Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans congratulate Republican governors for the economic recovery they deny is happening because they don't want to give Obama any credit. How do you take someone who does this seriously? And if the economy were as bad as Republicans say why aren't republicans governors worried about their jobs? Michigan gov GOP Rick Snyder poisoned us with lead and he still has his job.When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head. The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus. Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck. The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?
There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton! You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money. It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda. It's why we got things like Solyndra.
Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER
Hilarious when it's counting the deficits it's nothing but - OBAMA SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILOR!
When it's counting the jobs that spending bought it's - ANYBODY woulda done it! He didn't do nothing special!
Well leave it to you to make IRRELEVANT arguments. It doesn't matter who-woulda-coulda. Fact is Obama DID. So when you say he DIDN"T pass job creating policies, you are WRONG.
Since you haven't been able to provide anything resembling what you would consider GOOD NUMBERS on how many jobs 800 billion dollars caused we can safely ignore your BS ramblings.
So you can't name them...but it's a FACT that Obama did have policies that created jobs? I'm curious, Anton...when you make arguments like that...is there anyone that doesn't laugh?
Yup. I don't laugh because while you lie like a rug, Anton never lies. Ever. Because you know that you are lying, I don't think you have anything to laugh about. that would be you lying again.
First, Oldstyle, you have promised months ago to provide bills that republicans have brought forward to combat the disaster known as the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You promised, and then failed to do so. So, was it simply another lie of yours?
Second, you have been shown many times the numbers, in the millions, of jobs that obama has been responsible for saving and creating.
Third. You have been unable to find a single job bill by Republicans, so at this point we know it was Obama Millions of jobs saved and created, Republicans 0 jobs. That's Zero.
Fourth, you are LYING again when you quote the $800 Billion number. As you have been shown, it was $500 Billion in stimulus, and a couple hundred Billion in tax decreases that Republicans put in the Stimulus (and then voted against).
Really, oldstyle, you lie so much your posts are a waste of space.
Bush has zero to do with this economic recovery. For once Republicans can't try to credit the previous administration for a Democrats success
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Idiot, those are actual job counts not estimate of policy effects...I don't even know why I keep replying to you, may as well talk to a carpet.
That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
Idiot, those are actual job counts not estimate of policy effects...I don't even know why I keep replying to you, may as well talk to a carpet.
How would you accurately assess policy effects if you don't count the actual jobs?
What's laughable is that you think "jobs saved" gives you a more accurate estimate of policy effects than the CES numbers!
Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
No, an idiot is someone that believes that a VERY low 62.7 percent of the work eligible population with jobs equals less the 5 percent real unemployment. But keep believing that if it gives you the warm fuzzies about the Barrypuppet and the shitheads that make up the leftard clown posse of sniveling fools.
Labor Force is COMPOSED of employed+unemployed people, so what you just said is complete nonsense...so what was it about Idiots?
Tell me, are people who retire or go to school and are not looking for a job classify as "work eligible" to you?
I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.
Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.
I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.
Does an 80 year old gramps or 18 year old student "living a life of leisure and not looking for work" surprise you??
You are too ignorant to argue this with me and you are too ignorant to have any basis to to reject official numbers. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not a fact.
What's laughable is that you think "jobs saved" gives you a more accurate estimate of policy effects than the CES numbers!
Jobs saved is a description of numbers in an estimate, not a source of estimate silly. The SOURCE of estimate is consideration of how tax-cuts, spending, transfers etc, convert to changes in jobs number.
Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtWhen did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton? You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.
I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.
Your insanity persists. Part timers have always been included in the U-3. Most part timers want to be part timers. The ones who don't are counted in the U-6.Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtI specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.
Does an 80 year old gramps or 18 year old student "living a life of leisure and not looking for work" surprise you??
You are too ignorant to argue this with me and you are too ignorant to have any basis to to reject official numbers. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not a fact.
No, dumb ass...but they are counting those that are working part-time as being "employed". The numbers are being fudged and if you can't see that, then YOU are the ignorant one. 51 percent of those that even have a job make less than 30K a year and over 35 percent of those that have a job make less than 20K a year. The dollar doesn't buy shit anymore. This fiat currency has been devalued even more by the QE program. You can put lipstick on this pig all you want...put some eye-liner on it but at the end of the day, it's still a pig and with Barrypuppet pushing the TPP, it will make decent paying jobs even harder to find. There isn't one "Fair Trade Agreement" that has benefited the middle class because that's the goal....to tear down the middle class. The neocons working in conjunction with the leftard clown posse have done their part. Ignorant? As if....I am a walking, talking encyclopedia of information. The decimation of the middle class is no accident at all. You cannot win this debate or argument. You like having sunshine pounded up your ass? Enjoy...I prefer to live in this thing we call "reality".
By surveying the companies receiving ARRA funds.Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txtI specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.
Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.
Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.
Pray tell, Faun...how do you quantify the number of people who didn't lose jobs due to stimulus money? Do you not grasp how the Obama Administration realized that it was indeed impossible to estimate that number and used that to hide pathetic job creation numbers?
Jobs Created is an actual number...created from data collected through the CES...jobs saved is fiction...a number created out of thin air...usually for political cover.
Your insanity persists. Part timers have always been included in the U-3. Most part timers want to be part timers. The ones who don't are counted in the U-6.Translation: you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.That chart show "employed"...
How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?
You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?
Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.
Does an 80 year old gramps or 18 year old student "living a life of leisure and not looking for work" surprise you??
You are too ignorant to argue this with me and you are too ignorant to have any basis to to reject official numbers. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not a fact.
No, dumb ass...but they are counting those that are working part-time as being "employed". The numbers are being fudged and if you can't see that, then YOU are the ignorant one. 51 percent of those that even have a job make less than 30K a year and over 35 percent of those that have a job make less than 20K a year. The dollar doesn't buy shit anymore. This fiat currency has been devalued even more by the QE program. You can put lipstick on this pig all you want...put some eye-liner on it but at the end of the day, it's still a pig and with Barrypuppet pushing the TPP, it will make decent paying jobs even harder to find. There isn't one "Fair Trade Agreement" that has benefited the middle class because that's the goal....to tear down the middle class. The neocons working in conjunction with the leftard clown posse have done their part. Ignorant? As if....I am a walking, talking encyclopedia of information. The decimation of the middle class is no accident at all. You cannot win this debate or argument. You like having sunshine pounded up your ass? Enjoy...I prefer to live in this thing we call "reality".
I've never heard so much whining in my life about how the BLS measures unemployment until Obama became president.
Oh, that one was a gem.LIAR!the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll.
Not only does he think unemployment benefits are use to determine how many folks are unemployed -- but he thinks it's the White House, and not the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does that.
Yep. Not the brightest bulb on the tree. Pretty sure he is a congenital idiot. Really serious mental illness.
