Face it Conservorinos..Obama's doing a good job.

[Synthaholic]

Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. 2009/ 2011
$1.83/ $3.104
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) 2009/ 2011
$43.48 /$99.02
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) 2009/ 2011
$38.74 /$91.38
Gold: London (per troy oz.) 2009/ 2011
$853.25 /$1,369.50
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL 2009/ 2011
$3.56 /$6.33
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL 2009/ 2011
$9.66 /$13.75
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob 2009/ 2011
$13.37 /$35.39
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 2009/ 2011
7.6% /9.4%
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6 / 15.8
Real median household income (2008 v 2009)
$50,112 /$49,77
Number of unemployed
11,616,000 / 14,485,000
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
31,983,716 /43,200,878
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598 /9,193,838
Number of long-term unemployed
2,600,000 /6,400,000
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009)
13.2% /14.3%
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009)
39,800,000 /43,600,000
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
5 / 9
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9 / 23.5
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140 / 164
National debt, in trillions
$10.627 / $14.052

​

Thanks for showing how fucked up Bush left this country compared to when he was selected president. Clinton left him a surplus, and gas was $1.29 in Florida, and either $.89 or $.99 per gallon over the state line in Georgia, depending where you went. Bush got us up to 10 trillion in debt and over $4.00 per gallon.

 

[Sallow]

Actually, if they stop using these deliberately distorted figures, and include the unemployed who have literally now given up even the hop of trying to find work, the actual unemployment number is somewhere between 16 to 18 percent.
.

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

 

[Liability]

Actually, if they stop using these deliberately distorted figures, and include the unemployed who have literally now given up even the hop of trying to find work, the actual unemployment number is somewhere between 16 to 18 percent.
.

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, if they stop using these deliberately distorted figures, and include the unemployed who have literally now given up even the hop of trying to find work, the actual unemployment number is somewhere between 16 to 18 percent.
.

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

I remember you and your pals doing that do you fat phoney.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everyone knows what a poor economy is.

Are we in a recession or not?

Not a technical one,No "inflation" either, not much a nail to hang your hat on .

It's a 'jobless recovery', a condition that is not new and that we will see more of in the future.

When you let the rest of the world make stuff for you, of course you're going to be short on jobs, even when the economy is growing.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Is an economy really growing if the money being spent comes from foodstamps and unemployment cheques ?

 

[Sallow]

Actually, if they stop using these deliberately distorted figures, and include the unemployed who have literally now given up even the hop of trying to find work, the actual unemployment number is somewhere between 16 to 18 percent.
.

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

Naw.

Now you are lying.

I've a pretty good memory.

 

[Liability]

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

I remember you and your pals doing that do you fat phoney.

Liar.

 

[Liability]

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

Naw.

Now you are lying.

I've a pretty good memory.

Then you, too, are a liar.

It would be nicer to say that your memory is "faulty," but since you insist that your memory is "pretty good," the conclusion is that you are unduly willing to deceive.

Yes sir. Like Carbuncle, you are absolutely full of shit.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks for showing how fucked up Bush left this country compared to when he was selected president. Clinton left him a surplus, and gas was $1.29 in Florida, and either $.89 or $.99 per gallon over the state line in Georgia, depending where you went. Bush got us up to 10 trillion in debt and over $4.00 per gallon.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. But Ill try to explain it in big letters so maybe it will get through to you.


THERE WAS NO SURPLUS. IT WAS A LIE.

See anyone can have a "surplus" if they project 10 years out and use generous assumptions about income, economic growth, and problems facing the country.

Reality on the other hand is another matter altogether.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit.

Why do you persist in thinking that just lying is a valid form of argumentation?

I laughed no such thing off.

But is is funny that you and your ilk conveniently ignore it NOW if you were so aware of it during the Bush years.

You are a joke.

Naw.

Now you are lying.

I've a pretty good memory.

Then you, too, are a liar.

It would be nicer to say that your memory is "faulty," but since you insist that your memory is "pretty good," the conclusion is that you are unduly willing to deceive.

Yes sir. Like Carbuncle, you are absolutely full of shit.

I wish the "Ministry of Truth" at that other site hadn't cleaned their databases..or you'd be eating your words. I do remember the specific thread..it's one where I compared the Bush administration to junk food...in that it may feel good..but was ultimately bad.

