This is the man Republicans call stupid and a fool????

[OKTexas]

So what is it? You can't reasonably compare data that is defined differently, you can't just say full time workers unless the definition was consistent throughout the graph. My question is, was it consistent, or are they comparing 2009 oranges to 2015 apples?

They are not......you are confusing definitions under ACA with BLS statistical definitions....BLS, which is the source of the jobs numbers has defined full time as 35 hrs per week......for the purpose of eligibility under ACA 30 hrs is considered full time...

Once again you dodged the question, if you say 35 hours is now considered full time, was that definition used throughout the graph?

BLS defines full time as 35 hrs per week.....BLS compiles the jobs data......how ACA defines full time is entirely irrelevant to BLS...

Read that as many times as you need to grasp it.....

I guess that's a way to inflate the full time numbers, I've never had a full time job where I worked less than 40 hours. But what can you expect from DC, where the suspension of reality is practiced early and often.

If that has been the definition over time, then there is no such "inflation".....

Just misleading a hell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He's stupid and a fool. The only people more stupid and foolish are the ones who believe any of that crap.

Obama said what we all think. If you don't believe what we are saying its because you are brainwashed by rush fox and the GOP.

Or you are rich? I doubt that

just a bit ago you said it was half the country,now its what we ALL THINK?....

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

 

[rdean]

Obama said what we all think. If you don't believe what we are saying its because you are brainwashed by rush fox and the GOP.

Or you are rich? I doubt that

just a bit ago you said it was half the country,now its what we ALL THINK?....

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

 

[PredFan]

That is a nice little fantasy land you live in there pal. How is the weather there?

With which part of it do you take issue, Unrepentant 2Time Scrub Voter?

All of it. None of the things you cited are 100% Bush's fault and much of it has nothing to do with him at all, hack.

Ah yes.......the Pretzeldunce Innocent Bystander theory....

What WILL you hold him responsible for?

Irrelevant. This thread isn't about Bush.

From "Bold Assertion" to "better part of valor" in two posts....

SSDD...

Stay on the topic.

 

[PredFan]

With which part of it do you take issue, Unrepentant 2Time Scrub Voter?

All of it. None of the things you cited are 100% Bush's fault and much of it has nothing to do with him at all, hack.

Yet you can't offer a rebuttal to the points made, which can easily be supported by those alive, aware and engaged in a thoughtful critique of current events.

You too are brainwashed, as are many of today's self defined conservatives, who have adopted the hate and experienced the fears of demagogues (like Trump, Cruz , Rubio & Christie) and charlatans (like Rubio & Fiorina) creating a perfect storm of foolery.

Not one of those noted have the experience, temperament or introspective ability to serve as POTUS, and lead a diverse nation of over 300 Million persons.

Face it, that spectacle at last night's debate is reminiscent of a childish squabble over the last piece of cake at a party for a ten year old.

What are the odds that when BLS reports January jobs data, that Pred will complain about the LFPR?

I guess the odds need to be established based on whether PF is willfully ignorant or if his ignorance is congenital and thus irreparable.

Cold...........but fair....

Oh look! Another left wing circle jerk! Which one of you is the pivot man?

 

[PredFan]

That is a nice little fantasy land you live in there pal. How is the weather there?

With which part of it do you take issue, Unrepentant 2Time Scrub Voter?

All of it. None of the things you cited are 100% Bush's fault and much of it has nothing to do with him at all, hack.

Yet you can't offer a rebuttal to the points made, which can easily be supported by those alive, aware and engaged in a thoughtful critique of current events.

You too are brainwashed, as are many of today's self defined conservatives, who have adopted the hate and experienced the fears of demagogues (like Trump, Cruz , Rubio & Christie) and charlatans (like Rubio & Fiorina) creating a perfect storm of foolery.

Not one of those noted have the experience, temperament or introspective ability to serve as POTUS, and lead a diverse nation of over 300 Million persons.

Face it, that spectacle at last night's debate is reminiscent of a childish squabble over the last piece of cake at a party for a ten year old.

I can of course. It's been done many many times here in many threads. Yet, you left wing nutters still say the same stupid shit. It's not worth the effort to do it again. I just prefer to point at you idiots and laugh.

Of course....yes, many many many.....not worth it......

Capon.

Meh, it has been done, you know it has, yet you still say the same ignorant claims. You lefties are just boring everyone these days. Not worth it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

With which part of it do you take issue, Unrepentant 2Time Scrub Voter?

All of it. None of the things you cited are 100% Bush's fault and much of it has nothing to do with him at all, hack.

Yet you can't offer a rebuttal to the points made, which can easily be supported by those alive, aware and engaged in a thoughtful critique of current events.

You too are brainwashed, as are many of today's self defined conservatives, who have adopted the hate and experienced the fears of demagogues (like Trump, Cruz , Rubio & Christie) and charlatans (like Rubio & Fiorina) creating a perfect storm of foolery.

Not one of those noted have the experience, temperament or introspective ability to serve as POTUS, and lead a diverse nation of over 300 Million persons.

