So from Bush to Obama to date we have 1 million fewer jobs. Compare that to Reagan at 16 million, I can't figure what in the hell you're crowing about other than some doctored, misleading UE3 numbers.

Before you start criticizing someone else for being inaccurate try doing it yourself first.

The links are to the BLS and prove you have no clue to what you're talking about. With the aid of those links, I was able to prove that you made up the numbers you posted. Sorry, rightard, but you don't win arguments by lying.

[Edit] oh, and by the way, we are not down by a million jobs since Bush. We're up by 3.5 million jobs ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.

Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh? We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: 1,161,682
California: 619,425
Florida: 616,871

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -4.4 points, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.9 points, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: -3.0 points, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: -3.0 points, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: -1.3 points, 2.6% - 1.3%, 37,064 jobs added
Wisconsin: -1.2 points, 7.1% - 5.9%, 2,999 jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???

Now stop posting lies.

 

[Faun]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

Ironic that liibs turn around and claim Republicans only represent the rich when their own facts show Democrats are the party of the rich, Republicans are the party of the middle class.

Too stupid for words. Now you're confusing party with wealth; with party for the wealthy. Both parties have members who are wealthy but only one party tries to help the poor.

 

[mudwhistle]

The links are to the BLS and prove you have no clue to what you're talking about. With the aid of those links, I was able to prove that you made up the numbers you posted. Sorry, rightard, but you don't win arguments by lying.

[Edit] oh, and by the way, we are not down by a million jobs since Bush. We're up by 3.5 million jobs ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.

Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh? We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: 1,161,682
California: 619,425
Florida: 616,871

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -4.4 points, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.9 points, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: -3.0 points, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: -3.0 points, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: -1.3 points, 2.6% - 1.3%, 37,064 jobs added
Wisconsin: -1.2 points, 7.1% - 5.9%, 2,999 jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???

Now stop posting lies.

Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 5.9% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it.

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

In California for example in 09' the UE3 was 9.7%. What is it today? 8.1% which is terrible. California has a much larger work force yet they created less than half of what Texas created.

Texas alone created a million new jobs by themselves. Their UE3 is 5.5%

You like to look at the overall picture so it doesn't make Democrats look so bad, but looking at the elections an who's running the states, it's clearer what's going on. You just want to look at net gains or losses without looking at the time frame the trends started reversing. If you can point to single piece of legislation from Obama that made any difference, feel free to do so. From what I see, the economy is recovering on it's own, or where local governments are effecting it, which is the norm. Obama is doing everything in his power to worsen the economy and some people are fighting him, and the statistics show this.


I don't know why I'm even arguing with an idiot like you.

 

[Faun]

We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.

Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh? We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: 1,161,682
California: 619,425
Florida: 616,871

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -4.4 points, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.9 points, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: -3.0 points, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: -3.0 points, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: -1.3 points, 2.6% - 1.3%, 37,064 jobs added
Wisconsin: -1.2 points, 7.1% - 5.9%, 2,999 jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???

Now stop posting lies.

Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 6% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it.

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

What a shame you can't project your constant lying onto me, eh? You were talking about the period from the recession. Your words, "Other than that we'd still be in a recession." But now you try to cherry-pick dates you find more palatable by picking dates which came after the recession ended ... but lying rightard, if I cherry pick those same dates, then the other states I listed also did much better; which still leaves N. Dakota and Wisconsin in the dust.

California: 1,027,182
Texas: 861,986
Florida: 764,861
Wisconsin: 69,417
N. Dakota: 28,906

Hell, Texas and N. Dakota did even worse with the dates you changed to.

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -5.1 points, 10.6% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.8 points, 11.3% - 7.5%
Oregon: -3.4 points, 10.3% - 6.9%
Indiana: -3.3 points, 9.2% - 5.9%
Texas: -2.7 points, 8.2% - 5.5%
Wisconsin: -1.9 points, 7.8% - 5.9%
N. Dakota: -1.0 point, 3.6% - 2.6%

You're making shit up. Now cut it out. In no way, shape, or form is the nominal job growth N. Dakota or Wisconsin a reason why we are no longer in a recession.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh? We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: 1,161,682
California: 619,425
Florida: 616,871

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -4.4 points, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.9 points, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: -3.0 points, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: -3.0 points, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: -1.3 points, 2.6% - 1.3%, 37,064 jobs added
Wisconsin: -1.2 points, 7.1% - 5.9%, 2,999 jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???

