Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[Mac1958]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

They have to ignore it, their entire world view depends upon Trump being some larger than life godlike figure.

 

[jc456]

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

 

[Mac1958]

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

 

[jc456]

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

 

[Mac1958]

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

 

[jc456]

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

 

[CowboyTed]

Why the fuck don't you tell us about the post you dumb ignorant fucking hypocrite?

Tell us again, please....how you deny that the 2008 crash was ALL republicans fault.

I have never once seen you acknowledge what the economy did (unemployment rate) did only after the democrats took control of congress after 2007 and then lost the House in 2010.

Do you know what the unemployment rate was at the end of 2006? It was 4.6 percent where the republicans had control of congress from 1995 to 2006.

What did the unemployment rate do from 2007 to 2010 under democrat control?

Well, go ahead you demented double talking ignorant hypocritical loser.

Better whip out that race card you cling to you dumb buttfuck. You are owned in your own thread.

I will be waiting for you to tell me what the unemployment rate did from 2007 to 2010, under democrat control.

The fact that you credit obama.....

Good Lord you are a loser.

Yeah.

So what do you think of the post?
.

It’s pretty clear to everyone we think your post makes you look like an idiot carrying water for the Hussein.

Have I posted something that you feel is incorrect?
.

We all know you are a leftwing hack. You’re trying to make your Hussein look good. Instead you only made the GOP look good.

Have I posted something that you feel is incorrect?
.

Mac,

You know you hurt their feelings... They have a fantasy going on here.

You don't go running around the looney asylum talking about reality and facts. You just upset the patients

PS keep it up

 

[Mac1958]

Oh I see. Well, that's your opinion you gathered from the stuff you pull up and post. You are a rabid centrist so you are a lived to say it's crap. You already know your sources are the only correct ones. That's a very rabid centrist way to be about it. Honestly, normal folks just don't care. They are working or they aren't.

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

All that, just to avoid admitting the obvious: The UE rate was on a clear downward trajectory when Trump took over.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest? Isn't that just the right thing to do? Does that even occur to you?
.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah.

So what do you think of the post?
.

It’s pretty clear to everyone we think your post makes you look like an idiot carrying water for the Hussein.

Have I posted something that you feel is incorrect?
.

We all know you are a leftwing hack. You’re trying to make your Hussein look good. Instead you only made the GOP look good.

Have I posted something that you feel is incorrect?
.

Mac,

You know you hurt their feelings... They have a fantasy going on here.

You don't go running around the looney asylum talking about reality and facts. You just upset the patients

PS keep it up

This alternate universe stuff just blows my mind. My curiosity on all this stuff is whether they really believe the stuff they say.

Given how angry they get, I think they do.

This is the power of group ideology. I look at it as a cautionary tale.
.

 

[jc456]

the correct response, IMO, would have been to say, who gave you the keys to decide which news agency was honest or not? That is called an opinion. Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

All that, just to avoid admitting the obvious: The UE rate was on a clear downward trajectory when Trump took over.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest? Isn't that just the right thing to do? Does that even occur to you?
.

I'm not wasting my time investigating it. I already explained that to you. It isn't as easy as looking at a graph. If you were honest, you'd know that. And still you didn't answer my question.

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

 

[Mac1958]

So the chart is fake news, regardless of how many data points I could provide.

Is that what you're saying?
.

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

All that, just to avoid admitting the obvious: The UE rate was on a clear downward trajectory when Trump took over.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest? Isn't that just the right thing to do? Does that even occur to you?
.

I'm not wasting my time investigating it. I already explained that to you. It isn't as easy as looking at a graph. If you were honest, you'd know that. And still you didn't answer my question.

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

Okay, got it.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

Does it blow your mind that some believe that soft spoken, scrawny, black, Kenyan dude with oversized hearing devices had anything to do with the UE rate? Ask those dumbmotherfuckers what POLICIES he rolled out that steered us out of trouble.

 

[jc456]

I have no idea, that wasn't the point of my post. funny you avoided it though. Here again,

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

All that, just to avoid admitting the obvious: The UE rate was on a clear downward trajectory when Trump took over.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest? Isn't that just the right thing to do? Does that even occur to you?
.

I'm not wasting my time investigating it. I already explained that to you. It isn't as easy as looking at a graph. If you were honest, you'd know that. And still you didn't answer my question.

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

Okay, got it.
.

yeah, you proved my point, one, you're not honest and you can't answer a question. thanks. you proved to the board, the loser you are.

 

[jc456]

So obviously you were wrong, since it didn't even occur to me to say something like that.

And the fact that you admit to having no idea is troubling, if not terribly surprising.
.

I didn't have any idea, because I didn't look into it. I don't really care. I don't need to play tit for tat games. But again I see you avoided answering my question. too fking funny. here again....
"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa" You ain't gonna put it out there are you chicken shit?

All that, just to avoid admitting the obvious: The UE rate was on a clear downward trajectory when Trump took over.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest? Isn't that just the right thing to do? Does that even occur to you?
.

I'm not wasting my time investigating it. I already explained that to you. It isn't as easy as looking at a graph. If you were honest, you'd know that. And still you didn't answer my question.

"Ask him what the differences are between the ones he follows and the ones we follow? I think that would be great. Mac1958 His comment will be his are trusted. hahahahahaha by who? him? hahaahahahahaa"

Okay, got it.
.

yeah, you proved my point, one, you're not honest and you can't answer a question. thanks. you proved to the board, the loser you are.

Mac1958 you're welcome.