Face it, that spectacle at last night's debate is reminiscent of a childish squabble over the last piece of cake at a party for a ten year old.

I can of course. It's been done many many times here in many threads. Yet, you left wing nutters still say the same stupid shit. It's not worth the effort to do it again. I just prefer to point at you idiots and laugh.

Of course....yes, many many many.....not worth it......

Capon.

Meh, it has been done, you know it has, yet you still say the same ignorant claims. You lefties are just boring everyone these days. Not worth it.

It all depends on perspective. Some people (PF & others) fall prey to snake oil sales, others (usually liberals) see through the bull shit. PF & his brethren believe they know the truth; liberals aren't afraid of trial and error, seeking a better course.

The liberal mind understands doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome rarely works, conservatives fear change and continue to make the same mistake generation after generation (Vietnam, Iraq and soon - should they get power - Iran), voodoo economics, and today advocate for a return to the Gilded Age.

 

[IcebergSlim]

They are not......you are confusing definitions under ACA with BLS statistical definitions....BLS, which is the source of the jobs numbers has defined full time as 35 hrs per week......for the purpose of eligibility under ACA 30 hrs is considered full time...

Once again you dodged the question, if you say 35 hours is now considered full time, was that definition used throughout the graph?

BLS defines full time as 35 hrs per week.....BLS compiles the jobs data......how ACA defines full time is entirely irrelevant to BLS...

Read that as many times as you need to grasp it.....

I guess that's a way to inflate the full time numbers, I've never had a full time job where I worked less than 40 hours. But what can you expect from DC, where the suspension of reality is practiced early and often.

If that has been the definition over time, then there is no such "inflation".....

Just misleading a hell.

35-44 hrs per week........as that definition has not changed with Obama, it provides for an apples to apples comparison....

If you want " misleading" look at how the Hatahs are using U3, U6 and LFPR.....

 

[Conservative65]

just a bit ago you said it was half the country,now its what we ALL THINK?....

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Obama said what we all think. If you don't believe what we are saying its because you are brainwashed by rush fox and the GOP.

Or you are rich? I doubt that

just a bit ago you said it was half the country,now its what we ALL THINK?....

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

Here's an idea.....instead of all the bold assertions, how about some evidence?

While your working on that, consider how the very thing you insist brought down the "Great Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux" economy was THE VERY SAME PHENOMENON ON WHICH IT WAS DEPENDENT FOR GDP AND JOB GROWTH.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

When Scrub began, the CBO was projecting cumulative supluses of 5trillion......when he left that became 5trillion in cumulative deficits.......when combined with the 5 trillion he accumulated during his tenure, Scrub effected a 15 trillion dollar net swing.

 

[Conservative65]

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

When Scrub began, the CBO was projecting cumulative supluses of 5trillion......when he left that became 5trillion in cumulative deficits.......when combined with the 5 trillion he accumulated during his tenure, Scrub effected a 15 trillion dollar net swing.

Liberal math? It doesn't add up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

The foundation for the excessive spending can be traced to all prior administrations and Congresses, including Reagan and especially Bush II. Don't lie and even suggest the debt is all Obama's doing,

Bush destroyed the House, Obama needed architects to design a new structure and lots of money to rebuild it.

Why did he need architects, because no other administration inherited the total mess that Obama did.

You and others are now free to try to rewrite history.

 

[rdean]

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

You know that's not true. The evidence has been posted again and again. Bush and the GOP responsible for most of it. After the way the fucked up the economy and left a huge part of the world in chaos, many would say all of it.

 

[Conservative65]

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

You know that's not true. The evidence has been posted again and again. Bush and the GOP responsible for most of it. After the way the fucked up the economy and left a huge part of the world in chaos, many would say all of it.

Many? You mean you Liberals who want to protect your ****** President.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

just a bit ago you said it was half the country,now its what we ALL THINK?....

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

Here's an idea.....instead of all the bold assertions, how about some evidence?

While your working on that, consider how the very thing you insist brought down the "Great Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux" economy was THE VERY SAME PHENOMENON ON WHICH IT WAS DEPENDENT FOR GDP AND JOB GROWTH.

Federal Debt​

The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office.
Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent.
Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running. The U.S. finished the most recent fiscal year with a deficit of $483 billion. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that unless Congress acts to trim future spending or raise future taxes, or some combination of both, those annual deficits will soon be rising again. The most recent “baseline” budget projection, which CBO issued in August, forecasts that under current law the deficit will rise above half a trillion in fiscal 2016 and hit $960 billion within a decade.

Obama’s Numbers (January 2015 Update)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Breaking News: Diplomacy Works

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

You know that's not true. The evidence has been posted again and again. Bush and the GOP responsible for most of it. After the way the fucked up the economy and left a huge part of the world in chaos, many would say all of it.

Many? You mean you Liberals who want to protect your ****** President.

Don't ever characterize yourself as a patriot, you appear to be nothing more than a racist curmudgeon who hates other Americans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I mean the Democrats position. I've said pretty much everything he said at one time or another.

