Worst President in U.S. History

[Faun]

[QUO

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie

Back at you, Hammy. You never get tired of arguing like an eight year old, do you?. You’re about to get ass whipped for your lies … again. Sucks to be you.

Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.


Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

Oh, it’s bad to be you. Caught in another flagrant lie. From the LA Times:

“Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP -- the value of the country's total output of goods and services -- shrank at an annual rate of 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

Previously, the government had said the GDP had risen at a weak annual rate of 0.6% during that quarter.”

New Data Show GDP Fell in 2000 s 3rd Quarter - latimes

So that's two lies for you. It wasn't postitive and they did revise it. Ouch! Also, LOL, you’re arguing the technical definition of recessions and you don’t even know what it is. Another lie we can document. It’s 2 out of 3 months of negative growth.

Again, that is the technical, economic definition. Once again you don’t give a shit about the man on the street as you’re arguing what to him is clearly a recession isn’t because of technical definitions (but only when they help Democrats). Yet another lie we nailed you in

You are fucking insane. There really is no other explanation.

I said GDP for Q3-2000 is positive, and it is. That's not a lie. The number was also positive in 2001 when the NBER declared we had been in a recession from March through November, 2001. So it's still not a lie.

The lie was you claiming the recession started before Bush became president.

That remains a lie.

And now you've compounded that lie with the new lie that a recession is determined by 2 out of 3 months of negative growth. The classical definition is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER, however, doesn't go by that. They go by a significant decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months and they consider GDP as well as several other indicators.

 

[nat4900]

One thing is for certain, us sane folks are VERY glad that our government's executive office is NOT in the hands of yet another mindless right winger....Dingbats on here who whine and bitch endlessly are powerless and constantly scared that their old, white and somewhat bigoted majority is on its last gasp.

 

[KissMy]

Bush destroyed 18 million jobs & tried to put the remaining workers on food-stamps. Obama is repairing Bush's damage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush destroyed 14 million jobs & tried to put the remaining workers on food-stamps. Obama is repairing Bush's damage.

Could you please explain in yoru words what precisely you believe your charts show?
And btw, food stamp usage is at record levels under Obama.

 

[Faun]

Regardless of the definition of Recession, ZERO PERCENT GROWTH doesn't feel very good to the working and middle classes.

Not much happened because much of the nation was buried under up to over 6 feet of snow.

My cousin and wife had to close their Toy Store in Massachusetts due to no one was able to go anywhere or buying anything on top of the rent being increased a lot. They still have their other business and they are expecting things to pick up now that the snow is gone and people can drive again.

My cousin had over 6 feet of snow where he lives.

However, zero growth isn't negative growth and one quarter is not an indication of a slowing trend of the economy.

I won't be surprised to see larger growth in the coming quarters.

See, this is why libs can never learn anything. They take one factoid out of context, often an anecdote or personal experience, and then proceed to ignore every contrary.
In fact this winter was overall one of the warmest, with the least snowfall. Yes, New England got slammed in record proportions. But New England isnt the US.
The GDP growth rate has never exceeded 3% except one quarter since Boy Negro took office. That is a shameful record that reflects policies and laws enacted in the first 2 years of Obozo's reign.
I wouldnt be surprised to see the economy slip into actual recession as layoffs in the energy sector spread to other areas.

Now we have the forum jester entertaining us with the lie that only one quarter of GDP exceeded 3%. Check these quarters of real GDP...

2009-Q4
2010-Q2
2011-Q4
2013-Q3
2013-Q4
2014-Q2
2014-Q3

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

 

[ScienceRocks]

America needs infrastructure, science and r&d! I'll give one bone to the private sector...We need laws that favor American corporations and make it hard for outsourcing.

We're need our public and private sectors. Only a complete fool would think otherwise.

 

[kaz]

[QUO

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie

Back at you, Hammy. You never get tired of arguing like an eight year old, do you?. You’re about to get ass whipped for your lies … again. Sucks to be you.

Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.


Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

Oh, it’s bad to be you. Caught in another flagrant lie. From the LA Times:

“Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP -- the value of the country's total output of goods and services -- shrank at an annual rate of 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

Previously, the government had said the GDP had risen at a weak annual rate of 0.6% during that quarter.”

New Data Show GDP Fell in 2000 s 3rd Quarter - latimes

So that's two lies for you. It wasn't postitive and they did revise it. Ouch! Also, LOL, you’re arguing the technical definition of recessions and you don’t even know what it is. Another lie we can document. It’s 2 out of 3 months of negative growth.

Again, that is the technical, economic definition. Once again you don’t give a shit about the man on the street as you’re arguing what to him is clearly a recession isn’t because of technical definitions (but only when they help Democrats). Yet another lie we nailed you in

You are fucking insane. There really is no other explanation.

I said GDP for Q3-2000 is positive, and it is. That's not a lie. The number was also positive in 2001 when the NBER declared we had been in a recession from March through November, 2001. So it's still not a lie.

The lie was you claiming the recession started before Bush became president.

That remains a lie.

And now you've compounded that lie with the new lie that a recession is determined by 2 out of 3 months of negative growth. The classical definition is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER, however, doesn't go by that. They go by a significant decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months and they consider GDP as well as several other indicators.

Ouch, yet another lie by you. Once again, you are dumb enough to document your lies as proof. There is no "classical" definition of a recession, there are different definitions used by different groups, but some use two consecutive, some two of three, there is no right or wrong answer and clearly no standard answer. If you ask any economist about recessions, the first thing they will ask you is what measure you want to use.

Also, you were caught in the lie that 3Q2000 was positive. It was positive in nominal measures, but negative in real growth. You don't even know what that means, do you? Real growth is the only one that matters to the people.

Your other lie you just got caught in was that they didn't revise the numbers for that quarter when even left wing LA Times says you are lying

 

[Faun]

[QUO

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie

Back at you, Hammy. You never get tired of arguing like an eight year old, do you?. You’re about to get ass whipped for your lies … again. Sucks to be you.

Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.


Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

Oh, it’s bad to be you. Caught in another flagrant lie. From the LA Times:

“Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP -- the value of the country's total output of goods and services -- shrank at an annual rate of 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

Previously, the government had said the GDP had risen at a weak annual rate of 0.6% during that quarter.”

New Data Show GDP Fell in 2000 s 3rd Quarter - latimes

So that's two lies for you. It wasn't postitive and they did revise it. Ouch! Also, LOL, you’re arguing the technical definition of recessions and you don’t even know what it is. Another lie we can document. It’s 2 out of 3 months of negative growth.

Again, that is the technical, economic definition. Once again you don’t give a shit about the man on the street as you’re arguing what to him is clearly a recession isn’t because of technical definitions (but only when they help Democrats). Yet another lie we nailed you in

You are fucking insane. There really is no other explanation.

I said GDP for Q3-2000 is positive, and it is. That's not a lie. The number was also positive in 2001 when the NBER declared we had been in a recession from March through November, 2001. So it's still not a lie.

The lie was you claiming the recession started before Bush became president.

That remains a lie.

And now you've compounded that lie with the new lie that a recession is determined by 2 out of 3 months of negative growth. The classical definition is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The NBER, however, doesn't go by that. They go by a significant decline in economic activity lasting more than a few months and they consider GDP as well as several other indicators.

Ouch, yet another lie by you. Once again, you are dumb enough to document your lies as proof. There is no "classical" definition of a recession, there are different definitions used by different groups, but some use two consecutive, some two of three, there is no right or wrong answer and clearly no standard answer. If you ask any economist about recessions, the first thing they will ask you is what measure you want to use.

You're funny. Demented as all hell ... but funny.

WSJ: Most Economists in Survey Say Recession Is Here

Although the classic definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of declines in the gross domestic product, Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital pointed out that the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nonpartisan organization that is the official arbiter of recessions, doesn't always strictly follow that definition. "If you go back to the 2001 recession, there was only one negative GDP quarter, and there might not even be one negative quarter in this recession," he said.​

So when you said, "there is no "classical" definition of a recession," were you lying or just ignorant?