You "pooh-poohed" my assertion that the unemployment reports didn't reflect the reality.

That's fine if you don't remember.

It's just funny you are making the same exact point now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are we in a recession or not?

Not a technical one,No "inflation" either, not much a nail to hang your hat on .

It's a 'jobless recovery', a condition that is not new and that we will see more of in the future.
When you let the rest of the world make stuff for you, of course you're going to be short on jobs, even when the economy is growing.

False. Nothing about job growth necessitates a manufactuing base of any kind.
Why are 'forward thinking' people like you so stuck in the 50s?

 

[Liability]

Naw.

Now you are lying.

I've a pretty good memory.

Then you, too, are a liar.

It would be nicer to say that your memory is "faulty," but since you insist that your memory is "pretty good," the conclusion is that you are unduly willing to deceive.

Yes sir. Like Carbuncle, you are absolutely full of shit.

I wish the "Ministry of Truth" at that other site hadn't cleaned their databases..or you'd be eating your words. I do remember the specific thread..it's one where I compared the Bush administration to junk food...in that it may feel good..but was ultimately bad.

You "pooh-poohed" my assertion that the unemployment reports didn't reflect the reality.

That's fine if you don't remember.

It's just funny you are making the same exact point now.

No. The one who fails to recall it correctly is YOU. The one eating words would be you. No doubt about it. But, it is possible that you merely suffer from a convenient (wrong) memory.

In that limited sense, I actually regret calling you a "liar." But you ARE, nonetheless, wrong.

The point of the discussion at the other place was (and, yes, this is based on my own memory: I don't save all this stuff) that the COMPARISON of unemployment rates was bullshit if AT ONE POINT (like say, during the Clinton Administration) the "numbers" are limited to JUST the guys presently seeking but unable to find work BUT AT THE OTHER POINT (i.e., during the Bush Administration) the numbers ALSO, suddenly, "include" those who have lost hope and given up.

I called bullshit on you guys for not being willing to ADMIT that the comparisons were fishy.

What's NOW funny is that, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you guys recognize that the comparisons are bogus. How convenient.

You may have a faulty memory. So, you should stop pretending that you have a pretty good one. Carby is a liar. Track record.

 

[Sallow]

Then you, too, are a liar.

It would be nicer to say that your memory is "faulty," but since you insist that your memory is "pretty good," the conclusion is that you are unduly willing to deceive.

Yes sir. Like Carbuncle, you are absolutely full of shit.

I wish the "Ministry of Truth" at that other site hadn't cleaned their databases..or you'd be eating your words. I do remember the specific thread..it's one where I compared the Bush administration to junk food...in that it may feel good..but was ultimately bad.

You "pooh-poohed" my assertion that the unemployment reports didn't reflect the reality.

That's fine if you don't remember.

It's just funny you are making the same exact point now.

No. The one who fails to recall it correctly is YOU. The one eating words would be you. No doubt about it. But, it is possible that you merely suffer from a convenient (wrong) memory.

In that limited sense, I actually regret calling you a "liar." But you ARE, nonetheless, wrong.

The point of the discussion at the other place was (and, yes, this is based on my own memory: I don't save all this stuff) that the COMPARISON of unemployment rates was bullshit if AT ONE POINT (like say, during the Clinton Administration) the "numbers" are limited to JUST the guys presently seeking but unable to find work BUT AT THE OTHER POINT (i.e., during the Bush Administration) the numbers ALSO, suddenly, "include" those who have lost hope and given up.

I called bullshit on you guys for not being willing to ADMIT that the comparisons were fishy.

What's NOW funny is that, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you guys recognize that the comparisons are bogus. How convenient.

You may have a faulty memory. So, you should stop pretending that you have a pretty good one. Carby is a liar. Track record.

Um...okay.

Not going to get in a pissing match over a he said she said thing.

Bottom line the way unemployment is presented is the exact same way it was during the Bush administration. Many economists were saying it was far worse..and I for one believed them. Part of the reason it's made some dramatic bounces after 2009, is that people who were not counted as unemployed, started looking for work again..and tried to get benefits. Some of these people were using property they owned like ATMs, to keep from going on unemployment or trying to start businesses. A good many of them also moved back in with their parents. The latest monthly issue of AARP had an article about that.