Now stop posting lies.

Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 6% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it.

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

What a shame you can't project your constant lying onto me, eh? You were talking about the period from the recession. Your words, "Other than that we'd still be in a recession." But now you try to cherry-pick dates you find more palatable by picking dates which came after the recession ended ... but lying rightard, if I cherry pick those same dates, then the other states I listed also did much better; which still leaves N. Dakota and Wisconsin in the dust.

California: 1,027,182
Texas: 861,986
Florida: 764,861
Wisconsin: 69,417
N. Dakota: 28,906

Hell, Texas and N. Dakota did even worse with the dates you changed to.

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -5.1 points, 10.6% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.8 points, 11.3% - 7.5%
Oregon: -3.4 points, 10.3% - 6.9%
Indiana: -3.3 points, 9.2% - 5.9%
Texas: -2.7 points, 8.2% - 5.5%
Wisconsin: -1.9 points, 7.8% - 5.9%
N. Dakota: -1.0 point, 3.6% - 2.6%

You're making shit up. Now cut it out. In no way, shape, or form is the nominal job growth N. Dakota or Wisconsin a reason why we are no longer in a recession.

Dude, are you serious?

An UE of 5.5% and 2.6% is worse than 8.1% now?


Are you fucking kidding me???

STFU!!!!!!

WTF?? First you said that Texas created almost 2 million jobs. Now it's only 800k give or take??

Texas has had the same governor for awhile, so the last two years haven't been as abrupt a change as Wisconsin.

The problem is you can't read between the lines. Anyone with half a brain knows that economies are local. There are national trends that effect everyone, but local governments and local businesses have more effect on the economy than the feds do. You're well read on social-economics but not on looking at events on the ground. Why is it every state I sited has a low unemployment rate yet you seem to think California is the jobs mecca of the country or something.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Obama has to do with anything positive in this economy? I noticed you want to ignore that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

Ironic that liibs turn around and claim Republicans only represent the rich when their own facts show Democrats are the party of the rich, Republicans are the party of the middle class.

Too stupid for words. Now you're confusing party with wealth; with party for the wealthy. Both parties have members who are wealthy but only one party tries to help the poor.

Yes, the GOP. The Democrats help the rich. The rich have done better than Obama than they ever did under Bush. The middle class has stagnated under Obama. Low wage workers have stagnated if not absolutely lost ground.
This is simply objective fact. You cannot argue with that. You can spin it and call names but it is right there in the numbers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him.

My usual answer for that kind of response is to turn and walk away from the discussion. It's totally asinine.

But the issue here is that both sides are making mistakes, and when they happen, both sides have a tendency to go full out and defend or attack, depending on which is convenient for them at the time.

As for the media, what do you want the guy to do? I'll give a British example which would be quite funny if it wasn't so damn serious.

Tony Blair, master of spin. The Tories spent a decade harping on about spin, the newspapers especially and other media sources would go on and on and on about how spin was bad. Then Blair stepped down after winning an election after going in to the very, very unpopular war in Iraq.
Gordon Brown took over. He wanted to be seen as a good guy, so he said no more spin. The media hated him for it. He lost the election and basically left politics after that.
Cameron took over and the spin is back, after spending so long complaining about spin, they're using it as much as Blair did.

Moral of the story is, people like spin.

In the US it doesn't matter how Obama spins it, there are going to be people who hate what he does not matter. Other people will get taken in by it. The next guy will do it, the last guys did it, everyone does it. So don't sound shocked about him spinning the media. It's part of his job and everyone would hate him if he didn't do it. So what do you want?

 

[mudwhistle]

1961 to 2012

Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.

None of it during Obama though.....fact.

Not saying you're not lying either.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's really funny is not only hasn't Obama learned from these past mistakes but he's double-downed on them. He constantly uses the media to coverup these mistakes by claiming somebody made the same mistake before him.

My usual answer for that kind of response is to turn and walk away from the discussion. It's totally asinine.

But the issue here is that both sides are making mistakes, and when they happen, both sides have a tendency to go full out and defend or attack, depending on which is convenient for them at the time.

As for the media, what do you want the guy to do? I'll give a British example which would be quite funny if it wasn't so damn serious.

