Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Absolutely.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
The stock market has doubled since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up.
Home sales are up.
Retail sales are up.
Unemployment is down.
We have had 22 months of private sector job growth.
GM was saved and is now the number one automaker in the world.
Bin Laden and Gaddafi are dead, and we are out of Iraq.
Obama has done a very good job.
So what you've done is take the starting point of the Obama Administration which was at the worst part of the recession and credit Barack Obama for anything that is a net improvement, unilaterally deciding that what "he" did was the cause. The fallacy of that approach is quite obvious because recessions inevitably do correct themselves and ANYONE who was in the Oval Office would have seen numbers that were up. Of course sales are up since 2009. Of course GDP has been growing since 2009. Of course the stock market has rebounded. Of course unemployment has lessened. The real question to ask isn't are numbers up but is the economy on track to recover and grow due to the policies of this President and on THAT front, Chris your list of Obama "accomplishments" hits a wall because his policies have left us teetering on the edge of another recession rather than a robust recovery. Rather than give us a laundry list of numbers that are up...give us the Obama policies that you think are leading this country's economy towards prosperity. Do you think ObamaCare is going to be a good thing or a bad thing for our economy? Do you think the inability of this President to submit a budget has been a good or bad thing for the country? Do you think this President's refusal to make cuts to programs or spending is going to be a good thing or a bad thing to the future? What is Obama's energy policy? What's he going to do to keep the price of gas low? What's he going to do with the brewing trouble in the Middle East?
You seem to believe that Obama deserves no credit for this country's successes, yet you have no problem crediting him for all of its struggles. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
So what you've done is take the starting point of the Obama Administration which was at the worst part of the recession and credit Barack Obama for anything that is a net improvement, unilaterally deciding that what "he" did was the cause. The fallacy of that approach is quite obvious because recessions inevitably do correct themselves and ANYONE who was in the Oval Office would have seen numbers that were up. Of course sales are up since 2009. Of course GDP has been growing since 2009. Of course the stock market has rebounded. Of course unemployment has lessened. The real question to ask isn't are numbers up but is the economy on track to recover and grow due to the policies of this President and on THAT front, Chris your list of Obama "accomplishments" hits a wall because his policies have left us teetering on the edge of another recession rather than a robust recovery. Rather than give us a laundry list of numbers that are up...give us the Obama policies that you think are leading this country's economy towards prosperity. Do you think ObamaCare is going to be a good thing or a bad thing for our economy? Do you think the inability of this President to submit a budget has been a good or bad thing for the country? Do you think this President's refusal to make cuts to programs or spending is going to be a good thing or a bad thing to the future? What is Obama's energy policy? What's he going to do to keep the price of gas low? What's he going to do with the brewing trouble in the Middle East?
You seem to believe that Obama deserves no credit for this country's successes, yet you have no problem crediting him for all of its struggles. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
So what you've done is take the starting point of the Obama Administration which was at the worst part of the recession and credit Barack Obama for anything that is a net improvement, unilaterally deciding that what "he" did was the cause. The fallacy of that approach is quite obvious because recessions inevitably do correct themselves and ANYONE who was in the Oval Office would have seen numbers that were up. Of course sales are up since 2009. Of course GDP has been growing since 2009. Of course the stock market has rebounded. Of course unemployment has lessened. The real question to ask isn't are numbers up but is the economy on track to recover and grow due to the policies of this President and on THAT front, Chris your list of Obama "accomplishments" hits a wall because his policies have left us teetering on the edge of another recession rather than a robust recovery. Rather than give us a laundry list of numbers that are up...give us the Obama policies that you think are leading this country's economy towards prosperity. Do you think ObamaCare is going to be a good thing or a bad thing for our economy? Do you think the inability of this President to submit a budget has been a good or bad thing for the country? Do you think this President's refusal to make cuts to programs or spending is going to be a good thing or a bad thing to the future? What is Obama's energy policy? What's he going to do to keep the price of gas low? What's he going to do with the brewing trouble in the Middle East?
You seem to believe that Obama deserves no credit for this country's successes, yet you have no problem crediting him for all of its struggles. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
You seem to believe that Obama deserves no credit for this country's successes, yet you have no problem crediting him for all of its struggles. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
The blind talking to the blind about how to see.
You seem to believe that Obama deserves no credit for this country's successes, yet you have no problem crediting him for all of its struggles. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
I actually do see it. I could list many positive things that Obama deserves credit for, I just refuse to give him any credit for things he has not done, or things that other people did. Strange of me, but I tend to stick to reality instead of fantasy.
Or do you want to try and argue that Obama deserves credit for things that did not happen?
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
The blind talking to the blind about how to see.
Yes, you do that all the time. And you really need to stop.
They don't want to see it, Billy. And they never will. Remember that these people are low information voters. They believe everything they are told by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Trying to get them to acknowledge truth is like trying to catch lightening in a bottle.
I actually do see it. I could list many positive things that Obama deserves credit for, I just refuse to give him any credit for things he has not done, or things that other people did. Strange of me, but I tend to stick to reality instead of fantasy.
Or do you want to try and argue that Obama deserves credit for things that did not happen?
I'll bet you have very deep brown eyes.
I actually do see it. I could list many positive things that Obama deserves credit for, I just refuse to give him any credit for things he has not done, or things that other people did. Strange of me, but I tend to stick to reality instead of fantasy.
Or do you want to try and argue that Obama deserves credit for things that did not happen?