I would agree that the way unemployment gets scored should change..but I question the motivations behind some who say that change should occur right now.

 

[driveby]

Despite the rants of the right..President Obama's proved time and time again he can handle it..and with a great amount of grace. He's got it down when it comes to the ridiculous hyperbole..and he does it with style. Although he sometimes infuriates me with his olive branches to the right..gotta say..he's got a lock on keeping his enemies close.

And while I don't think he's charmed, indeed, alot of the work has been tough, he's been able to keep above the fray.

So 2012 looks like it's going to be a lock. Even my conservative friends are grudgingly admitting to that.

puff puff give.......

 

[Liability]

I wish the "Ministry of Truth" at that other site hadn't cleaned their databases..or you'd be eating your words. I do remember the specific thread..it's one where I compared the Bush administration to junk food...in that it may feel good..but was ultimately bad.

You "pooh-poohed" my assertion that the unemployment reports didn't reflect the reality.

That's fine if you don't remember.

It's just funny you are making the same exact point now.

No. The one who fails to recall it correctly is YOU. The one eating words would be you. No doubt about it. But, it is possible that you merely suffer from a convenient (wrong) memory.

In that limited sense, I actually regret calling you a "liar." But you ARE, nonetheless, wrong.

The point of the discussion at the other place was (and, yes, this is based on my own memory: I don't save all this stuff) that the COMPARISON of unemployment rates was bullshit if AT ONE POINT (like say, during the Clinton Administration) the "numbers" are limited to JUST the guys presently seeking but unable to find work BUT AT THE OTHER POINT (i.e., during the Bush Administration) the numbers ALSO, suddenly, "include" those who have lost hope and given up.

I called bullshit on you guys for not being willing to ADMIT that the comparisons were fishy.

What's NOW funny is that, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you guys recognize that the comparisons are bogus. How convenient.

You may have a faulty memory. So, you should stop pretending that you have a pretty good one. Carby is a liar. Track record.

Um...okay.

Not going to get in a pissing match over a he said she said thing.

Bottom line the way unemployment is presented is the exact same way it was during the Bush administration. Many economists were saying it was far worse..and I for one believed them. Part of the reason it's made some dramatic bounces after 2009, is that people who were not counted as unemployed, started looking for work again..and tried to get benefits. Some of these people were using property they owned like ATMs, to keep from going on unemployment or trying to start businesses. A good many of them also moved back in with their parents. The latest monthly issue of AARP had an article about that.

I would agree that the way unemployment gets scored should change..but I question the motivations behind some who say that change should occur right now.

You DID get into a pissing match about he said/he said.

That aside, I am not disputing that the numbers -- as presented -- are cooked in the same way now as they were in the prior administration. What I previously said was that the comparisons being offered as between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration compared different things.

It wold be helpful to an honest present day public discussion of our economic problems if everyone would get on the same fucking page in the use of terms. HOWEVER, if your concern is that such a "change" (now) would make President Obama look bad UNFAIRLY, then I sympathize and agree with you. The remedy is to make sure that the figures used for comparisons between his numbers and those of the past utilize the same economic factors. Thus, if we wish to discuss the "unemployment figures," we should use the SAME definition of "unemployment" for present purposes as for past purposes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Sure we did, monkey boi.

So who were you on AWE? Kimmy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a 'jobless recovery', a condition that is not new and that we will see more of in the future.

It's a "recoveryless recovery," a condition that occurs when the sycophant leftwing press needs to cover for a democrat president.

 

[Dot Com]

Despite the rants of the right..President Obama's proved time and time again he can handle it..and with a great amount of grace. He's got it down when it comes to the ridiculous hyperbole..and he does it with style. Although he sometimes infuriates me with his olive branches to the right..gotta say..he's got a lock on keeping his enemies close.

And while I don't think he's charmed, indeed, alot of the work has been tough, he's been able to keep above the fray.

So 2012 looks like it's going to be a lock. Even my conservative friends are grudgingly admitting to that.

I agree. The Right will find fault w/ anything he does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've a pretty good memory.

Perhaps, but you have zero integrity.