US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

You are again trying to change the subject. The issue was, you said Obama is or was an empty suit. You picked one issue out of a list of a hundred or so and made an attempt to make the whole article invalid. Here is the problem:
You showed, me boy, nothing. But in your little mind, I suppose it makes sense to you.
Saying that the source is Indian was in itself stupid. Here is the address, again:
Famous People - Famous People in History, Famous People List & Biography
If it were an indian source the web address would normally end in .in. Not .com. But most importantly, the site is a well respected source of information, respected by all but nut cases. The source, like all sources, takes it's info from various places, and vets it. They are not an economic source. And the single point you are trying to disprove makes no difference. Obama created and saved many, many jobs.

Your main problem is that you can not, or perhaps will not, understand that from the point of view of the unemployed, it makes no difference whether they were fired from a job, or did not get a new job created by government efforts. Same thing to thinking people. You are unemployed, or you are employed. Obvious difference.
Thus, if you are employed because you found a newly created job, or if you are employed because your job was not eliminated, you could care less. Unless, like Oldstyle, you are a con troll. So, there you go. Probably beyond your ability or will to understand.

What was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?

WHY DON'T YOU TRY THAT NEW SEARCH ENGINE, CALLED GOOGLE. AND STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

 

[Oldstyle]

[/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say. But you have no proof. Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies. But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars. And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars. Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person. It was the president of the NRA. But now it is Trump. By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie! At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often. Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE? WHAT A SURPRISE. I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree. What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP. He is, indeed, the king of liars. But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie. Because, as you know, I never, ever lie. Never. Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie! You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics. You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications! You're "Mr Conditions"! You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"! You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try![/QUOTE]

What was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?

WHY DON'T YOU TRY THAT NEW SEARCH ENGINE, CALLED GOOGLE. AND STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

There's stupid...and then there is Georgie stupid! Only you would answer a request for the net gain in private sector job growth for Obama's first year with an article that SPECIFICALLY IGNORES THE FIRST YEAR OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY!!!

[/QUOTE]
NO, THAT IS OLDSTYLE STUPID. WHICH IS THE SAME AS BUTT STUPID. It makes no difference whether you see job gains in year one or year two, they are job gains that are probably the result of what happened a year again. And I did not suggest that the source I provided was about year 1, it was a source proving that Obama's record has been exceptional. Which is what it did prove.

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office? That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs. They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good. Must be 3.7 Million. You see, me boy, I do not care. Since you care so much, go find out for yourself. And stop bothering me with your idiocy. [/QUOTE]

Now you don't care? Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are? I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're admitting that Rshermr's India web site's figures for private sector job creation in Obama's first term weren't even CLOSE? "NOW" you're going to throw in "jobs saved" in order to make things look better? You two get more pathetic with each passing day!

Well maybe India was talking about the total number of global jobs Obama saved. Think about the impact of Brexit. The GW Bush Great Recession of 2007 was much worse than Brexit. If the global economy is doing better, thank Obama.

LOL...now we're including "global" jobs saved in Barry's accomplishments? You need to quit while you're behind, Sealy...you're embarrassing yourself now!

Bush put the planet in a global recession. Do you not understand that? That's what bad leaders of the free world do. Presidents like Obama pull the global economy out of the recession caused by republicans. I can't believe you can't see this.

I can't believe you are ignoring how important the USA is to the global economy. But that shouldn't surprise me. Remember you guys tried to shut down the government? Didn't Trump talk about the USA going bankrupt and renegotiating our debt to China? The GOP is the bankrupt party and the only ones who come out of bankruptcy stronger are rich people. Trump turned 3 bankruptcies into billions of dollars, at the expense of the rest of us.

How do you get rich? By screwing other people apparently.

But it is true our importance is slipping.

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

China's more important now. Thanks Bush

Funny thing, and really sad, is that the dipshit is much more interested in proving that Obama was wrong in some way, rather than admitting that he was given a really bad situation. And discussing it rationally. Oldstyle is a true con troll, only pushing con talking points and making personal attacks. He cares not at all about the middle class, only that the wealthy get more so. That is what con trolls care about.

