Six years later:

[Paperman299]

Debt which was necessary

Oh? So why did Obama call Bush "unpatriotic" for doing the same thing?

Or do you keep missing where I tell you how economists praise the stimulus?

I don't care if the Lion King praised the stimulus. It is still spending, thusly more debt. Case in point.

This Obamacare bit is pure deflection. If Romney was president then conservative media would be bringing up those tax cuts on the daily.

Actually, you can blame Hillary Clinton circa 1993 for the inspiration. That Romney bit is a deflection.

It was a legislative compromise which worked out pretty well there.

One state vs an entire country doesn't mean much. Besides, read the previous response. Did you miss the part where Obamacare passed without one single Republican vote? Or do I need to dumb it down to the first grade reading level for you?

I'll bet when he signed his name on that legislation, Romney never imagined he'd be campaigning against it...

Too bad Hillary beat him to the punch, by about 13 years.

You can try to backtrack this all the way to Hillary Clinton if you want. Heck, why not blame the authors of the Constitution for founding the country and setting into motion the events that would ultimately lead to a health care discussion at all. The point is, the Massachusetts health care reform was real, true bipartisan compromise. The fact that Republicans chose not to support a sequel to their own legislation, with their own presidential candidate's signature on it, only shows how they've come to define themselves by their total opposition to anything Obama.

As to the spending, by dodging the consensus of economists on the economy, you've now veered into irrational territory. Anyway, you can spit in the man's eye for doing what absolutely any president would have had to do, but what could be more pointless as a critique of policy?

And I notice that you've avoided addressing any of the crazy fears the OP noted never happened. Either you agree with the image and don't want to even extend that much agreement to the board's liberals, or you don't but you for some reason feel that you should avoid addressing it. Which is it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

As to the spending, by dodging the consensus of economists on the economy, you've now veered into irrational territory.

But you have not linked to or countered my so called 'irrationality.' Care to give it a go? When a bill is passed, most usually, it costs something. Money. As the old saying goes, "money doesn't grow on trees."

And I notice that you've avoided addressing any of the crazy fears the OP noted never happened.

Because your thread was an attempt at a puerile joke. Calling people dumbasses? Really?

Either you agree with the image and don't want to even extend that much agreement to the board's liberals, or you don't but you for some reason feel that you should avoid addressing it. Which is it?

A meme isn't an argument. As for my response, either you have chosen to agree with it, or you disagree and don't even want to extend me the courtesy of a decent rebuttal. Which is it?

Anyway, you can spit in the man's eye for doing what absolutely any president would have had to do

In Matthew, chapter 7, there is a verse that goes as such: "Judge not lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"

In summation, why are you ignoring the missteps Obama has taken in his presidency? While hearkening back to the days of Bush and Romney? As for spitting in people's faces, you spit like a camel.

"Bush did it" is so six years ago.

 

[percysunshine]

Six years later, and the black community is worse off than it was, seething with anger, about to explode, because they didn't get jack-shit from "their black President", and once again, they are being played by the "BLAME IT ON WHITEY CROWD".

Nothing new under the sun.

The racial disparity isn't Obama's fault, it is the failed War on Drugs combined with a bored police force on a national scale, because the crime rate nationally has dropped.
In the 1990s the cops on Staten Island would have cared less if someone was selling cigarettes on the street. They had murders in Times Square to deal with.

Then there's this from the uber-conservative Forbes magazine:
From Forbes: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
9/05/2014 @ 3:46PM

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.

One month variation does not change a trend

Even though the plus-200,000 monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.

And that is great news.

Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the number one issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.

To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.

This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

.

Of course...work force participation is lower now than at any time since the Middle Jurassic epoch...

.

Right. That would explain why 326,000 jobs were created last month. Oh not...

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

 

[Paperman299]

As to the spending, by dodging the consensus of economists on the economy, you've now veered into irrational territory.

But you have not linked to or countered my so called 'irrationality.' Care to give it a go? When a bill is passed, most usually, it costs something. Money. As the old saying goes, "money doesn't grow on trees."

And I notice that you've avoided addressing any of the crazy fears the OP noted never happened.

Because your thread was an attempt at a puerile joke. Calling people dumbasses? Really?

Either you agree with the image and don't want to even extend that much agreement to the board's liberals, or you don't but you for some reason feel that you should avoid addressing it. Which is it?

