Worst President in U.S. History

[Dad2three]

Come on, wing nuts. Here's your chance to weigh in again on how Obama is a communist and hates America.

How about Obama in his OWN words telling us how he will destroy America??

And why should the economy grow with a President that has and I quote directly:
A) Obama said "I prefer single payer health system.." Means destroy 1,400 companies laying off 400,000 people and reducing tax revenue by $100 billion a year.

So tell me why would any American want to destroy 1,400 companies, put 400,000 people out of work and REDUCE Tax revenue to the Federal government, to state governments, to local governments and possibly because of these companies local property taxes be raised to replace taxes paid by these companies?
Destructive!

B) Obama said "I prefer higher gas prices"... GEEZ... what a way to kill jobs!
What idiot in any sense wants "HIGHER GAS PRICES"!!! Does this not just seem plain stupid especially from a guy running for President?
YET you supporters VOTED for this! YOU are those people Gruber described as the "stupidity of American Voter"!!!

C) Obama said If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!
Why in the hell would ANY president want bankrupt a company that provides jobs, tax revenue? Presidents are suppose to be positive NOT destructive!

D) Obama has SIGNED the fewest Federal oil leases in over 25 years... all the lower gas prices due to private NOT Federal!
Obama sure doesn't seem to want to improve OIL independence by lowering production on government land!

E) Obama said: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
Again... why is this President SO OUT of touch with the common person who would have to PAY THESE SKYROCKETING" rates?

But Obama not only wants to destroy American businesses that pay taxes he advocates killing Americans!
Here this idiot said "American military is air raiding villages killing civilians"! GEEZ what incentive to the terrorists/barbarians to kill US soldiers!

Obama has told you idiots he was fooling you and really has great contempt for you especially as any angry black man!
HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS about you fools in "Dreams from MY Father"
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

AND you fools don't realize how much contempt Obama has for you why else has he been dishonest and used tricks, tactics to satisfy you????

lol, Without false premises, distortions and lies, WHAT WOULD right winger EVER have Bubba?

You make NO sense! "ever have Bubba"???

Got it. You'll stick with right wing BS and lies. I'm shocked

PLEASE care to give me ONE policy conservatives were EVER on the correct side of history on in the USA?

 

[healthmyths]

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???

Well I can tell you that very few conservatives would be in favor of what Obama has said is HIS PREFERENCES!!!
A) Obama said "I prefer single payer health system.."

Means destroy 1,400 companies laying off 400,000 people and reducing tax revenue by $100 billion a year.

So tell me why would any American want to destroy 1,400 companies, put 400,000 people out of work and REDUCE Tax revenue to the Federal government, to state governments, to local governments and possibly because of these companies local property taxes be raised to replace taxes paid by these companies?
Destructive!

B) Obama said "I prefer higher gas prices"... GEEZ... what a way to kill jobs!

What idiot in any sense wants "HIGHER GAS PRICES"!!! Does this not just seem plain stupid especially from a guy running for President?
YET you supporters VOTED for this! YOU are those people Gruber described as the "stupidity of American Voter"!!!

C) Obama said If a utility wants to build coal burning it will bankrupt them!
Why in the hell would ANY president want to bankrupt a company that provides jobs, tax revenue? Presidents are suppose to be positive NOT destructive!

D) Obama has SIGNED the fewest Federal oil leases in over 25 years... all the lower gas prices due to private NOT Federal!
Obama sure doesn't seem to want to improve OIL independence by lowering production on government land!

E) Obama said: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
Again... why is this President SO OUT of touch with the common person who would have to PAY THESE SKYROCKETING" rates?

 

[Dad2three]

how many millions more are on food stamps now in obama's 7th year then there were when bush left office?

Does this mean you will support a raise in the minimum wage?

would it help?

no

try again

Would it help get people off of food stamps like you want?
Yes it would

Imagine employers being responsible for providing a wage their workers can survive on rather than taxpayers

yawn

raising the minimum wage will lead to layoffs and jobs lost to automation

people will go from partially subdized by the government to being fully subdized by the government when they lose their job

try reaity

The Job Loss Myth
The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs. ($10.10 AN HOUR)

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth Raise The Minimum Wage

 

[healthmyths]

how many millions more are on food stamps now in obama's 7th year then there were when bush left office?