If you plead ignorance, it will be believable. Considering the source, ya know.

 

[Andylusion]

America needs infrastructure, science and r&d! I'll give one bone to the private sector...We need laws that favor American corporations and make it hard for outsourcing.

We're need our public and private sectors. Only a complete fool would think otherwise.

We just spent $800 Billion on a stimulus bill, with "infrastructure" as a selling point. Did the economy bounce back? No, it did not. We came out of the 2003 recession in a fraction of the time, without spending and EXTRA dime on infrastructure.

By the way, Greece spent vastly more, as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure, and shockingly, it didn't help them either. Or Spain. Or France. Or Venezuela. And the list goes on and on.

Infrastructure is only a benefit, when there is existing demand for it by the private economy. Field of Dreams, was a fictional movie, not an economic text book. If you build it, doesn't mean they will come. And clearly they haven't.

Second, Science and R&D irrelevant, if the economic incentives are not there.

If you give the wealthy and companies the ability to profit from their own investments, they themselves will invest in Infrastructure, science, and R&D. When you tax the snot out of them, all of the government funded science and R&D in the world, won't make any difference, because if you can't profit from it, why do it?

The rest of your left leaning buddies all over this forum, have spent the last 5 years, screaming that we need to increase taxes on the wealthy and the corporations. Then you complain they are not investing in science and R&D here in the US? You wonder why they are outsourcing operations to other countries?

Look at Singapore. Top marginal tax rate? 20%. Corporate tax rate? 17%. Unemployment, at the height of the global recession and "financial melt down"? Absolute highest unemployment rate in Singapore, 3.2%. 2009 to 2010. It's down around 2% today.

Shocking...... stunning.... amazing.... how could it be?

Do ya think the reason corporations from all over the entire planet have offices and factories in Singapore could have something to do with the fact they allow the companies to profit from their investments?

And you think you are going to somehow make it 'harder' for them to outsource to other countries, and that's going to make them stay in America?

Tell me, did beating the crap of out people in the Soviet Union, and then threatening to shoot them if they left, keep people from fleeing to West Berlin?

No... it did not. That won't work here either. The solution is to stop screwing up our economy, and allow people to keep the rewards of their investments. Companies will do their own R&D, if you stop trying to screw them over.

And you don't need to fund R&D. In fact, that often slows down R&D. I worked for a company back in 2008, and in the begining of the year, we had a company meeting, where they announced a new project to build a power system for City Hybrid Busses. Great. New project developing a hybrid power system.

In 2009, we had our company meeting, and the project was listed as on hold. I asked the CEO, why the project had not been started. He informed us that under the new government administration, we could get government funding. Of course the government isn't going to fund something we're already funding...... so we didn't fund it.

By the way, every time some government moron says that "without government funding XXX would not be researched and built", bull. When a company knows the idiots in government will pay them to build something.... they stop building it.

If I tell you, that I will pay you to buy bread, *IF* you don't have any bread.... what will you do? You'll stop buying bread, so you quality for me to pay you.

Then I being the leftist, run around and say "without me, you wouldn't have bread"... No... fail. You would, if I had not told you to not buy it.

Similarly, companies will do science and research, if you stop telling them "if you don't do R&D, we'll pay you to do it".

My company planned to fund the R&D for that power system for the hybrid bus, long before Obama won the election. It was after he won, and announced grants for green energy, that we decided to not fund the R&D, so we could screw the idiotic tax payers that voted for that moron.

 

[Dad2three]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

An entire quarter? lol





Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.


The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post



James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death - Thoughts From The Frontline - Investment Strategies Analysis Intelligence for Seasoned Investors.

 

[Dad2three]

the unemployed is only the number

YAWN

life as an unhinged left-wing idiot is so easy when you dont count your victims

Trolling is so much easier than addressing the subject, especially when it comes from a right wing newspaper.

why address the point when you are clearly an idiot who wont be swayed by facts?

the unemployment number doesnt count MILLIONS that arent working

You'd think the "job creators" lowest sustained tax burden for 80 years, record Corp profits and lowest labor rates ever recorded, jobs would be flowing freely? What happened? Does low taxes have almost zero effect on creating jobs (as Dubya/Ronnie showed) AND the problem is to much money shifting to the top???


MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE ON THE "JOB CREATORS"???

 

[Dad2three]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

Yes, 8 years of Dubya/GOP job creators policies dug a DEEP hole right Bubs?

 

[Faun]

Also, you were caught in the lie that 3Q2000 was positive. It was positive in nominal measures, but negative in real growth. You don't even know what that means, do you? Real growth is the only one that matters to the people.

Your other lie you just got caught in was that they didn't revise the numbers for that quarter when even left wing LA Times says you are lying

No, you freakin' moron ... real GDP was positive.

BEA: News Release: News Release: Gross Domestic Product and Corporate Profits

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: THIRD QUARTER 2000 (PRELIMINARY)

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the third quarter of 2000, according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 5.6 percent.​

______________________________​

BEA: News Release: News Release: Gross Domestic Product and Corporate Profits

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: THIRD QUARTER 2000 (FINAL)

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the third quarter of 2000, according to revised estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 5.6 percent.​

So now we see it's you who has no clue what real GDP is. Which includes your ignorant claim that the LA Times wrongly reported the BEA revised their numbers in December, 2003...

In November, 2003, the BEA's numbers indicated real GDP growth for Q3-2000 was +0.6%

Gross Domestic Product News Release​

In December, 2003, they announced a comprehensive revision...

BEA News Release News Release National Income and Product Accounts Comprehensive Revision​

Later in December, 2003, Q3-2000 was -0.5% ...

Gross Domestic Product News Release​

_____________________________________________________​

Don't you ever get tired of having me use you like a condom? Don't you have any self-respect at all? Or are you so committed to your pathological lying that you just can't help yourself?

 

[Dad2three]

America needs infrastructure, science and r&d! I'll give one bone to the private sector...We need laws that favor American corporations and make it hard for outsourcing.

We're need our public and private sectors. Only a complete fool would think otherwise.

We just spent $800 Billion on a stimulus bill, with "infrastructure" as a selling point. Did the economy bounce back? No, it did not. We came out of the 2003 recession in a fraction of the time, without spending and EXTRA dime on infrastructure.

By the way, Greece spent vastly more, as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure, and shockingly, it didn't help them either. Or Spain. Or France. Or Venezuela. And the list goes on and on.

Infrastructure is only a benefit, when there is existing demand for it by the private economy. Field of Dreams, was a fictional movie, not an economic text book. If you build it, doesn't mean they will come. And clearly they haven't.

Second, Science and R&D irrelevant, if the economic incentives are not there.

If you give the wealthy and companies the ability to profit from their own investments, they themselves will invest in Infrastructure, science, and R&D. When you tax the snot out of them, all of the government funded science and R&D in the world, won't make any difference, because if you can't profit from it, why do it?

The rest of your left leaning buddies all over this forum, have spent the last 5 years, screaming that we need to increase taxes on the wealthy and the corporations. Then you complain they are not investing in science and R&D here in the US? You wonder why they are outsourcing operations to other countries?

Look at Singapore. Top marginal tax rate? 20%. Corporate tax rate? 17%. Unemployment, at the height of the global recession and "financial melt down"? Absolute highest unemployment rate in Singapore, 3.2%. 2009 to 2010. It's down around 2% today.

Shocking...... stunning.... amazing.... how could it be?

Do ya think the reason corporations from all over the entire planet have offices and factories in Singapore could have something to do with the fact they allow the companies to profit from their investments?

And you think you are going to somehow make it 'harder' for them to outsource to other countries, and that's going to make them stay in America?

Tell me, did beating the crap of out people in the Soviet Union, and then threatening to shoot them if they left, keep people from fleeing to West Berlin?

No... it did not. That won't work here either. The solution is to stop screwing up our economy, and allow people to keep the rewards of their investments. Companies will do their own R&D, if you stop trying to screw them over.