If Republicans didn't play these games they'd never win elections. Think about how the fuck did Al Gore lose? How? Because people got sick of the GOP bashing the Clinton's and Gore so they just decided after 8 years to try something new. I remember people saying, "how much harm can Bush 2 possibly do?" Because at the time the economy was rolling.

I think 2000, more so than any other election in my life, people voted based on wedge issues. And things were so good a lot of people didn't even bother to show up. They didn't think it mattered. So all the bible thumpers and all the neo cons and all the republicans who HATED the Clinton's showed up and it was close enough they could steal Florida and give the election to Bush. And we know now the answer to "how much could he possibly screw things up". The answer is a lot. Who knew he'd send all the jobs overseas, start 2 wars while giving tax breaks to the rich, let all those illegals in, etc.

And the truth is probably that we were slipping into a recession in 2000 but that's not what caused the 2008 recession. The 2000 recession could have and should have been solved in a couple years. The 2008 recession wasn't because of the 2000 recession. The 2008 recession was caused by Bushanomics. And it cost the global economy a lot of jobs. So yes, Obama saved jobs that weren't even here in America when he fixed Bush's mess.

Fact: Of the seven largest economies in the world by GDP, only China avoided a recession in 2008.

Gee, how DID Al Gore lose! Oh that's right...the people of Tennessee...the ones that should know him best since he's a native son of the State voted for the OTHER guy! If Gore had simply won his home State he would have been President of the United States.

Can't believe you're doubling down on giving Obama credit for saving jobs all over the world, Sealy! How would you quantify that number by the way? Would you use Rshermr's "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula?

 

[Oldstyle]

What was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?

WHY DON'T YOU TRY THAT NEW SEARCH ENGINE, CALLED GOOGLE. AND STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel! Reagan was a net tax cutter...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

 

[Rshermr]

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office? That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs. They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good. Must be 3.7 Million. You see, me boy, I do not care. Since you care so much, go find out for yourself. And stop bothering me with your idiocy. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Now you don't care? Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that. You have been proven to be a nut case. calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are. Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know. Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. And you could care less. Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years. And your republicans offered absolutely no help. No efforts at all. No bills. All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward. And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward.
Get the picture, dipshit. We were almost in a depression. And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy. You must be so proud of them. But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism. And that would, of course, include you. Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved. What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility. And, you can not disprove that number. You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers. But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number. Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit. Do you see how stupid you look?

 

[Rshermr]

WHY DON'T YOU TRY THAT NEW SEARCH ENGINE, CALLED GOOGLE. AND STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

 

[Oldstyle]

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office? That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs. They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good. Must be 3.7 Million. You see, me boy, I do not care. Since you care so much, go find out for yourself. And stop bothering me with your idiocy.

[/QUOTE]

Now you don't care? Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that. You have been proven to be a nut case. calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are. Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know. Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. And you could care less. Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years. And your republicans offered absolutely no help. No efforts at all. No bills. All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward. And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward.
Get the picture, dipshit. We were almost in a depression. And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy. You must be so proud of them. But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism. And that would, of course, include you. Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved. What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility. And, you can not disprove that number. You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers. But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number. Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit. Do you see how stupid you look?[/QUOTE]

3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"? Really, Georgie! Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"? That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million? He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work! So is that what you're claiming?

 

[Oldstyle]

I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

 

[Rshermr]

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office? That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs. They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good. Must be 3.7 Million. You see, me boy, I do not care. Since you care so much, go find out for yourself. And stop bothering me with your idiocy.