Does this mean you will support a raise in the minimum wage?

would it help?

no

try again

Would it help get people off of food stamps like you want?
Yes it would

Imagine employers being responsible for providing a wage their workers can survive on rather than taxpayers

yawn

raising the minimum wage will lead to layoffs and jobs lost to automation

people will go from partially subdized by the government to being fully subdized by the government when they lose their job

try reaity

The Job Loss Myth
The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs. ($10.10 AN HOUR)

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth Raise The Minimum Wage

exactly what are "the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."?
It would be very helpful to see what the benefits are to a 16 year old entry level person who's job can be automated.
After all there really isn't a need for a hamburger flipping when you have a conveyor belt like burger king uses!
You don't need that 16 year old to take an order when I can enter in a kiosk,swipe my card and pick up my food.
Be prepared to tell that to entry level job holders looking for summer jobs... you've been replaced by automation.

 

[Dad2three]

Does this mean you will support a raise in the minimum wage?

would it help?

no

try again

Would it help get people off of food stamps like you want?
Yes it would

Imagine employers being responsible for providing a wage their workers can survive on rather than taxpayers

yawn

raising the minimum wage will lead to layoffs and jobs lost to automation

people will go from partially subdized by the government to being fully subdized by the government when they lose their job

try reaity

The Job Loss Myth
The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs. ($10.10 AN HOUR)

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth Raise The Minimum Wage

exactly what are "the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."?
It would be very helpful to see what the benefits are to a 16 year old entry level person who's job can be automated.
After all there really isn't a need for a hamburger flipping when you have a conveyor belt like burger king uses!
You don't need that 16 year old to take an order when I can enter in a kiosk,swipe my card and pick up my food.
Be prepared to tell that to entry level job holders looking for summer jobs... you've been replaced by automation.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE ON THE DOZENS OF CASES THAT MIN WAGE HAS BEEN INCREASED BUBBA, ALL IT'S DONE IS HELP THOSE AT THE BOTTOM


YOU "THINK" SOMEONE WILL NOT REPLACE A WORKER IF THEY NEED TO PAY ONLY $7.26 AN HOUR? LOL

Minimum Wage Mythbusters


Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women.


Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.


Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour - before tips. Even with a recent increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace the U.S. average in 2014.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: Employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $10.74 per hour – before tips. Yet, the San Francisco restaurant industry has experienced positive job growth over the past few years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, meaning a majority of states have an hourly minimum rate at or below the federal minimum. Increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for some 28 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

 

[healthmyths]

would it help?

no

try again

Would it help get people off of food stamps like you want?
Yes it would

Imagine employers being responsible for providing a wage their workers can survive on rather than taxpayers

yawn

raising the minimum wage will lead to layoffs and jobs lost to automation

people will go from partially subdized by the government to being fully subdized by the government when they lose their job

try reaity

The Job Loss Myth
The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs. ($10.10 AN HOUR)

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth Raise The Minimum Wage

exactly what are "the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."?
It would be very helpful to see what the benefits are to a 16 year old entry level person who's job can be automated.
After all there really isn't a need for a hamburger flipping when you have a conveyor belt like burger king uses!
You don't need that 16 year old to take an order when I can enter in a kiosk,swipe my card and pick up my food.
Be prepared to tell that to entry level job holders looking for summer jobs... you've been replaced by automation.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE ON THE DOZENS OF CASES THAT MIN WAGE HAS BEEN INCREASED BUBBA, ALL IT'S DONE IS HELP THOSE AT THE BOTTOM


YOU "THINK" SOMEONE WILL NOT REPLACE A WORKER IF THEY NEED TO PAY ONLY $7.26 AN HOUR? LOL

Minimum Wage Mythbusters


Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women.


Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.


Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour - before tips. Even with a recent increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace the U.S. average in 2014.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: Employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $10.74 per hour – before tips. Yet, the San Francisco restaurant industry has experienced positive job growth over the past few years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, meaning a majority of states have an hourly minimum rate at or below the federal minimum. Increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for some 28 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

I am asking again...not for the benefits but for the answer to this question: the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."
Outweigh WHAT costs?

FACTS:
Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared
with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and the remaining at age 16 to 24 years,1,797,000 at or below minimum wage.
Tables 1 - 10 Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2012

Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years.
The news follows moves from Chili's and Applebee's to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order
and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.

Panera, which spent $42 million developing its new system, claims it isn't planning any job cuts as a result of the technology, but some analysts see this kind of shift as unavoidable for the industry.

Delivery drivers could be replaced en masse by self-driving cars, which are likely to hit the market within a decade or two, or even drones. In food preparation, there are start-ups offering robots for bartending and gourmet hamburger preparation. A food processing company in Spain now uses robots to inspect heads of lettuce on a conveyor belt, throwing out those that don't meet company standards, the Oxford researchers report.
Robots will replace fast-food workers - May. 22 2014

NOW these are REAL costs that are being eliminated as well as the jobs the minimum wage earner was doing.
What will these low skilled, entry level people do ? Go on unemployment and join the other increasing number of people that want jobs but are NOT
qualified.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Come on, wing nuts. Here's your chance to weigh in again on how Obama is a communist and hates America.

The real Unemployment rate is 10.5%. Delete your stupid thread and save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[Freewill]

Iran and six world powers Thursday agreed on "key parameters" for resolving a long-standing dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which has left the Islamic nation economically isolated.
"Today we have taken a decisive step. We have reached solutions on key parameters for a comprehensive future nuclear deal," said European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Federica Mogherini, in formally announcing the deal.
She said Iran would not produce weapons grade fuel and that international monitors will have enhanced access to Iran's nuclear facilities.
She also said that sanctions would be "terminated" but did not specify the timetable, which has been a key sticking point of the negotiations. Iran wants them lifted immediately, while the United States wants most of them in place until Iran follows through on terms of the deal.
President Obama called the deal an "historic understanding" that was "a long time coming."
Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, he said it "shuts down" Iran's path to a bomb using enriched uranium.

And Benghazi was over a video.

 

[healthmyths]

What is the source for this figure of 10.5%?

 

[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.

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.

Wow, you found a quote that used a non-specific term that you like. The problem with definitions is how you measure growth. Do you do it in nominal terms? Real terms? Per capita? The two most common definitions are 2 consecutive or 2 of 3? But the other thing is what exactly you are measuring. This is just way over your head, isn't it? LOL.

And it's all deflection. Your real lie here is that it's irrelevant to the whole point. Was the economy in the toilet when W got it? Regardless of your lies, yes, it was. And does it matter whether we were technically in a recession six months before he took office rather than as he took office? No, it was on Clinton either way since you idiotically believe booms and recessions are solely caused by the President.

So what you are still arguing is W was responsible for a recession that was about zero as he took office and went into recession two months later, but O isn't responsible for the economy over six years after taking over.

LOL, just more lies documented from you

 

[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.

Wow, you found a quote that used a non-specific term that you like. The problem with definitions is how you measure growth. Do you do it in nominal terms? Real terms? Per capita? The two most common definitions are 2 consecutive or 2 of 3? But the other thing is what exactly you are measuring. This is just way over your head, isn't it? LOL.

And it's all deflection. Your real lie here is that it's irrelevant to the whole point. Was the economy in the toilet when W got it? Regardless of your lies, yes, it was. And does it matter whether we were technically in a recession six months before he took office rather than as he took office? No, it was on Clinton either way since you idiotically believe booms and recessions are solely caused by the President.

So what you are still arguing is W was responsible for a recession that was about zero as he took office and went into recession two months later, but O isn't responsible for the economy over six years after taking over.

LOL, just more lies documented from you

There were plenty of other references to that as the classic definition. Finding a link was easy. You're just an imbecile who has no idea what he's talking about.

That aside .... post a link stating a common definition is 2 of 3...?