I'll bet you have very deep brown eyes.
You loose.
The train that you are on is a simulator You need to stop playing that PS3 train simulator game and get out in the real world.Home sales are up, retail sales are up, auto sales are up, unemployment is down.
The train is leaving the station.
Existing Home Sales Debacle, As Larry 'Baghdad-Bob' Yun Confirms Overstatement | ZeroHedgeIn what can only be described as completely unsurprising, Larry Yun of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has admitted, according to CNNMoney, that maybe possibly they overstated, purely by accident, the number of existing homes sales statistic that has formed the cornerstone of his constant corner-turning commentary over the past few years. We have unequivocally challenged the Ph.D.'s claims as fudged and fabricated this year and even the Wall Street Journal, back in February of 2011, saw 'challenges' in the NAR's data when compared to other unbiased sources of the same reality. We can only assume that when Yun explains, in true Baghdad-Bob-style, the adjustments (when they are released on December 21st) that they will be either a signal that the bottom is in for home sales or that from such a low base, things can only get better. From our perspective, they remain irrelevant and untrustworthy with the CoreLogic data seemingly less naturally biased to an organization desperate for a foothold on the glimmering slope back to the American Dream.
Krugman thinks the stimulus failed. He not only supported it, he has a Nobel prize in economics. That means I can blame Obama for spending $1 trillion that was a complete waste, most of which has not even been spent yet.
The GM rescue may, or may not, have worked, it is too early to tell. If they don't need another one in 10 years I will say it worked, until then I will wait until they have at least paid us back. I still blame Obama for not following the actual law, something I think is important for a president to do.
Wow, that was weak.
Krugman thought the stimuus was too small. But it worked. 8 straight quarters of GDP growth. 22 months of private sector job growth. The stock market doubled.
And the GM rescue kicked ass. GM needed smarter leadership, and they got it.
Are you saying Krugman is wrong?
The stock market doubled? Under Obama? Are you high?
Wow, that was weak.
Krugman thought the stimuus was too small. But it worked. 8 straight quarters of GDP growth. 22 months of private sector job growth. The stock market doubled.
And the GM rescue kicked ass. GM needed smarter leadership, and they got it.
Are you saying Krugman is wrong?
The stock market doubled? Under Obama? Are you high?
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
Are you saying Krugman is wrong?
The stock market doubled? Under Obama? Are you high?
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
I'm curious, Article...do you really think that the stock market came back from that low of 6,500 because of the policies of Barack Obama? Or will you admit that the stock market would have rebounded no matter whether a Republican OR a Democrat was sitting in the Oval Office? TARP was the big fix...and that was a bi-partisan effort started by Bush and continued by Obama...yet you give all of the blame for the "Bush economic crash" to one and all of the credit for the rebound to the other.
Wow, that was weak.
Krugman thought the stimuus was too small. But it worked. 8 straight quarters of GDP growth. 22 months of private sector job growth. The stock market doubled.
And the GM rescue kicked ass. GM needed smarter leadership, and they got it.
Are you saying Krugman is wrong?
The stock market doubled? Under Obama? Are you high?
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
Are you saying Krugman is wrong?
The stock market doubled? Under Obama? Are you high?
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
If you insist.
6,547.01 * 2 = 13,094.02
Still doesn't look like it made it to the double mark to me.
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
I'm curious, Article...do you really think that the stock market came back from that low of 6,500 because of the policies of Barack Obama? Or will you admit that the stock market would have rebounded no matter whether a Republican OR a Democrat was sitting in the Oval Office? TARP was the big fix...and that was a bi-partisan effort started by Bush and continued by Obama...yet you give all of the blame for the "Bush economic crash" to one and all of the credit for the rebound to the other.
I think the market would have rebounded regardless of who was President. Much like I think we would have had to run trillion+ deficits regards of who was President.
So if you think the market would have rebounded regardless of who was President...don't you think it's rather generous of you to count the market coming back as an Obama "accomplishment"?
In the wake of the Bush economic crash of 2008 the Dow Jones industrial average finally bottomed out at 6,547.01 on March 10, 2009.
This last Friday the Dow closed at 12,623.83.
Do the math.
If you insist.
6,547.01 * 2 = 13,094.02
Still doesn't look like it made it to the double mark to me.
Correct it didn't.....it's only up 92.8% but you get the idea.
You're "are you high" remark was tarded.
So if you think the market would have rebounded regardless of who was President...don't you think it's rather generous of you to count the market coming back as an Obama "accomplishment"?
I didn't list it as an accomplishment. Chris did.
I posted the Dow's numbers because QW was so strongly doubting that the market has doubled.
So if you think the market would have rebounded regardless of who was President...don't you think it's rather generous of you to count the market coming back as an Obama "accomplishment"?
I didn't list it as an accomplishment. Chris did.
I posted the Dow's numbers because QW was so strongly doubting that the market has doubled.
So out of the following list that Chris provided...which do you think would have happened regardless of who was in the White House?
"GDP has been growing since 2009.
The stock market has doubled since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up.
Home sales are up.
Retail sales are up.
Unemployment is down.
We have had 22 months of private sector job growth.
GM was saved and is now the number one automaker in the world.
Bin Laden and Gaddafi are dead, and we are out of Iraq.
Obama has done a very good job."
My point is that Chris is giving Obama credit for things that would have happened if we'd had a department store mannequin sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office...hardly something to reelect someone for.