Now you don't care? Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that. You have been proven to be a nut case. calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are. Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know. Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. And you could care less. Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years. And your republicans offered absolutely no help. No efforts at all. No bills. All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward. And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward.
Get the picture, dipshit. We were almost in a depression. And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy. You must be so proud of them. But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism. And that would, of course, include you. Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved. What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility. And, you can not disprove that number. You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers. But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number. Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit. Do you see how stupid you look?[/QUOTE]

3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"? Really, Georgie! Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"? That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million? He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work! So is that what you're claiming?[
This is apparently way to difficult for you to understand. Your math is nonsense.
1. It was, again, created and saved. Since we were losing something like 600,000 jobs per month, which turned around to nothing. Job losses in 2008 were 2.6 Million.
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009
But at the same time, there were jobs created. And their were jobs saved. The Net for the first several months was jobs lost.
2. Jobs created and saved did not ever happen instantly. It is not like washing dishes, me boy. It takes time for results from any move to take effect.
But, I would assume that the number is the total of new jobs created, and jobs that were saved.
So, why are you so crazy worried about a number about economics that came from a web source that deals in the overall record of famous people.
So, perhaps you would like to tell me, in a article that has over 40 accomplishments of Obama, why you are so stuck on one. I know, of course, but it makes no difference. Sorry, you loose. The source is very well respected.
UNLIKE YOU.

 

[Oldstyle]

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office? That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs. They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good. Must be 3.7 Million. You see, me boy, I do not care. Since you care so much, go find out for yourself. And stop bothering me with your idiocy.

Now you don't care? Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that. You have been proven to be a nut case. calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are. Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know. Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. And you could care less. Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years. And your republicans offered absolutely no help. No efforts at all. No bills. All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward. And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward.
Get the picture, dipshit. We were almost in a depression. And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy. You must be so proud of them. But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism. And that would, of course, include you. Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved. What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility. And, you can not disprove that number. You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers. But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number. Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit. Do you see how stupid you look?

3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"? Really, Georgie! Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"? That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million? He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work! So is that what you're claiming?[
This is apparently way to difficult for you to understand. Your math is nonsense.
1. It was, again, created and saved. Since we were losing something like 600,000 jobs per month, which turned around to nothing. Job losses in 2008 were 2.6 Million.
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009
But at the same time, there were jobs created. And their were jobs saved. The Net for the first several months was jobs lost.
2. Jobs created and saved did not ever happen instantly. It is not like washing dishes, me boy. It takes time for results from any move to take effect.
But, I would assume that the number is the total of new jobs created, and jobs that were saved.
So, why are you so crazy worried about a number about economics that came from a web source that deals in the overall record of famous people.
So, perhaps you would like to tell me, in a article that has over 40 accomplishments of Obama, why you are so stuck on one. I know, of course, but it makes no difference. Sorry, you loose. The source is very well respected.
UNLIKE YOU.[/QUOTE]

Oh, now we're back to "jobs saved"? Where, pray tell in your "well respected" source did "jobs saved" ever get mentioned? I read it several times...I seem to have missed that reference!

As for what I'm "stuck on"? You demanded that I show you something false in your web site's claims. I showed you something that is a total fabrication. Sorry, but you source is a joke! They don't verify what they print.

 

[Windship]

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

 

[Windship]

Top Iraq contractor skirts US taxes offshore - The Boston Globe

 

[Windship]

I draw your attention to the TPP trade deal

 

[Windship]

oblama...dont give a fuck about jobs. Neither did bill...nafta

 

[Windship]

none of um do

 

[Windship]

..unless your an illegal alien or an H1B visa recipient.

 

[Windship]

Lmfao! Why is everyone suprised? We let in illegals by the millions while letting in the h1b visas by the millions while sending our jobs out of Our Country and giving the wealthy and corporations everything they want!! Lol....are you surprised at water flowing down hill or trees casting shadows?

 

[Windship]

oblama=the TPP trade agreement.

 

[Windship]

north american trade agreement...nafta...and now....the trans pacific partnership by?...oblama...who has worked closely
with the corporations to screw our country and its people, even more.

 

[Windship]

but you with blinders on go ahead and believe he looooooves the working class....do you hear the laughter? Pitiful...