A meme isn't an argument. As for my response, either you have chosen to agree with it, or you disagree and don't even want to extend me the courtesy of a decent rebuttal. Which is it?

Anyway, you can spit in the man's eye for doing what absolutely any president would have had to do

In Matthew, chapter 7, there is a verse that goes as such: "Judge not lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"

In summation, why are you ignoring the missteps Obama has taken in his presidency? While hearkening back to the days of Bush and Romney? As for spitting in people's faces, you spit like a camel.

"Bush did it" is so six years ago.

First of all, I haven't called anyone a dumbass. Secondly, this is not, in fact, my thread.

Now, I've already linked to said consensus among economists. In fact, I've tried to draw your attention to that link three times now. I can't help but wonder why you continue to avoid it. .

As to Bush and Romney, you do realize I'm actually giving them praise atm, right? Read my words: Romney oversaw bipartisan health reform, and Bush (finally) did the responsible thing when he saw an economic collapse rolling on us and increased spending. Them's good eats. So tell me if Republicans are justified in painting Obama as a death-panel-creating socialist-communist warlord for doing those exact same things.

So trying to stay on topic, if Fox News can be considered news, than a meme can certainly make an argument. And the argument here is that the shrill fearmongering surrounding Obama, which has been so loud as to actually shape the future of the country, has been utterly baseless. That you continue to dodge the thread's central contention in order to rehash talking points about other things is pretty damning.

 

[Paperman299]

The racial disparity isn't Obama's fault, it is the failed War on Drugs combined with a bored police force on a national scale, because the crime rate nationally has dropped.
In the 1990s the cops on Staten Island would have cared less if someone was selling cigarettes on the street. They had murders in Times Square to deal with.

Then there's this from the uber-conservative Forbes magazine:
From Forbes: Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
9/05/2014 @ 3:46PM

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.

One month variation does not change a trend

Even though the plus-200,000 monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.

And that is great news.

Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the number one issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.

To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.

This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history.

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes

.

Of course...work force participation is lower now than at any time since the Middle Jurassic epoch...

.

Right. That would explain why 326,000 jobs were created last month. Oh not...

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[percysunshine]

.

Of course...work force participation is lower now than at any time since the Middle Jurassic epoch...

.

Right. That would explain why 326,000 jobs were created last month. Oh not...

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

 

[percysunshine]

.

So your point is that Obama has failed at everything he has ever tried?

There might be some disagreement at the margins...but you would still have a good point.

..

.

You might be a dumbass if you didn't get the gist of the OP. Congratulations.

True, I might be a dumbass. However, based on the agree and thanks responses the OP received, it appears that I got the 'gist' perfectly....chuckle

.

 

[Paperman299]

Right. That would explain why 326,000 jobs were created last month. Oh not...

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

Calling the overwhelming consensus of the nation's economists "spin" is some pretty serious spin in itself. And no matter which policies the nation adopts, I can't imagine fear-inducing lies about a president like what's been spewed in the last six years about this one could ever be constructive.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

God does he look faggy in that photo.

 

[percysunshine]

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

Calling the overwhelming consensus of the nation's economists "spin" is some pretty serious spin in itself. And no matter which policies the nation adopts, I can't imagine fear-inducing lies about a president like what's been spewed in the last six years about this one could ever be constructive.

I am pointing to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and you are interpreting that as a malignment of every economist in the nation? Dude, get a grip....put down the bong. Sober up and call back when you have a cogent argument to make.

.

 

[Paperman299]

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

Calling the overwhelming consensus of the nation's economists "spin" is some pretty serious spin in itself. And no matter which policies the nation adopts, I can't imagine fear-inducing lies about a president like what's been spewed in the last six years about this one could ever be constructive.

I am pointing to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and you are interpreting that as a malignment of every economist in the nation? Dude, get a grip....put down the bong. Sober up and call back when you have a cogent argument to make.

.

Now that is some serious spin. I refute that a report of economists' opinions on economic policy is in any way "spin" and you shift into some alternate reality where I claimed the BLS was out to get economists.