Tony Blair, master of spin. The Tories spent a decade harping on about spin, the newspapers especially and other media sources would go on and on and on about how spin was bad. Then Blair stepped down after winning an election after going in to the very, very unpopular war in Iraq.
Gordon Brown took over. He wanted to be seen as a good guy, so he said no more spin. The media hated him for it. He lost the election and basically left politics after that.
Cameron took over and the spin is back, after spending so long complaining about spin, they're using it as much as Blair did.

Moral of the story is, people like spin.

In the US it doesn't matter how Obama spins it, there are going to be people who hate what he does not matter. Other people will get taken in by it. The next guy will do it, the last guys did it, everyone does it. So don't sound shocked about him spinning the media. It's part of his job and everyone would hate him if he didn't do it. So what do you want?

Both sides have made mistakes.......but our side seems to be the only one that learns from past mistakes.

When it comes to people hating what Obama does, he can only blame himself for that. He has beliefs that are opposed to what most Americans want. Every poll shows this is the case. They may like him personally but they don't like his policies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Both sides have made mistakes.......but our side seems to be the only one that learns from past mistakes.

When it comes to people hating what Obama does, he can only blame himself for that. He has beliefs that are opposed to what most Americans want. Every poll shows this is the case. They may like him personally but they don't like his policies.

Yeah, I went to watch a soccer match in Beijing. Every time a Beijing player fell down the fans were calling for a foul. Every time the opposition team fell down and the ref did something about it they screamed blue murder.
When a Beijing player got annoyed and punched an opposing player in the face, the Beijing fans got really angry AT THE PLAYER PUNCHED IN THE FACE.

You see what you want to see, just like the Beijing fans shouting "shabi" the whole match to the ref and the player who got punched.

People hate Obama for different reasons.
Some because he's black.
Some because he's Democrat.
Some because he's not right enough for them.
Some because they believe the nonsense that goes on.

You talk about polls. I can talk about polls.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama | Gallup Historical Data & Trends

Average approval rating for the 22nd quarter, 48%. Obama's at 44%.

Compare this with Bush W. 32%, or Clinton 64% (yeah, the guy was getting off with young girls, threatened with impeachment and had a MUCH higher approval rating than two guys who didn't go around getting of with young girls, nice huh?)

So there have been 4 US presidents who made it that far with better approval ratings. 2 Reps and 2 Dems.

Considering the situation he's in, that's not so bad.

They certainly seem to like his policies a little more than they liked Bush's policies.

 

[Faun]

Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 6% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it.

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

What a shame you can't project your constant lying onto me, eh? You were talking about the period from the recession. Your words, "Other than that we'd still be in a recession." But now you try to cherry-pick dates you find more palatable by picking dates which came after the recession ended ... but lying rightard, if I cherry pick those same dates, then the other states I listed also did much better; which still leaves N. Dakota and Wisconsin in the dust.

California: 1,027,182
Texas: 861,986
Florida: 764,861
Wisconsin: 69,417
N. Dakota: 28,906

Hell, Texas and N. Dakota did even worse with the dates you changed to.

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -5.1 points, 10.6% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.8 points, 11.3% - 7.5%
Oregon: -3.4 points, 10.3% - 6.9%
Indiana: -3.3 points, 9.2% - 5.9%
Texas: -2.7 points, 8.2% - 5.5%
Wisconsin: -1.9 points, 7.8% - 5.9%
N. Dakota: -1.0 point, 3.6% - 2.6%

You're making shit up. Now cut it out. In no way, shape, or form is the nominal job growth N. Dakota or Wisconsin a reason why we are no longer in a recession.

Dude, are you serious?

An UE of 5.5% and 2.6% is worse than 8.1% now?


Are you fucking kidding me???

STFU!!!!!!

WTF?? First you said that Texas created almost 2 million jobs. Now it's only 800k give or take??

Texas has had the same governor for awhile, so the last two years haven't been as abrupt a change as Wisconsin.

The problem is you can't read between the lines. Anyone with half a brain knows that economies are local. There are national trends that effect everyone, but local governments and local businesses have more effect on the economy than the feds do. You're well read on social-economics but not on looking at events on the ground. Why is it every state I sited has a low unemployment rate yet you seem to think California is the jobs mecca of the country or something.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Obama has to do with anything positive in this economy? I noticed you want to ignore that.

