Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[Article 15]

This was a good employment number, not a great one. It takes about 125,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth each month. That means we created roughly 120,000 jobs that helped bring down the unemployment number. The US economy has created almost 3 million jobs in the last two years. That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo....

Heh....that was almost an honest post.

what was dishonest about it?

It's another attempt to lay the massive job loss from the crash at the feet of Obama.

"That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo...."

 

[Trajan]

Heh....that was almost an honest post.

what was dishonest about it?

It's another attempt to lay the massive job loss from the crash at the feet of Obama.

"That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo...."

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

 

[Article 15]

what was dishonest about it?

It's another attempt to lay the massive job loss from the crash at the feet of Obama.

"That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo...."

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

Pretty much none of it.

 

[edthecynic]

what was dishonest about it?

It's another attempt to lay the massive job loss from the crash at the feet of Obama.

"That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo...."

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

1, Bush's job.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't even need to read through this one to know how the posts will go:

LibDems will say this is good news for the country and bad news for the Repubs. Most will not actually credit Obama but some will.

ConservaRepubLitarians will be predictibale as always:
1. Obama gets no credit for this good news (I agree with them on this - I just don't agree with them that Obama is the cause of all problems in the universe).
2. There is no good news! (Regardless of what I saw Megan Kelly say on FOX today). It's all a LibDem trick! Things are bad! Let's focus on the bad!

Then the small-minded will start calling each other names.

I can verify that we have more contracts now (I own a national executive recruiting firm) than we have had since 2007 and I am hiring two new people this month.
Guess what? The marginal tax rate does not affect my decision (myth #1). The Magical and All Powerful Obama (according to ConservaRepubLitarians) does not stop me from hiring due to an increased demand for our services. (myth #2).
We've had an average of 10 - 25 contracts in place at a time, since everything crashed, just before Obama took office.
Right now? We have over TWO HUNDRED contracts to find employees for our clients, in virtually every major city (except Detroit) in the country.

Okay so this thread went pretty much as expected:
ConservaRepubLiatarians claiming there IS NO good news. Things are horrible! Keep thinking negatively folks! And if things ARE getting better, Obama has nothing to do with it! (although he had everything to do with them being bad)/
LibDems claiming Obama is responsible, now that things are good and wasn't when things were bad.

The economy is getting better. It's a shame many of the ConservaRepubLitarians are SO party-before-country, they can't be happy or even acknowledge this. Oh well.

Nope. You don't get to do that, Fence-sitter.

Obama is, in fact, NOT to blame for the bad economy that he inherited. Why would any sane liberal say he is? He is, however, at the helm as it recovers. Facts are facts.

You seem to think I'm a fence sitter. I'm not. Obama definitely inherited a bad economy. I mean it was SERIOUSLY Fcuked up by Bush before he got in. There. Is that definitive enough for you? Good! So here's the part LibDems won't like.
In the face of a financial crisis, what did he do? Same bailouts as Bush - just not quite as bad but still, BAD. History proves as much. Bailout of GM which history proves was a good idea. But where was the vast majority of his attention? Putting together a health care bill that was SO BAD, not one Dem mentioned it in the mid-terms. ObamaCare sucks balls (with the exception of two points in 2000 pages). Instead of saying "Hey you know what? Screw helath care for now, we've got a major crisis on our hands!" But did he? Nope.
He had the WH & congress and he did a whole lot of nothing.
There was much he could have done. For that he is responsible.

 

[Trajan]

It's another attempt to lay the massive job loss from the crash at the feet of Obama.

"That means we only need another 7 million to get back to where we were in 2008 when the boi-king was annointed......woo - fucking- hoo...."

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

Pretty much none of it.

I see. so how long should he be given to help employ these people before it is his failure?

4 more years?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well according to Papa Obama himself
it was three years or he would be a one term president

Who knew he could predict the future


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRAMdUNo2Cg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRAMdUNo2Cg[/ame]

 

[Article 15]

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

Pretty much none of it.

I see. so how long should he be given to help employ these people before it is his failure?

4 more years?

The massive job loss we experienced from the crash will never be his failure.

In regards to getting those people back to work, he isn't failing....the economy is growing jobs now.

 

[Article 15]

Well according to Papa Obama himself
it was three years or he would be a one term president

Who knew he could predict the future
FLASHBACK: Obama: My Presidency Will Be 'A One-Term Proposition' If Economy Doesn't Turn In 3 Years - YouTube

The economy has turned.

Looks like it's going to be four more years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo, if you think Obama is weaker now than a year ago, you are an idiot. We are going to have to work harder together to beat him, and your telling lies won't help.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay so this thread went pretty much as expected:
ConservaRepubLiatarians claiming there IS NO good news. Things are horrible! Keep thinking negatively folks! And if things ARE getting better, Obama has nothing to do with it! (although he had everything to do with them being bad)/
LibDems claiming Obama is responsible, now that things are good and wasn't when things were bad.

The economy is getting better. It's a shame many of the ConservaRepubLitarians are SO party-before-country, they can't be happy or even acknowledge this. Oh well.

Nope. You don't get to do that, Fence-sitter.