And you know if I thought the Republicans were sincere, its not like I don't see their points. But I see they are disingenuous and I can't believe you haven't seen it.

And being middle class, I think you are voting against yourself if you vote GOP.

Why don't you tea bag the democratic party? Why do you choose to lean GOP? What are your reasons?

How are you voting against yourself if you vote GOP?

I think it's quite the opposite. If you vote Democrat, you are voting against the middle-class.

As a middle-class person, I've never endured the costs and problems that I endure now during the Bush years. I lost my employer health insurance. My electricity rates increased. I am now being charged transfer fees when I switch credit cards. I am paying much more for cigarettes than I did during the Bush years. I lost my unlimited internet service on my cell phone because phone companies had to recoup all that lost money on government phones. I lost my medical tax deduction because of Commie Care. My wage increases are less because of all these F'n foreigners that come here and lower our pay scale by taking our jobs.

Now can you tell me of one hardship that middle-class Americans experienced under George Bush???

You're kidding, I hope.....

The middle class will pick up the tab for Scrub's unprecedented profligacy.....for Iraqnam, Medicare Part D, the disastrous consequences of his anti regulatory fervor.....their retirement plans devastated by the abysmal record of the stock market, their negotiating leverage with their employers crippled by the anemic job "growth" during his watch. .it was, to put it mildly, a lost DECADE for the American middle class.


And you helped...

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

Here's an idea.....instead of all the bold assertions, how about some evidence?

While your working on that, consider how the very thing you insist brought down the "Great Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux" economy was THE VERY SAME PHENOMENON ON WHICH IT WAS DEPENDENT FOR GDP AND JOB GROWTH.

Federal Debt​

The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office.
Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent.
Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running. The U.S. finished the most recent fiscal year with a deficit of $483 billion. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that unless Congress acts to trim future spending or raise future taxes, or some combination of both, those annual deficits will soon be rising again. The most recent “baseline” budget projection, which CBO issued in August, forecasts that under current law the deficit will rise above half a trillion in fiscal 2016 and hit $960 billion within a decade.

Obama’s Numbers (January 2015 Update)

Cherry picking seems to be fair play, from your link:

Summary

Jobs, paychecks, corporate profits and stock prices have all improved since our last report on the Obama statistical record. Some highlights:

• The economy has now gained nearly five times more jobs under President Barack Obama than it did during the presidency of George W. Bush, and the unemployment rate has dropped to just below the historical average.
• Real weekly earnings are up 1.7 percent, thanks in part to a plunge in gasoline prices.
• Corporate profits have nearly tripled, and stock prices have soared.
• On the other hand, the number of Americans receiving food stamps remains 45 percent higher than when the president first took office, and the rate of home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years.
• The average premium for a benchmark “silver” health plan in the Obamacare marketplaces rose only 2 percent this year, and consumers had more plans from which to choose. But the tax penalty for going without insurance will double.

 

[Conservative65]

Breaking News: Diplomacy Works

No, most of the Bush years were great years for most people. If not for the housing bubble and collapse, we might have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain presidency.

Nobody could create such an economy that eventually expanded worldwide by "anemic" job growth. Plus the fact that under DumBama, his spending was twice that of Bush. When Ears was running for President, he claimed that Bush's spending was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Yet once in office, he proved to be twice as irresponsible and twice as unpatriotic; using his terminology of course.

The Bush years were so great because the deficit was exploding. Nothing was being paid for. But it wasn't so great for those fighting in Iraq. Tens of thousands are maimed for life costing the country trillions into the future. Republicans used reconciliation three times. Do you remember for what?

We have an almost $19 trillion dollar debt. Does that mean we're paying for things now? By the way, your ****** President is responsible for far more of it than Bush.

You know that's not true. The evidence has been posted again and again. Bush and the GOP responsible for most of it. After the way the fucked up the economy and left a huge part of the world in chaos, many would say all of it.

Many? You mean you Liberals who want to protect your ****** President.

Don't ever characterize yourself as a patriot, you appear to be nothing more than a racist curmudgeon who hates other Americans.

Just people like you. I love real Americans.

As for what I should or shouldn't do, since I don't work for you nor am I on your property where you make the rules, I'll do as I damn well please and there isn't a thing you can do about. Until you can enforce your demands, you shouldn't make them.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again you dodged the question, if you say 35 hours is now considered full time, was that definition used throughout the graph?

BLS defines full time as 35 hrs per week.....BLS compiles the jobs data......how ACA defines full time is entirely irrelevant to BLS...

Read that as many times as you need to grasp it.....

I guess that's a way to inflate the full time numbers, I've never had a full time job where I worked less than 40 hours. But what can you expect from DC, where the suspension of reality is practiced early and often.

If that has been the definition over time, then there is no such "inflation".....

Just misleading a hell.

35-44 hrs per week........as that definition has not changed with Obama, it provides for an apples to apples comparison....

If you want " misleading" look at how the Hatahs are using U3, U6 and LFPR.....

Right, can't use numbers that more accurately reflect reality. Why do you think politicians came up with the crap we use, it makes them look better.