And you don't need to fund R&D. In fact, that often slows down R&D. I worked for a company back in 2008, and in the begining of the year, we had a company meeting, where they announced a new project to build a power system for City Hybrid Busses. Great. New project developing a hybrid power system.

In 2009, we had our company meeting, and the project was listed as on hold. I asked the CEO, why the project had not been started. He informed us that under the new government administration, we could get government funding. Of course the government isn't going to fund something we're already funding...... so we didn't fund it.

By the way, every time some government moron says that "without government funding XXX would not be researched and built", bull. When a company knows the idiots in government will pay them to build something.... they stop building it.

If I tell you, that I will pay you to buy bread, *IF* you don't have any bread.... what will you do? You'll stop buying bread, so you quality for me to pay you.

Then I being the leftist, run around and say "without me, you wouldn't have bread"... No... fail. You would, if I had not told you to not buy it.

Similarly, companies will do science and research, if you stop telling them "if you don't do R&D, we'll pay you to do it".

My company planned to fund the R&D for that power system for the hybrid bus, long before Obama won the election. It was after he won, and announced grants for green energy, that we decided to not fund the R&D, so we could screw the idiotic tax payers that voted for that moron.

Don't REALLY understand what the stimulus Obama had was? I'm shocked. Let me explasin it to you Bubs


40% was tax cuts/credits so the GOP wouldn't block it in the Senate

40% was aid to states/Gov't to stop the hemorrhaging of Dubya's economy

The remaing 20% was "job creator" projects. Note how well the economy turned around once stimulus kicked io?

HOW'D THE $2+ TRILLION IN DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WORK OUT FOR JOB CREATION AGAIN BUBBA?


Solyndra=1% of DOE energy money


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra s Fate With Low Costs - Bloomberg Business

Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes Energy Commerce Committee



RECORD CORP PROFITS IN THE US BUBBA! RECORD!

 

[Dad2three]

America needs infrastructure, science and r&d! I'll give one bone to the private sector...We need laws that favor American corporations and make it hard for outsourcing.

We're need our public and private sectors. Only a complete fool would think otherwise.

We just spent $800 Billion on a stimulus bill, with "infrastructure" as a selling point. Did the economy bounce back? No, it did not. We came out of the 2003 recession in a fraction of the time, without spending and EXTRA dime on infrastructure.

By the way, Greece spent vastly more, as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure, and shockingly, it didn't help them either. Or Spain. Or France. Or Venezuela. And the list goes on and on.

Infrastructure is only a benefit, when there is existing demand for it by the private economy. Field of Dreams, was a fictional movie, not an economic text book. If you build it, doesn't mean they will come. And clearly they haven't.

Second, Science and R&D irrelevant, if the economic incentives are not there.

If you give the wealthy and companies the ability to profit from their own investments, they themselves will invest in Infrastructure, science, and R&D. When you tax the snot out of them, all of the government funded science and R&D in the world, won't make any difference, because if you can't profit from it, why do it?

The rest of your left leaning buddies all over this forum, have spent the last 5 years, screaming that we need to increase taxes on the wealthy and the corporations. Then you complain they are not investing in science and R&D here in the US? You wonder why they are outsourcing operations to other countries?

Look at Singapore. Top marginal tax rate? 20%. Corporate tax rate? 17%. Unemployment, at the height of the global recession and "financial melt down"? Absolute highest unemployment rate in Singapore, 3.2%. 2009 to 2010. It's down around 2% today.

Shocking...... stunning.... amazing.... how could it be?

Do ya think the reason corporations from all over the entire planet have offices and factories in Singapore could have something to do with the fact they allow the companies to profit from their investments?

And you think you are going to somehow make it 'harder' for them to outsource to other countries, and that's going to make them stay in America?

Tell me, did beating the crap of out people in the Soviet Union, and then threatening to shoot them if they left, keep people from fleeing to West Berlin?

No... it did not. That won't work here either. The solution is to stop screwing up our economy, and allow people to keep the rewards of their investments. Companies will do their own R&D, if you stop trying to screw them over.