Just how deranged are you? You don't get to change what you were talking about because I'm bitch-slapping you with your own statements. Your claim was that Wisconsin and North Dakota are 2 of the three states which kept us out of recession. Even with the cherry picked dates you chose, they added only 98,000 jobs combined in 3½ years. Nationally, during that same period, we added 6.4 million jobs. That means 2 of the states you idiotically credit with saving this nation from recession account for only 1.5% of the total job gains ... combined. That you believe their combined increase of 1.5% of the total job growth saved us from recession does nothing other than to expose you as the lying imbecile you are.

 

[mudwhistle]

What a shame you can't project your constant lying onto me, eh? You were talking about the period from the recession. Your words, "Other than that we'd still be in a recession." But now you try to cherry-pick dates you find more palatable by picking dates which came after the recession ended ... but lying rightard, if I cherry pick those same dates, then the other states I listed also did much better; which still leaves N. Dakota and Wisconsin in the dust.

California: 1,027,182
Texas: 861,986
Florida: 764,861
Wisconsin: 69,417
N. Dakota: 28,906

Hell, Texas and N. Dakota did even worse with the dates you changed to.

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -5.1 points, 10.6% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.8 points, 11.3% - 7.5%
Oregon: -3.4 points, 10.3% - 6.9%
Indiana: -3.3 points, 9.2% - 5.9%
Texas: -2.7 points, 8.2% - 5.5%
Wisconsin: -1.9 points, 7.8% - 5.9%
N. Dakota: -1.0 point, 3.6% - 2.6%

You're making shit up. Now cut it out. In no way, shape, or form is the nominal job growth N. Dakota or Wisconsin a reason why we are no longer in a recession.

Dude, are you serious?

An UE of 5.5% and 2.6% is worse than 8.1% now?


Are you fucking kidding me???

STFU!!!!!!

WTF?? First you said that Texas created almost 2 million jobs. Now it's only 800k give or take??

Texas has had the same governor for awhile, so the last two years haven't been as abrupt a change as Wisconsin.

The problem is you can't read between the lines. Anyone with half a brain knows that economies are local. There are national trends that effect everyone, but local governments and local businesses have more effect on the economy than the feds do. You're well read on social-economics but not on looking at events on the ground. Why is it every state I sited has a low unemployment rate yet you seem to think California is the jobs mecca of the country or something.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Obama has to do with anything positive in this economy? I noticed you want to ignore that.

Just how deranged are you? You don't get to change what you were talking about because I'm bitch-slapping you with your own statements. Your claim was that Wisconsin and North Dakota are 2 of the three states which kept us out of recession. Even with the cherry picked dates you chose, they added only 98,000 jobs combined in 3½ years. Nationally, during that same period, we added 6.4 million jobs. That means 2 of the states you idiotically credit with saving this nation from recession account for only 1.5% of the total job gains ... combined. That you believe their combined increase of 1.5% of the total job growth saved us from recession does nothing other than to expose you as the lying imbecile you are.

You're a God Damned liar.

We've only added just over 3 million and half of it came from one of the states I mentioned. Texas.

 

[Faun]

Dude, are you serious?

An UE of 5.5% and 2.6% is worse than 8.1% now?


Are you fucking kidding me???

STFU!!!!!!

WTF?? First you said that Texas created almost 2 million jobs. Now it's only 800k give or take??

Texas has had the same governor for awhile, so the last two years haven't been as abrupt a change as Wisconsin.

The problem is you can't read between the lines. Anyone with half a brain knows that economies are local. There are national trends that effect everyone, but local governments and local businesses have more effect on the economy than the feds do. You're well read on social-economics but not on looking at events on the ground. Why is it every state I sited has a low unemployment rate yet you seem to think California is the jobs mecca of the country or something.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what Obama has to do with anything positive in this economy? I noticed you want to ignore that.

Just how deranged are you? You don't get to change what you were talking about because I'm bitch-slapping you with your own statements. Your claim was that Wisconsin and North Dakota are 2 of the three states which kept us out of recession. Even with the cherry picked dates you chose, they added only 98,000 jobs combined in 3½ years. Nationally, during that same period, we added 6.4 million jobs. That means 2 of the states you idiotically credit with saving this nation from recession account for only 1.5% of the total job gains ... combined. That you believe their combined increase of 1.5% of the total job growth saved us from recession does nothing other than to expose you as the lying imbecile you are.

You're a God Damned liar.

We've only added just over 3 million and half of it came from one of the states I mentioned. Texas.

