Let us get this budget surplus and deficit stuff straight once and for all

[8537]

I'm sure The Racist will be along any minute now to apologize for lying.

As for whatever mess you posted, what is that supposed to prove?

It backs up the fact that you are completely full of shit with your claims about job losses in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, respectively. Here, let's review shall we:


2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

 

[8537]

No. Proof that more jobs were lost in 2001 than 2008 recessions.

He's completely full of shit. Even giving a huge benefit of the doubt and only using 2008 recession job losses for the time in which Bush was in office:

2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

You don't actually expect him to tell the truth, do ya?

Source? Links? Facts? ANyone? Bueller.. Bueller.

Pretty much says it all. Assuming you know how to read a graph.

Thank you for providing the same data in graph form - from Heritage no less! And this data proves, again, that you are full of shit when you make wholly ignorant comments such as this:

The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. Proof that more jobs were lost in 2001 than 2008 recessions.

He's completely full of shit. Even giving a huge benefit of the doubt and only using 2008 recession job losses for the time in which Bush was in office:

2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

You don't actually expect him to tell the truth, do ya?

Source? Links? Facts? ANyone? Bueller.. Bueller.

Pretty much says it all. Assuming you know how to read a graph.

Yes it says we had a very mild recession in 2001, followed by anemic job growth during the Bush years despite the Bush policy of tax cut and borrow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's completely full of shit. Even giving a huge benefit of the doubt and only using 2008 recession job losses for the time in which Bush was in office:

2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

You don't actually expect him to tell the truth, do ya?

Source? Links? Facts? ANyone? Bueller.. Bueller.

Pretty much says it all. Assuming you know how to read a graph.

Thank you for providing the same data in graph form - from Heritage no less! And this data proves, again, that you are full of shit when you make wholly ignorant comments such as this:

The 2001 recession had MORE job loss that the 2008 one.

I did a double take on the title of that graph.

LACK OF JOB CREATION IS LEADING FACTOR IN UNEMPLOYMENT

Great observation, Mr. Obvious!

 

[8537]

I did a double take on the title of that graph.

LACK OF JOB CREATION IS LEADING FACTOR IN UNEMPLOYMENT

Great observation, Mr. Obvious!

Lack of ability to find water is leading factor in dehydration!
Lack of food is leading factor in starvation!
Lack of brain is leading factor in Rabbi's posts!

 

[G.T.]

 

[G.T.]

I think someone doesn't know how to read his own graphs.

 

[8537]

Just for reference, there were more job loses in Bush's last 3 months in office than during the entire continuous job-loss period from Jan 2001 to May of 2002, a period of 16 months.

edited to fix the obvious date typo.

 

[G.T.]

Just for reference, there were more job loses in Bush's last 3 months in office than during the entire continuous job-loss period from Jan 2011 to May of 2002, a period of 16 months.

Rabbi's a fucking mess

 

[JRK]

Libs where are the jobs?
What does GWB have to do with spending 3 trillion dollars we do not have and have a employment table that looks like this?
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

why would anyone think this mess has anything to do with GWB?

 

[8537]

Libs where are the jobs?
What does GWB have to do with spending 3 trillion dollars we do not have and have a employment table that looks like this?
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

why would anyone think this mess has anything to do with GWB?

See where that employment table peaks, in 2007?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure The Racist will be along any minute now to apologize for lying.

As for whatever mess you posted, what is that supposed to prove?

It backs up the fact that you are completely full of shit with your claims about job losses in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, respectively. Here, let's review shall we:


2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

Do you have anything that might be, like, verifiable? Other than saying "The BLS"

 

[Texanmike]

Congress has as much or more to do with that process than any-one
For the people
By the people

Bill Clinton got credit for what Newt and the boys did in the 90s

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.


And when it comes to deficits after 2001?

from 02-07
all GOP budgets we run a yearly deficit of about 250 billion a year
GWB would not even sign 2009 budget and the 08 was 450-500 billion in the hole
both with a dem congress

so with that said and adding 10-11 and 12 to that we have from about 98-07
GOP added about 1 trillion and the left has added, well lets just allot more than 1 trillion

There is nothing here to debate
if there is what exactly would it be?