 

[kaz]

There were plenty of other references to that as the classic definition. Finding a link was easy. You're just an imbecile who has no idea what he's talking about.

That aside .... post a link stating a common definition is 2 of 3...?

I'm not going down your rat hole. The term recession is not unambiguous as you keep wanting to make it.

You are deflecting from your lie that W is responsible for a recession that started as he took office while O isn't responsible for the economy six years after taking office. Whether it was technically just before or just after W took office is irrelevant to that. Hence your documented lies and evasion of the point. The economy was in a shit hole six months before he took office. Whether it was technically slightly positive or slightly negative depending on how you measure it is irrelevant

 

[Faun]

Come on, wing nuts. Here's your chance to weigh in again on how Obama is a communist and hates America.

The real Unemployment rate is 10.5%. Delete your stupid thread and save yourself further embarrassment.

That's funny. An unemployment rate which exists nowhere beyond your hallucinations is, to you, the "real" unemployment rate.

 

[Faun]

There were plenty of other references to that as the classic definition. Finding a link was easy. You're just an imbecile who has no idea what he's talking about.

That aside .... post a link stating a common definition is 2 of 3...?

I'm not going down your rat hole. The term recession is not unambiguous as you keep wanting to make it.

You are deflecting from your lie that W is responsible for a recession that started as he took office while O isn't responsible for the economy six years after taking office. Whether it was technically just before or just after W took office is irrelevant to that. Hence your documented lies and evasion of the point. The economy was in a shit hole six months before he took office. Whether it was technically slightly positive or slightly negative depending on how you measure it is irrelevant

Of course you can't post a link to such a description ... you lied. just as I said.

Thanks for the tacit confession though.

 

[Jackson]

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!

The reason jobless claims fell, is that people had to come off the unemployment rolls. Their time had expired. Just happened to my brother.

 

[Faun]

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!

The reason jobless claims fell, is that people had to come off the unemployment rolls. Their time had expired. Just happened to my brother.

I take this to mean you don't know what the term, "initial jobless claim," means?

 

[Dad2three]

Would it help get people off of food stamps like you want?
Yes it would

Imagine employers being responsible for providing a wage their workers can survive on rather than taxpayers

yawn

raising the minimum wage will lead to layoffs and jobs lost to automation

people will go from partially subdized by the government to being fully subdized by the government when they lose their job

try reaity

The Job Loss Myth
The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
The opinion of the economics profession on the impact of the minimum wage has shifted significantly over the past fifteen years. Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs. ($10.10 AN HOUR)

This page reviews the most widely-cited and influential studies on the impact of minimum wage increases on employment, and examines the primary reasons why low-wage employers can afford higher wages today.


The Job Loss Myth Raise The Minimum Wage

exactly what are "the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."?
It would be very helpful to see what the benefits are to a 16 year old entry level person who's job can be automated.
After all there really isn't a need for a hamburger flipping when you have a conveyor belt like burger king uses!
You don't need that 16 year old to take an order when I can enter in a kiosk,swipe my card and pick up my food.
Be prepared to tell that to entry level job holders looking for summer jobs... you've been replaced by automation.

THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE ON THE DOZENS OF CASES THAT MIN WAGE HAS BEEN INCREASED BUBBA, ALL IT'S DONE IS HELP THOSE AT THE BOTTOM


YOU "THINK" SOMEONE WILL NOT REPLACE A WORKER IF THEY NEED TO PAY ONLY $7.26 AN HOUR? LOL

Minimum Wage Mythbusters


Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women.


Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.


Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A June 2014 survey found that more than 3 out of 5 small business owners support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10. Small business owners believe that a higher minimum wage would benefit business in important ways: 58% say raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power. 56% say raising the minimum wage would help the economy. In addition, 53% agree that with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity and customer satisfaction.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour - before tips. Even with a recent increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace the U.S. average in 2014.


Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: Employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $10.74 per hour – before tips. Yet, the San Francisco restaurant industry has experienced positive job growth over the past few years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: Only 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, meaning a majority of states have an hourly minimum rate at or below the federal minimum. Increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for some 28 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

I am asking again...not for the benefits but for the answer to this question: the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs."
Outweigh WHAT costs?