 

[Faun]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

Does it blow your mind that some believe that soft spoken, scrawny, black, Kenyan dude with oversized hearing devices had anything to do with the UE rate? Ask those dumbmotherfuckers what POLICIES he rolled out that steered us out of trouble.

^^^ The rightarded view of the unemployment rate...

The unemployment rate did not come down under Obama. But if it did, it was inspite of Obama. But if it wasn't, it's because the BLS stopped counting unemployed people. But if they didn't it's because they were all part time, burger flipping jobs anyway. But if they weren't, it's because Republicans took over the House in 2011. But if it wasn't that, it's because that's not the real unemployment rate anyway. But if it is, it's because the BLS used fake numbers until Impeached Trump won the election. But if they didn't, it's because gay Barney Frank caused the Great Recession. But if he didn't, then the labor force participation rate dropped.

Rince... blather... repeat...

 

[Jackson]

The graph compares 8 years to less than 4 years for Trump. Obama years money was infused to the government to help unemployment as well as other problems. The graph should compare the point where Obama won the election the first tine to the point where Trump won his first election. So that would be from 6% in Nov. 2008 to 7.8% first administration and 7.8 to 4.9% his second administration. Trumps election 7.5% to current 3.75 for one administration without boosting the economy without artificial means like stimulants.]

So term 1 Obama - 1.8 improvement term 2 - 2.9 improvement; Trump term 1 - 2.75 without artificial infusing of funds.

And as Hawk noted, BLS stopped counting people weren't looking for jobs any longer during the Obama term.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

Does it blow your mind that some believe that soft spoken, scrawny, black, Kenyan dude with oversized hearing devices had anything to do with the UE rate? Ask those dumbmotherfuckers what POLICIES he rolled out that steered us out of trouble.

^^^ The rightarded view of the unemployment rate...

The unemployment rate did not come down under Obama. But if it did, it was inspite of Obama. But if it wasn't, it's because the BLS stopped counting unemployed people. But if they didn't it's because they were all part time, burger flipping jobs anyway. But if they weren't, it's because Republicans took over the House in 2011. But if it wasn't that, it's because that's not the real unemployment rate anyway. But if it is, it's because the BLS used fake numbers until Impeached Trump won the election. But if they didn't, it's because gay Barney Frank caused the Great Recession. But if he didn't, then the labor force participation rate dropped.

Rince... blather... repeat...

Fun semantics huh?
How about you just cite his amazing policies and connect the dots for us...easy shit right?

 

[theHawk]

Two things, official unemployment during true Hussein went “down” simply because they stopped counting people that gave up looking for a job after two years. If you look at the percentage of population in the workforce, it dropped drastically during his reign.

It only started to creep up for the better when Dems were thrown out of Congress and the Hussein became a lame duck.

I had forgotten how they quit counting people who quit looking for jobs. I think a lot of funny numbers and creative math were spun. Didn't one exec, Westinghouse?, publicly state that the Obama White House was fixing numbers. Between the work hours being reduced, and people giving up looking for work, I'm thankful we don't have dems in control. I'm glad the charts tell Mac what he wants, but people were hurting badly during ears tenure, and now wages are rising for the first time in a long time and record amounts of people are working. I know Mac hates Trump, but his charts can't coverup that people are much better off today.

The way they count the people for the UE rate has not changed for at least the last 4 president, if they were fake numbers under Obama they are still fake numbers now.

What blows my mind is that they just deny it.

It's not as if this chart is the only one that indicates what has happened to the UE rate. It's not hard to find.

That's the power of group ideology.
.

Does it blow your mind that some believe that soft spoken, scrawny, black, Kenyan dude with oversized hearing devices had anything to do with the UE rate? Ask those dumbmotherfuckers what POLICIES he rolled out that steered us out of trouble.

^^^ The rightarded view of the unemployment rate...

The unemployment rate did not come down under Obama. But if it did, it was inspite of Obama. But if it wasn't, it's because the BLS stopped counting unemployed people. But if they didn't it's because they were all part time, burger flipping jobs anyway. But if they weren't, it's because Republicans took over the House in 2011. But if it wasn't that, it's because that's not the real unemployment rate anyway. But if it is, it's because the BLS used fake numbers until Impeached Trump won the election. But if they didn't, it's because gay Barney Frank caused the Great Recession. But if he didn't, then the labor force participation rate dropped.

Rince... blather... repeat...

It’s hilarious you idiots can’t look at all the data objectively. The number of people on food stamps and on welfare was at record levels under the Hussein. It is a fact that the government stopped counting people as unemployed after two years of being unemployed. Did the economy limp on and slowly get better over those eight years, yes.
Now we have a low number of people on welfare and food stamps, high workforce participation rates, higher wages, high stock market, and sustained low unemployment rates.

But hey, you can’t accept reality and the numbers. The liberal media complain about the economy and wages, even though it’s way better now than under the Hussein.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The graph compares 8 years to less than 4 years for Trump. Obama years money was infused to the government to help unemployment as well as other problems. The graph should compare the point where Obama won the election the first tine to the point where Trump won his first election. So that would be from 6% in Nov. 2008 to 7.8% first administration and 7.8 to 4.9% his second administration. Trumps election 7.5% to current 3.75 for one administration without boosting the economy without artificial means like stimulants.]

So term 1 Obama - 1.8 improvement term 2 - 2.9 improvement; Trump term 1 - 3.75 without artificial infusing of funds.

“But, but, but...tax breaks for the RICH greedy bastards that pay my way.”