Jack Welch: Economy is not growing at breakneck speed contrary to Obama's BLS claims

[Jimmy_Jam]

BITCH BITCH BITCH BITCH BITCH! This is such a stimulating thread. Is this all I have to do to get reputation? I'm on it!

BITCH!

 

[edthecynic]

there are three facts:

1) discouraged workers stopped looking so unemployment went down

2) other discouraged workers (2/3 of 900,000 new jobs) gave up and settled for part time work at Mickey D and 7-11.

3) 300,000 baby boomers retire each month

Now you have the facts too, liberal!!

Discouraged workers DECLINED from 844,000 to 802,000.

Part time jobs can lead to full time jobs, getting a foot in the door is hardly discouraging.

300,000 Boomers reach retirement age each month. They all might not retire, though more than half do.

Now you have the actual facts CON$ervoFascist.

Its simple, from 2007 to today there are 3.5 million fewer jobs thanks to Barry's liberal idiocy

and, 2/3 of the new jobs in the last report are part time jobs at Mickey Ds and 7-11. Barry has buried the middle class. Plus, Krugman has a book out called "End This Depression Now."

I have a news flash for you, Obama was not president in 2007. In Jan 2009 when Bush crawled away in disgrace there were 142,187,000 jobs, now there are 142,974,000 jobs.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Discouraged workers DECLINED from 844,000 to 802,000.

Part time jobs can lead to full time jobs, getting a foot in the door is hardly discouraging.

300,000 Boomers reach retirement age each month. They all might not retire, though more than half do.

Now you have the actual facts CON$ervoFascist.

Its simple, from 2007 to today there are 3.5 million fewer jobs thanks to Barry's liberal idiocy

and, 2/3 of the new jobs in the last report are part time jobs at Mickey Ds and 7-11. Barry has buried the middle class. Plus, Krugman has a book out called "End This Depression Now."

I have a news flash for you, Obama was not president in 2007. In Jan 2009 when Bush crawled away in disgrace there were 142,187,000 jobs, now there are 142,974,000 jobs.

Here's another news flash. Neither Bush NOR Obama had much to do with those job numbers.

 

[Toro]

You're embarrassing yourself. You didn't agree with me (not that that's the crux of the matter) and you came back at me with a simple minded insults. So take your medicine BITCH.

GDP growth is sub par ... I disagree with your assessment that "the economy is slowly growing."

Well then, Milton Friedman, WTF did you mean when you said GDP "growth" is sub par? You do understand that gross domestic product is economic output, right? And you do understand that "growth" means increasing? And you do understand that "sub par" means below trend? I mean, you are correct when you say there is sub par economic growth. But are you unable to cognitively link simple concepts like "sub par economic growth" and "economy growing slowly" or do you simply have no knowledge of the simplest economic concepts?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're embarrassing yourself. You didn't agree with me (not that that's the crux of the matter) and you came back at me with a simple minded insults. So take your medicine BITCH.

GDP growth is sub par ... I disagree with your assessment that "the economy is slowly growing."

Well then, Milton Friedman, WTF did you mean when you said GDP "growth" is sub par? You do understand that gross domestic product is economic output, right? And you do understand that "growth" means increasing? And you do understand that "sub par" means below trend? I mean, you are correct when you say there is sub par economic growth. But are you unable to cognitively link simple concepts like "sub par economic growth" and "economy growing slowly" or do you simply have no knowledge of the simplest economic concepts?

You do realized that GDP growth is expected? Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

Let me put it this way. Say you expect to drive down a freeway at seventy miles per hour; but instead you hit ten mile per hour traffic. Would you say that traffic was good just so long as it was moving? Of course not. The economy is not good right now.

 

[Toro]

You do realized that GDP growth is expected? Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

Dude, stop. Just stop. This is too painful to watch.

Do yourself a favour and go take a class or read a text book or something.

 

[rdean]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans and The Chamber of Commerce, working together, moved millions of jobs to China.

Republicans don't believe in education.

Companies won't hire without demand.

The factories closed during he Bush years are gone.

An economy doesn't grow by making sure the very richest people have even more money.

A country doesn't prosper by removing regulations on safety, clean air and clean water. Look at China. Number one in birth defects. Tragic in a country where couples are limited to one child.

A country grows from "building" things. Whether it's infrastructure, an educated work force or technology.

Republicans cheered when Santorum said they had no smart people. Clearly, they don't understand a single thing I'm writing.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You do realized that GDP growth is expected? Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

Dude, stop. Just stop. This is too painful to watch.