Your insanity is noted, but the BLS calls you the liar, not me ...

Dec/2010: 139,266,000
Apr/2014: 145,669,000

Total = 6,403,000 jobs gained

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Votto]

Who cares? Presidents don't decide who works or who doesn't.

I'm just curious. Why would you average in the first month or 3 months or 6 months of a president's term implying that he had anything to do with that unemployment rate?

No need to pass Obama's job bills then, eh?

 

[Faun]

We have fewer jobs than Bush had the beginning of his last year. The way you talk Obama has been responsible for massive job creation, when in fact he has been responsible for an almost total stagnation of the economy. The only reason we had any job growth at all was because most of it came from 3 states, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas. Other than that we'd still be in a recession.

Oh, so now Obama is responsible for the jobs lost on Bush's watch too, huh? We're up 3.5 million jobs since Obama became president and that is factoring in the 4 million jobs lost on Obama's watch due to the Great Recession Bush handed to him. If you want to go back a year before that, then you also have to factor in that we lost about 13 million jobs according to U6 figures.

Your other idiocy about most job growth coming from North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas is just more rightwing lies (though you are correct about Texas). Unemployment is down in all but 5 states under Obama. And the most improvements came in Texas, California and Florida.

By employment numbers:

Texas: 1,161,682
California: 619,425
Florida: 616,871

By unemployment rate:

S. Carolina: -4.4 points, 9.9% - 5.5%
Michigan: -3.9 points, 11.4% - 7.5%
Indiana: -3.0 points, 8.9% - 5.9%
Oregon: -3.0 points, 9.9% - 6.9%

It appears you picked North Dakota and Wisconsin out of your ass:

N. Dakota: -1.3 points, 2.6% - 1.3%, 37,064 jobs added
Wisconsin: -1.2 points, 7.1% - 5.9%, 2,999 jobs added

You really think a net gain of 3000 jobs over 5 years is what's fueling the nation???

Now stop posting lies.

Actually, you are the liar.

Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin. What was the percentage of increase in employment? In a two year period it went from over 9% to under 5.9% now. Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs. I'm just using your links, so you can't argue it.

The net gain nationwide is pitiful. The only reason you're getting any gains at all is because the states that are propping everyone else up have GOP governors who practice conservative policies.

In California for example in 09' the UE3 was 9.7%. What is it today? 8.1% which is terrible. California has a much larger work force yet they created less than half of what Texas created.

Texas alone created a million new jobs by themselves. Their UE3 is 5.5%

You like to look at the overall picture so it doesn't make Democrats look so bad, but looking at the elections an who's running the states, it's clearer what's going on. You just want to look at net gains or losses without looking at the time frame the trends started reversing. If you can point to single piece of legislation from Obama that made any difference, feel free to do so. From what I see, the economy is recovering on it's own, or where local governments are effecting it, which is the norm. Obama is doing everything in his power to worsen the economy and some people are fighting him, and the statistics show this.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with an idiot like you.

I missed the highlighted part earlier, but now that I noticed it, allow me to make an even bigger fool out of you ... Of Wisconsin, you said, "Also, there was an increase in jobs in that state during that time period of over 200,000 jobs."

Hmm, show me where Wisconsin added 200,000 jobs ... ???

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Their biggest gain over any two year period was from May-2012 thru April-2014; and that was an increase of 48,070 jobs. Nowhere near your imaginary claim of 200,000 jobs.

And in no two year period, did their unemployment rate go from 9% to 5.9%. That did occur over a 4 year period from March-2010 thru April-2014 -- but that was still only a 100,000 job gain. Still half of your hallucination that they created 200,000 jobs.

Maybe you're not lying -- maybe you're just insane?

 

[mudwhistle]

Just how deranged are you? You don't get to change what you were talking about because I'm bitch-slapping you with your own statements. Your claim was that Wisconsin and North Dakota are 2 of the three states which kept us out of recession. Even with the cherry picked dates you chose, they added only 98,000 jobs combined in 3½ years. Nationally, during that same period, we added 6.4 million jobs. That means 2 of the states you idiotically credit with saving this nation from recession account for only 1.5% of the total job gains ... combined. That you believe their combined increase of 1.5% of the total job growth saved us from recession does nothing other than to expose you as the lying imbecile you are.

You're a God Damned liar.

We've only added just over 3 million and half of it came from one of the states I mentioned. Texas.