Obama is, in fact, NOT to blame for the bad economy that he inherited. Why would any sane liberal say he is? He is, however, at the helm as it recovers. Facts are facts.

You seem to think I'm a fence sitter. I'm not. Obama definitely inherited a bad economy. I mean it was SERIOUSLY Fcuked up by Bush before he got in. There. Is that definitive enough for you? Good! So here's the part LibDems won't like.
In the face of a financial crisis, what did he do? Same bailouts as Bush - just not quite as bad but still, BAD. History proves as much. Bailout of GM which history proves was a good idea. But where was the vast majority of his attention? Putting together a health care bill that was SO BAD, not one Dem mentioned it in the mid-terms. ObamaCare sucks balls (with the exception of two points in 2000 pages). Instead of saying "Hey you know what? Screw helath care for now, we've got a major crisis on our hands!" But did he? Nope.
He had the WH & congress and he did a whole lot of nothing.
There was much he could have done. For that he is responsible.

Your comments made me think you are a fence sitter. You try to equate the bullshit from the right with the fact-based comments from the left regarding who owns the bad economy and who is steering the ship into better waters.

The health care act is part of the plan for the economy. Just not one that will pay off in the man's first term. And...using it to explain your earlier comments is moving the goalposts. But.....that's what fence sitters do.

 

[Neotrotsky]

so how many of the 7 million should be laid at his feet?

Pretty much none of it.

I see. so how long should he be given to help employ these people before it is his failure?

4 more years?

Of course I forgot
before some idiot tells you he is even more popular or stronger today than a year ago


Feb 1, 2012
Gallup: Obama approval rating down in all but three states in 2011

Nationally, Obama's approval rating in 2011 averaged 44%, down from 47% a year earlier.

New state-by-state data released by Gallup on Tuesday shows that a majority of respondents approved of the president's performance
in only 10 states plus the District of Columbia, down from 13 a year earlier

Meanwhile the number of states where his approval rating was below 40% doubled in 2011, from 10 to 20.
That list now includes New Hampshire, where his approval rating was 38.7% -- the lowest score in any of the states he carried in 2008.​

being Gallup, you know it means it is even worse for him

 

[Political Junky]

Political Animal - Romney: U.S. economy ‘getting better’ under Obama

Consider this remarkable exchange between Romney and conservative radio-host Laura Ingraham late last week: (thanks to F.B. for the tip)

INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.

 

[freedombecki]

Okay so this thread went pretty much as expected:
ConservaRepubLiatarians claiming there IS NO good news. Things are horrible! Keep thinking negatively folks! And if things ARE getting better, Obama has nothing to do with it! (although he had everything to do with them being bad)/
LibDems claiming Obama is responsible, now that things are good and wasn't when things were bad.

The economy is getting better. It's a shame many of the ConservaRepubLitarians are SO party-before-country, they can't be happy or even acknowledge this. Oh well.

Nope. You don't get to do that, Fence-sitter.

Obama is, in fact, NOT to blame for the bad economy that he inherited. Why would any sane liberal say he is? He is, however, at the helm as it recovers. Facts are facts.

You seem to think I'm a fence sitter. I'm not. Obama definitely inherited a bad economy. I mean it was SERIOUSLY Fcuked up by Bush before he got in. There. Is that definitive enough for you? Good! So here's the part LibDems won't like.
In the face of a financial crisis, what did he do? Same bailouts as Bush - just not quite as bad but still, BAD. History proves as much. Bailout of GM which history proves was a good idea. But where was the vast majority of his attention? Putting together a health care bill that was SO BAD, not one Dem mentioned it in the mid-terms. ObamaCare sucks balls (with the exception of two points in 2000 pages). Instead of saying "Hey you know what? Screw helath care for now, we've got a major crisis on our hands!" But did he? Nope.
He had the WH & congress and he did a whole lot of nothing.
There was much he could have done. For that he is responsible.

Against Reid and Pelosi? Yeah, right.

I have a problem with your recollection of exactly who was responsible for the financial downturn before Obama took office. Guess who controlled the purse-strings then? Spendthrift Democrats had a majority for Bush's last 2 years. They aimed for America's financial foot and shot it good. That's why the economy was askew, and not because of Bush. It was because of Reid and Pelosi. Pelosi welched some deals out of the taxpayer bailouts for her friends and kin. She put a nephew or brother-in-law in every Solyndra-type deal she could put a half- to three-quarter billion dollars in for her family members. Nothin' but the best golden parachutes for Nancy Pelosi's kin!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nope. You don't get to do that, Fence-sitter.

Obama is, in fact, NOT to blame for the bad economy that he inherited. Why would any sane liberal say he is? He is, however, at the helm as it recovers. Facts are facts.