Do yourself a favour and go take a class or read a text book or something.

READ THE WHOLE QUOTE

You do realized that GDP growth is expected? Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

Let me put it this way. Say you expect to drive down a freeway at seventy miles per hour; but instead you hit ten mile per hour traffic. Would you say that traffic was good just so long as it was moving? Of course not. The economy is not good right now.

---

Clearly, you have no grasp on economics or your head is just that far up Obama's ass. Either way, it's not 'painful'; it's pathetic.

 

[Toro]

Clearly, you have no grasp on economics or your head is just that far up Obama's ass. Either way, it's not 'painful'; it's pathetic.

s0n, I do this for a living.

You should stop.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Clearly, you have no grasp on economics or your head is just that far up Obama's ass. Either way, it's not 'painful'; it's pathetic.

s0n, I do this for a living.

You should stop.

You do not jackass. You don't know shit about economics. That's painfully obvious.

 

[Toro]

Clearly, you have no grasp on economics or your head is just that far up Obama's ass. Either way, it's not 'painful'; it's pathetic.

s0n, I do this for a living.

You should stop.

You do not jackass. You don't know shit about economics. That's painfully obvious.

If you say so, s0n.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

s0n, I do this for a living.

You should stop.

You do not jackass. You don't know shit about economics. That's painfully obvious.

If you say so, s0n.

All the condescension in the world won't reverse your jackassery. You talk about the economy like an f'ing simpleton and then claim you do it for a living! You make yourself out to be a lying imbecile.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

he is not pretending, he is correct I'm afraid which explains why you were afraid to say what economic growth is if not GDP growth. Do you think it is the growth of trees?

As a liberal it does not occur to you to kow economics before you speak about economics. Liberalism is based on ignorance.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

he is not pretending, he is correct I'm afraid which explains why you were afraid to say what economic growth is if not GDP growth. Do you think it is the growth of trees?

As a liberal it does not occur to you to kow economics before you speak about economics. Liberalism is based on ignorance.

Check my prior posts in this thread. I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel for ya.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet you want to pretend that GDP growth equals economic growth and that is just not the case at all.

he is not pretending, he is correct I'm afraid which explains why you were afraid to say what economic growth is if not GDP growth. Do you think it is the growth of trees?

As a liberal it does not occur to you to kow economics before you speak about economics. Liberalism is based on ignorance.

Check my prior posts in this thread. I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel for ya.

translation: As a liberal I'm afraid to explain what GDP growth is and is not so I'll just pretend I already won this debate .

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

he is not pretending, he is correct I'm afraid which explains why you were afraid to say what economic growth is if not GDP growth. Do you think it is the growth of trees?

As a liberal it does not occur to you to kow economics before you speak about economics. Liberalism is based on ignorance.

Check my prior posts in this thread. I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel for ya.

translation: As a liberal I'm afraid to explain what GDP growth is and is not so I'll just pretend I already won this debate .

Reality: I'm not a liberal and my posts answered your question very directly. Stop being a lazy idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Check my prior posts in this thread. I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel for ya.

translation: As a liberal I'm afraid to explain what GDP growth is and is not so I'll just pretend I already won this debate .

Reality: I'm not a liberal and my posts answered your question very directly. Stop being a lazy idiot.

translation: As a liberal I'm afraid to explain what GDP growth is and is not so I'll just pretend I already won this debate

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I can't help ya brah. I told you I answered your question already. If ya wanna be a yammering idiot; that's on you brah. Like Mitt says; 'you gotta double down on denial' cos you got nothing. If you read my posts, you wouldn't need to do your sheepish translating.

BTW idiot; does my avi look like the avi of a liberal genius?

 

[Rshermr]

I can't help ya brah. I told you I answered your question already. If ya wanna be a yammering idiot; that's on you brah. Like Mitt says; 'you gotta double down on denial' cos you got nothing. If you read my posts, you wouldn't need to do your sheepish translating.

BTW idiot; does my avi look like the avi of a liberal genius?

You are trying to have a discussion with Ed. You must by now have found that it is like trying to discuss something with a head of lettuce. And I apologize to the lettuce for the comparison. I really should not insult vegetables. Ed simply posts dogma. He can not have an actual rational discussion. Just not possible for ed. Poor guy. Not his fault, he is just plain stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed simply posts dogma.

of course if so you would not be so afraid to point out your best example and explain why it is mistaken. What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character??