Get it through your head: I'm not disputing the data. I've shown you how the conclusions you've drawn from it (ie that Obama somehow caused a recession which began before he took office, and that he somehow mishandled it once it was under way) are mistaken. I'm strongly tempted to explain that my last post specifically had nothing at all to do with the BLS, but it's becoming clear you're downright allergic to information that doesn't already support your views. Good luck in clinging to a small piece of the big picture like driftwood.

 

[Listening]

And Democrats don't have their majority. Do you feel like a dumbass yet?

No. 54 in the Senate. As predicted by most Democrats here. But in 2016, the numbers will change significantly. And if the 'Conservatives' in the GOP make the calls, very significantly.

True.

With a much larger, more diverse voter turnout and two years of republican inaction and advocacy of reckless, irresponsible legislation, the chances are very good democrats retain the WH and take back the Senate in 2016.

Your larger, more diverse turnout occurred because of the Affirmative Action Failure you put up for election.

After Denver and all the realities of "Hope and Change", I question whether or not dems will fall for the same crap.

Best of luck. For now, we own the senate and the house.

You may have it, but what will you accomplish with it? Nothing, if the recent immigration kerfuffle is any indication. It's been the same with Obama's entire presidency; a tired party out of ideas distracting its base by calling 'wolf' on the president. I keep hoping the Republican base will stop falling for that "same crap" but year after year, they do.

You are correct.

That is just what I want congress to do....NOTHING.

 

[Mr. H.]

Six years of resounding success!

 

[orogenicman]

Pity the poor GOP. Dow, record levels, employment, numbers getting better and better, both in rate of pay and number of job openings. Illegal immagration, fewer illegals here than in 2008 when Bush was President. All the GOP has left is "psst, there's a black man in the White House!".

So we can cut welfare in half then? Right?

To what end? You do realize that no welfare funds go to people who aren't in the program, right? In other words, the more jobs there are the fewer people will be in the program, the fewer funds are spent. That doesn't mean that the people still in the program don't need it. But you knew this, right?

I'm just replying to all the liberals trying to make the economy seem to be the best it's ever been. While record number of people are on welfare.

I don't know anyone who is saying it is the best it has ever been. I do see a lot of conservatives who deny that it has gotten better when clearly this year has been far better than it has been in a long while, maybe the last dozen years.

 

[orogenicman]

Right. That would explain why 326,000 jobs were created last month. Oh not...

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

It is also a fact that record numbers of baby boomers are retiring and, quite simply, dying.

 

[gipper]

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

It is also a fact that record numbers of baby boomers are retiring and, quite simply, dying.

How many are retiring because they can't find a job?
Boomers are dying in record numbers??? Really???

 

[Truman123]

Six years later, and the black community is worse off than it was, seething with anger, about to explode, because they didn't get jack-shit from "their black President", and once again, they are being played by the "BLAME IT ON WHITEY CROWD".

Nothing new under the sun.

Obutthurt didn't change shit like he said he was going to. The only thing he has done is make the healthcare system more expensive and less efficient.

And fix the economy that yet another Republican broke.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

Calling the overwhelming consensus of the nation's economists "spin" is some pretty serious spin in itself. And no matter which policies the nation adopts, I can't imagine fear-inducing lies about a president like what's been spewed in the last six years about this one could ever be constructive.

That might be remotely true if one were to take what economists say as gospel t

Are you blaming Obama for a recession that started a few months before his presidency? Do his evil gangster-communist powers transcend time and space now? Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but George W. Bush riding on Ronald Reagan's shoulders like a conservative Master-Blaster couldn't have averted that crisis (but I'm sure our two wars and drastic tax cuts were helpful in preparing us to deal with it). And now economists basically agree that Obama's stimulus saved the economy from becoming much worse. Not bad for someone with unprecedented opposition right out the gate...

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics pretty much explained things for you with the graphic representation.

The hallucinations are yours alone.

.

You might want to compare that graph against a graph which shows you when Obama took office. If you follow that up with a look at economists' actual appraisal of Obama's policy during the recession, then you are on your way to being informed.

Facts are facts. Spin as you wish. Labor participation is at an all time low. The question to ponder is which set of policies will improve the current state of affairs. I suspect we will disagree on that point.

.

It is also a fact that record numbers of baby boomers are retiring and, quite simply, dying.

How many are retiring because they can't find a job?
Boomers are dying in record numbers??? Really???

Yes, we are all getting up there in years. If they are retiring does it matter why? That is their choice, is it not?