I have no problem giving Gingrich and the Republicans credit. Clinton also deserves part of the credit because he worked with Congress to get it done. And lest we forget, taxes were higher at that time.

Then comes Bush, who pretty much had a decent economy to work with. Even with the two small recessions, unemployment never dipped very much and rebounded back strong enough, so he was never fighting a horrible economy by any means, yet the deficits soared and they didn't even include the cost of the unfunded wars he got us into. Now you try to compare the Dems and Obama running massive deficits during our worst economy since the Great Depression (not comparing, because this is nowhere near as bad) to Bush's deficits. Of course we are in worse shape now. We have had a massive drop in tax revenue, we are now actually accounting for the cost of our wars, and we now have 9 plus percent unemployment. But you are going to try to blame the bad economy on the Dems and Obama when this started before Obama ever took office. It's time for a reality check. I think the biggest problem is that some of you actually think things would have been different had the Republicans held on to Congress and the Whitehouse. Sorry but nothing would be different.

I wish people would stop associting people with the performance of the economy. Just look at the policies and their effect.

The reality is that with this compromise everyone has a hand in good and bad legislation. Because we have politicians that have no conviction they all bargain with eachother in the name of compromise.

That's not to say that you don't grade individual's performance but it is more subjective. Case and point. I disagree with Clinton on almost every policy that wasn't economic. He did make a move to the center and I consider him to be the second best president of my lifetime. The first? Reagan.

Mike

 

[8537]

As for whatever mess you posted, what is that supposed to prove?

It backs up the fact that you are completely full of shit with your claims about job losses in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, respectively. Here, let's review shall we:


2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

Do you have anything that might be, like, verifiable? Other than saying "The BLS"

Sure. Go to BLS.gov. Click on "employment". Click on the employment nonfarm payroll dinosaur. submit a query. Add.

 

[RDD_1210]

It backs up the fact that you are completely full of shit with your claims about job losses in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, respectively. Here, let's review shall we:


2008 recession, Dec 2007 - Jan 2009: 4.8 Million jobs lost
2001 recession, March of 2001 - May 0f 2002): 2.2 Million jobs lost.

Do you have anything that might be, like, verifiable? Other than saying "The BLS"

Sure. Go to BLS.gov. Click on "employment". Click on the employment nonfarm payroll dinosaur. submit a query. Add.

Obviously BLS.gov has a liberal bias.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did Rabbi really post charts that disprove his own point? Bwahahahaha!

Not surprising since he is the same person who once posted a story from The Onion thinking it was real. You're living proof that racism is for true idiots.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Just for reference, there were more job loses in Bush's last 3 months in office than during the entire continuous job-loss period from Jan 2011 to May of 2002, a period of 16 months.

From Jan 2011 to May 2002?

 

[8537]

Just for reference, there were more job loses in Bush's last 3 months in office than during the entire continuous job-loss period from Jan 2011 to May of 2002, a period of 16 months.

From Jan 2011 to May 2002?

Jan 2001 to May 2002.

I suspect you could figure that out on your own

 

[The Rabbi]

I did a double take on the title of that graph.

LACK OF JOB CREATION IS LEADING FACTOR IN UNEMPLOYMENT

Great observation, Mr. Obvious!

Lack of ability to find water is leading factor in dehydration!
Lack of food is leading factor in starvation!
Lack of brain is leading factor in Rabbi's posts!

I see you are too stupid to grasp the basic point.
Still waiting to see a reference for the numbers you posted.

 

[8537]

I did a double take on the title of that graph.

LACK OF JOB CREATION IS LEADING FACTOR IN UNEMPLOYMENT

Great observation, Mr. Obvious!

Lack of ability to find water is leading factor in dehydration!
Lack of food is leading factor in starvation!
Lack of brain is leading factor in Rabbi's posts!

I see you are too stupid to grasp the basic point.
Still waiting to see a reference for the numbers you posted.

I gave you explicit directions about how to run the query. I'm certain everyone else in this thread could follow them. Of course, they involve addition so you might not understand.

But I know you well enough to know that instead of running the query, you'll continue to stick out your racist tongue, cover your ears and say "you didn't give me a link! You can't cite the info!" when in reality, you know running the query would prove you wrong...

Again.