You seem to think I'm a fence sitter. I'm not. Obama definitely inherited a bad economy. I mean it was SERIOUSLY Fcuked up by Bush before he got in. There. Is that definitive enough for you? Good! So here's the part LibDems won't like.
In the face of a financial crisis, what did he do? Same bailouts as Bush - just not quite as bad but still, BAD. History proves as much. Bailout of GM which history proves was a good idea. But where was the vast majority of his attention? Putting together a health care bill that was SO BAD, not one Dem mentioned it in the mid-terms. ObamaCare sucks balls (with the exception of two points in 2000 pages). Instead of saying "Hey you know what? Screw helath care for now, we've got a major crisis on our hands!" But did he? Nope.
He had the WH & congress and he did a whole lot of nothing.
There was much he could have done. For that he is responsible.

Your comments made me think you are a fence sitter. You try to equate the bullshit from the right with the fact-based comments from the left regarding who owns the bad economy and who is steering the ship into better waters.

The health care act is part of the plan for the economy. Just not one that will pay off in the man's first term. And...using it to explain your earlier comments is moving the goalposts. But.....that's what fence sitters do.

No you're wrong. The SEVEN MONTHS wasted on a POS health care bill that was so bad, the only Dems who mentioned in in '10, were the ones bragging they DIDN"T vote for it. It does NOTHING for the economy. Other than the pre-existing conditions & college age parts, there is just nothing good about it. And love the idea of penalizing those too poor to afford insurance companies - the only group that really benefits from it.
So Obama did NOTHING. ZERO.
he could have taken subsidies from Big Oil and poured them into American Small Business (the only real "job creators" and only businesses who pay their taxes 100% in the USA), in the form of full tax credits. He could have offered tax credits or at least breaks for the purchase of certain American products. Instead, the idiot promised a bunch of "shovel ready" jobs from the government. Excuse me Mr. President but there's that little matter about the bidding process and all the other bureaucratic mess before a single person can be hired. And btw, where ARE all those jobs?
Obama is not blameless.
That being said, I do like this recent Obama of the last year. The one with balls. The one who does stuff. This new version is much cooler than the mushy guy who was in the WH for the first two years.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wait till this faux legacy PapaObama Care fully kicks in
after the election

It was so "good" the democrats had to make sure most of it kicked
after the election

 

[Chris]

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Except that Obama got Gaddafi and Bin Laden, and Reagan sent Bin Laden and Saddam weapons.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nope. You don't get to do that, Fence-sitter.

Obama is, in fact, NOT to blame for the bad economy that he inherited. Why would any sane liberal say he is? He is, however, at the helm as it recovers. Facts are facts.

You seem to think I'm a fence sitter. I'm not. Obama definitely inherited a bad economy. I mean it was SERIOUSLY Fcuked up by Bush before he got in. There. Is that definitive enough for you? Good! So here's the part LibDems won't like.
In the face of a financial crisis, what did he do? Same bailouts as Bush - just not quite as bad but still, BAD. History proves as much. Bailout of GM which history proves was a good idea. But where was the vast majority of his attention? Putting together a health care bill that was SO BAD, not one Dem mentioned it in the mid-terms. ObamaCare sucks balls (with the exception of two points in 2000 pages). Instead of saying "Hey you know what? Screw helath care for now, we've got a major crisis on our hands!" But did he? Nope.
He had the WH & congress and he did a whole lot of nothing.
There was much he could have done. For that he is responsible.

Against Reid and Pelosi? Yeah, right.

I have a problem with your recollection of exactly who was responsible for the financial downturn before Obama took office. Guess who controlled the purse-strings then? Spendthrift Democrats had a majority for Bush's last 2 years. They aimed for America's financial foot and shot it good. That's why the economy was askew, and not because of Bush. It was because of Reid and Pelosi. Pelosi welched some deals out of the taxpayer bailouts for her friends and kin. She put a nephew or brother-in-law in every Solyndra-type deal she could put a half- to three-quarter billion dollars in for her family members. Nothin' but the best golden parachutes for Nancy Pelosi's kin!

LOL! Please. Bush grew government more than any president before him and spent more than any president before him. And that was just in the first term. And that little thing about starting a war (you know, the one he, Cheney & Rumsfeld all said would definitely cap out at about a billion dollars? Yeah that one) and at the same time, cutting taxes. Brilliant.
And let's see. Hmmm. Why not deregulate the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities industry. Because we wouldn't want to have the largest traded security to have to oh, you know, qualify for insurance when those marvelous credit-swaps are available, right?

But I get it. You're just like the guy who says Obama has no blame whatsoever for the economy. You are both the exactly same. So blinded by party / ideology, you can't ackowledge the mistakes of your own party.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Except that Obama got Gaddafi and Bin Laden, and Reagan sent Bin Laden and Saddam weapons.

Except that


Reagan had GDP growth rates like 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 7.1 percent
and did it with less money


How many has Papa Obama had over 4%
None
In fact, he is the first President to not have one

Truth is hard for the Left
in fact it is their worst enemy

 

[Chris]

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

Except that Obama got Gaddafi and Bin Laden, and Reagan sent Bin Laden and Saddam weapons.

Except that


Reagan had GDP growth rates like 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 7.1 percent

How many has Papa Obama had over 4%
None
In fact, he is the first President to not have one

Truth is hard for the Left
in fact it is their worst enemy

And Reagan wasn't fighting two wars and three months after Reagan took office, the North Shore oil started to flow.

Obama is better than Reagan.