FACTS:
Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared
with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and the remaining at age 16 to 24 years,1,797,000 at or below minimum wage.
Tables 1 - 10 Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2012

Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years.
The news follows moves from Chili's and Applebee's to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order
and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.

Panera, which spent $42 million developing its new system, claims it isn't planning any job cuts as a result of the technology, but some analysts see this kind of shift as unavoidable for the industry.

Delivery drivers could be replaced en masse by self-driving cars, which are likely to hit the market within a decade or two, or even drones. In food preparation, there are start-ups offering robots for bartending and gourmet hamburger preparation. A food processing company in Spain now uses robots to inspect heads of lettuce on a conveyor belt, throwing out those that don't meet company standards, the Oxford researchers report.
Robots will replace fast-food workers - May. 22 2014

NOW these are REAL costs that are being eliminated as well as the jobs the minimum wage earner was doing.
What will these low skilled, entry level people do ? Go on unemployment and join the other increasing number of people that want jobs but are NOT
qualified.

Gosh you mean automation will outsource jobs? Who knew, better let the labor force know in the auto sector *shaking head*

I know, jobs will become extents when robots can take over right? lol

I know it's better to keep people enslaved in lowest possible wages so it costs to much to replace them right? Gawdam conservatives HATE Americans!

 

[Dad2three]

Iran and six world powers Thursday agreed on "key parameters" for resolving a long-standing dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which has left the Islamic nation economically isolated.
"Today we have taken a decisive step. We have reached solutions on key parameters for a comprehensive future nuclear deal," said European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Federica Mogherini, in formally announcing the deal.
She said Iran would not produce weapons grade fuel and that international monitors will have enhanced access to Iran's nuclear facilities.
She also said that sanctions would be "terminated" but did not specify the timetable, which has been a key sticking point of the negotiations. Iran wants them lifted immediately, while the United States wants most of them in place until Iran follows through on terms of the deal.
President Obama called the deal an "historic understanding" that was "a long time coming."
Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, he said it "shuts down" Iran's path to a bomb using enriched uranium.

And Benghazi was over a video.

Bengazzzzzi??? lol


Today's GOP is the inevitable consequence of their 35 years embracing anti-intellectualism as patriotic and willful ignorance as a virtue.

 

[Dad2three]

[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.

Wow, you found a quote that used a non-specific term that you like. The problem with definitions is how you measure growth. Do you do it in nominal terms? Real terms? Per capita? The two most common definitions are 2 consecutive or 2 of 3? But the other thing is what exactly you are measuring. This is just way over your head, isn't it? LOL.

And it's all deflection. Your real lie here is that it's irrelevant to the whole point. Was the economy in the toilet when W got it? Regardless of your lies, yes, it was. And does it matter whether we were technically in a recession six months before he took office rather than as he took office? No, it was on Clinton either way since you idiotically believe booms and recessions are solely caused by the President.

So what you are still arguing is W was responsible for a recession that was about zero as he took office and went into recession two months later, but O isn't responsible for the economy over six years after taking over.

LOL, just more lies documented from you

6 years later with 8+ million private sector jobs, cutting the deficit by 2/3rds, getting revenues back near where Ronnie had dropped them from Dubya's Korean war levels, doubling the stock market and getting tens of millions health insurance? No we aren't back to where Clinton left US yet, but that might be because of the size and depth the hole Dubya/GOP policy left US in AND the GOP fighting EVERYTHING that might help US since Jan 20th 2009. What happened that day again?

 

[mudwhistle]

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!

The reason jobless claims fell, is that people had to come off the unemployment rolls. Their time had expired. Just happened to my brother.

I take this to mean you don't know what the term, "initial jobless claim," means?

Actually the initial jobless claim statistics can mean many things.

• People who are filing for unemployment for the first time is falling because:

1. There are less people being laid off, or
   
2. More people are taking lower paying jobs because they don't want to wait in the long lines
   
3. More people have quit working, period