Your insanity is noted, but the BLS calls you the liar, not me ...

Dec/2010: 139,266,000
Apr/2014: 145,669,000

Total = 6,403,000 jobs gained

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Liar.......

Jan 2009 142,152,000
April 2014 145,669,000

3,517,000

You have to go from the start of his term to the present. You cannot blame Bush for any job losses that happened after he left office because Obama had no Republican Congress fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. Most of the job losses happened after Obama took office. Actually got much worse after he was sworn in. If I remember correctly Bush left office with unemployment much lower than it's peak during Obama's term. It's not like Obama walked off the street. He was in that renegade congress after all. He's partly to blame anyway.

Obama has to answer for his own presidency. If a Republican wins the election in 2016 I'm sure you'll hammer him the same way.

 

[Faun]

You're a God Damned liar.

We've only added just over 3 million and half of it came from one of the states I mentioned. Texas.

Your insanity is noted, but the BLS calls you the liar, not me ...

Dec/2010: 139,266,000
Apr/2014: 145,669,000

Total = 6,403,000 jobs gained

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Liar.......

Jan 2009 142,152,000
April 2014 145,669,000

3,517,000

You have to go from the start of his term to the present. You cannot blame Bush for any job losses that happened after he left office because Obama had no Republican Congress fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. Obama has to answer for his own presidency. If a Republican wins the election in 2016 I'm sure you'll hammer him the same way.

The one lying is you. I used the dates YOU picked ... your words, not mine ...

"Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin." ~ a brain-dead rightie​

I like how you keep changing the dates to suit your needs. Nice rightie trick ya got there.

At any rate, you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....

 

[mudwhistle]

Your insanity is noted, but the BLS calls you the liar, not me ...

Dec/2010: 139,266,000
Apr/2014: 145,669,000

Total = 6,403,000 jobs gained

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Liar.......

Jan 2009 142,152,000
April 2014 145,669,000

3,517,000

You have to go from the start of his term to the present. You cannot blame Bush for any job losses that happened after he left office because Obama had no Republican Congress fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. Obama has to answer for his own presidency. If a Republican wins the election in 2016 I'm sure you'll hammer him the same way.

The one lying is you. I used the dates YOU picked ... your words, not mine ...

"Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin." ~ a brain-dead rightie​

I like how you keep changing the dates to suit your needs. Nice rightie trick ya got there.

At any rate, you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....

Nope. I mentioned Wisconsin because they elected a new Republican governor a couple of years ago.

Scott Kevin Walker (born November 2, 1967) is an American politician who is the 45th Governor of Wisconsin. A member of the Republican Party, Walker was first elected Governor in 2010 and was sworn in on January 3, 2011. Scott Walker (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You want to apply a totally different standard to your guy and I'm trying to be being consistent. You start at the beginning of his term, not in the middle or where you can remove all of the bad news.

 

[Faun]

Liar.......

Jan 2009 142,152,000
April 2014 145,669,000

3,517,000

You have to go from the start of his term to the present. You cannot blame Bush for any job losses that happened after he left office because Obama had no Republican Congress fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way. Obama has to answer for his own presidency. If a Republican wins the election in 2016 I'm sure you'll hammer him the same way.

The one lying is you. I used the dates YOU picked ... your words, not mine ...

"Notice how the 2010 election made all the difference in the world in Wisconsin." ~ a brain-dead rightie​

I like how you keep changing the dates to suit your needs. Nice rightie trick ya got there.

At any rate, you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....

Nope. I mentioned Wisconsin because they elected a new Republican governor a couple of years ago.

Scott Kevin Walker (born November 2, 1967) is an American politician who is the 45th Governor of Wisconsin. A member of the Republican Party, Walker was first elected Governor in 2010 and was sworn in on January 3, 2011. Scott Walker (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You want to apply a totally different standard to your guy and I'm trying to be being consistent. You start at the beginning of his term, not in the middle or where you can remove all of the bad news.

You made the ludicrous claimed that Wisconsin was one of three states which saved used from recession and you keep changing the dates from when this occurred. I used one of the dates you picked and that sent you into a tizzy.

Your tantrums aside ... you also claimed there was a 200,000 job gain over a two year period in Wisconsin. Here are the numbers ...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Put up or shut up time. This is where you either show where Wisconsin gained 200,000 jobs in 2 years or you've exposed yourself as the lying imbecile I already know you to be .....