And you don't need to fund R&D. In fact, that often slows down R&D. I worked for a company back in 2008, and in the begining of the year, we had a company meeting, where they announced a new project to build a power system for City Hybrid Busses. Great. New project developing a hybrid power system.

In 2009, we had our company meeting, and the project was listed as on hold. I asked the CEO, why the project had not been started. He informed us that under the new government administration, we could get government funding. Of course the government isn't going to fund something we're already funding...... so we didn't fund it.

By the way, every time some government moron says that "without government funding XXX would not be researched and built", bull. When a company knows the idiots in government will pay them to build something.... they stop building it.

If I tell you, that I will pay you to buy bread, *IF* you don't have any bread.... what will you do? You'll stop buying bread, so you quality for me to pay you.

Then I being the leftist, run around and say "without me, you wouldn't have bread"... No... fail. You would, if I had not told you to not buy it.

Similarly, companies will do science and research, if you stop telling them "if you don't do R&D, we'll pay you to do it".

My company planned to fund the R&D for that power system for the hybrid bus, long before Obama won the election. It was after he won, and announced grants for green energy, that we decided to not fund the R&D, so we could screw the idiotic tax payers that voted for that moron.

Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).

2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.

In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

What is the unemployment rate?

The unemployment rate as of March 2015 is 5.5% and is continuing to decrease.

It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when the bush boy left office.

More people were working when the unemployment rate was 7/8% than when the unemployment rate is 5.5%.
You are an Obama knee padder. There is nothing good that happens in the world that you will not attribute to his wonderous leadership. There is nothing bad that happens under him that you will not shield him from. And there is nothing bad that is not somehow the fault of Bush and the GOP.

 

[Dad2three]

Clinton left the bush boy a very sound economy a balanced budget with a surplus and low unemployment

Slick Willy left W an economy entering a recession. What is wrong with you people? Seriously? The truth means nothing to you.

And further showing that is the balanced budget claim. The deficit went up every year the sexual predator was in office, how did that happen with a “balanced” budget exactly?

THEN he gutted revenues to Korean war levels, gave US t2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion and cheered on the Bankster credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states trying to reign in the subprime Banksters!

 

[Dad2three]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

The numbers from 2002 to 2008 are better because of a few facts.

1. Clinton left the bush boy a very sound economy a balanced budget with a surplus and low unemployment. So when you start out with good economic figures it's going to take a while for them to be destroyed. In the case of the bush boy it only took a matter of months for him and his republican controlled congress to destroy the balanced budget and surplus. They never, not once wrote a balanced budget while the bush boy was president.

2. The bush boy collapsed the economy at the end of 2008. The recession started in 2007. The bush boy left office just as business was laying off millions of workers. It takes time and money to reverse economic collapse and prevent another republican great depression. If mccain/palin had been elected we would have been in another republican great depression before 2009 was finished. The only reason it was averted was Obama was elected. The unending deregulation and tax cuts for the rich by the bush boy and republicans stopped. I can't say the proper regulations were put in place by Obama and the democrats but regulations that at least take steps to prevent another republican economic collapse were put in place.

3. Obama has reversed the unemployment from 10.1% to down below 5.5.%. The unemployment rate was 7.8% and rapidly climbing when Obama took office.

If you used the same way to measure the economy and unemployment with Obama as has been used with all presidents for decades, you will see that Obama has done what only one other US president has done in the last 100 years. That's PREVENT another republican great depression.

Unemployment was lower when the undocumented Negro took office than it was when he finished his first term. Is that Obama's fault or someone else's?
Somehow everything bad that occurred under Bush was direectly due to Bush.
Everything bad that occurred under Obama was also directly due to Bush.
Everything good that happened under Bush was due to Clinton
Everything good that happened under Obama was due to Obama.
It's amazing.

Yep, Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies sure dug a WIDE and deep hole right?

 

[Dad2three]

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to Zero...
GJ Obammy

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

the problem with left-wing nutjobs is their talking points are only good in their incubated Habitrail of hatred; they fall apart when presented to people unafraid of challenging them.

Stop projecting the ONLY thing conservatives EVER do

PLEASE, PRETTY please, ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history in the US???