Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

LOL

The president you describe as being an unmitigated failure actually has a higher job approval rating than Ronald Reagan did at this same point in his presidency, according to Gallup. And Reagan is a demigod to conservatives. If you want to see what a real unmitigated failure looks like, then take a look at Bush (who you probably voted for) whose job approval rating on this day in 2008 was a miserable 32%.


Reagan actually accomplished valuable things for America and the world.


The unmitigated failure, Barack Hussein Obama has this record:

The Obama Economic Hit-Parade!


1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%


4. When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased $7,514,567,086,650.22--which is $65,443 per household, $70,985 per full-time worker and $84,266 per full-time private-sector worker. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

5. (CNSNews.com) - The federal government drove $789,473,350,613.20 deeper into debt in calendar year 2014, an increase that equaled $6,875 per household, $7,458 per full-time year-round worker, and $8,853 per full-time year-round private-sector worker. According tothe Treasury, the debt started calendar year 2014 at $17,351,970,784,950.10 and ended it at $18,141,444,135,563.30. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%


7. Debt held by the public is up 89%


However, the Obama administrationrecently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.

As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.

The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.

The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.


8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.

Obama’s Numbers, October Update


9...in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery.Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun



12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”

CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

14. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery


15. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year...to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."

MyWay


16. "More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.

The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March."

Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in thelabor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.


17. "The U.S. economy contractedat a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the firstquarter, but there are indications that growth has sincerebounded strongly.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domesticproduct fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worstperformance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace ithad reported last month." Shrink wrapped: US economy contracted sharply in Q1

18. (CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)..... the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June

19. (CNSNews.com)– The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

20. (CNSNews.com) - 11.4 million Americans age 16 and over have left the workforce since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In July 2014, there were 92,001,000 Americans, 16 and over, who were classified as “not in the labor force,” meaning they not only did not have a job, but they didn’t actively seek one in the last four weeks

11,472,000 Americans Have Left Workforce Since Obama Took Office

21. "The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012,according to data released Tuesdayby the Census Bureau. When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits."

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

22. "(CNSNews.com)-- In June 2014, there were 46,496,145 recipients of the food stamp program, which is enough to fill the Yankee Stadium 925 times, according todata fromthe Department of Agriculture " 46,496,145: Food Stamp Recipients Can Fill Yankee Stadium 925 Times

23. In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls“an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton." Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart

24. "Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama
Those of you paying attention have noticed that the Obama administration is actually doing what it promised: transforming America into a gigantic welfare state." Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama

25. Washington, D.C.- An unabated influx of illegal aliens along the southern border of the United States is causing a health crisis in the border region. Actions by the Obama Administration to disperse illegals across America while providing an incentive for more illegals to come could lead to a nationwide health crisis that is likely to manifest itself first within our public schools.....It has spread as far north as southern Mexico and south into Panama. Diseases such as this could be carried across our border by illegal immigrants and could create a nationwide health crisis. Chicken pox, measles, mumps and tuberculosis are already causing problems." — Project 21 member Michael Dozier, Ph.D., an expert in homeland security issues and talk radio host who has worked with humanitarian aid missions in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the United States

Public Schools Face Health Threat from Illegal Aliens


26. "Despite the improving economy, most Americans continue to say that they are falling behind the cost of living. Overall, 55% said in theJan. 7-11 surveythat their family’s income is falling behind the cost of living,.... Views on this question have shown no improvement over the course of the last year..." Public opinion on the economy and Obama’s handling of it


27. "But with February’s slow down the 12-month wage growth rate ticked down to 2%....[Under Reagan: 'In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures ] Totalemployment gains in December and January were therefore 18,000 lower than what BLS previously reported. The labor force participation rate ticked lower to 62.8% from 62.9%, ..." Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added 295,000 Jobs In February, Unemployment Down To 5.5%

a. "But wage gains continued to lag, rising only 0.1 percent in February for private-sector workers after a reported 0.5 increase in January.... .“We hear we’re on the road to recovery, but people aren’t convinced of that.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-february.html?_r=0

b. "White youths saw their rate decrease 1.4 percent to 15 percent, but young African-Americans saw theirs reach 30 percent, a 0.3 percent increase.... For the population as a whole, participation rates are still hovering around their 1978 lows at 62.8 percent,..." Unemployment Down To 5.5 Percent In February

c. "92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February, according todatareleased from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday. ...The 157,002,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 249,899,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level since February 1978 (62.7 percent) in September and December of 2014. 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months

(CNSNews.com) - A record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, were not in the labor force in February.,,, According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January. 56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force

28. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

29. "More Businesses Shutting Down than Starting Up
'Business deaths now exceed business births for the first time' in decades.
The American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades. That's the conclusion of anew study out from the Brookings Institution, which looks at the rates of new business creation and destruction since 1978.

Not only that, but during the most recent three years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011." More Businesses Shutting Down than Starting Up

30. Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low
Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low

31. Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year
In fresh data that adds fire to a growing debate over income inequality, the department said that Americans on average saw income decline for the second straight year in the 12 months to June 2014.

The average pre-tax income fell 0.9 percent from the same period a year earlier, to $64,432. Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year

32. "The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you arenotcounted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringlylow rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population,..." The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

a. "....the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called "market" which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus - the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy." Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000 | Zero Hedge

33. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

34. After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015


35. "The share of North America in the global high-income population decreased from 54% in 2001 to 46% in 2011,.... several countries in Western Europe had higher shares of high-income populations than the U.S. in 2011...the U.S. had the unfortunate distinction of slipping backwards as the share of its high-income population decreased from 58% in 2001 to 56% in 2011....The proportion of Americans who are upper-middle income barely moved from 31% in 2001 to 32% in 2011, and the share that is high income actually fell, as noted, from 58% to 56%....The median annual household income in the U.S. fell from $53,646 in 2001 to $50,054 in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau)..... Unlike in the U.S., Canadian residents progressed from upper-middle income to the high-income standard of living...."Despite Poverty’s Plunge, Middle-Class Status Remains Out of Reach for Many

36. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush.And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion

37. The number of people not in the labor force reached another record high in July, according to new jobs data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
TheBLS reportsthat 93,770,000 people (16 and older) were neither employed last month nor had made specific efforts to find work in the prior four weeks.

Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force - Breitbart

.... a 38-year low, the Labor Department reported on Friday.... -- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2,180,000 in July (up from 2,121,000 in June). These individuals accounted for 26.9 percent of the unemployed. Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 38-Year Low

According to the BLS,56,209,000 women aged 16 and older were not participating in the workforce in July, besting April’srecordof 56,167,000 Record 56,209,000 Women Not in Labor Force - Breitbart


38. Average unemployment rate under Bush: 5.31

Average unemployment rate under Obama: 8.46 United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016 (thru 2014)

39. "(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July ---- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) held at 2.2 million in August and accounted for 27.7 percent of the unemployed..." Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Stuck at 38-Year Low for 3rd Straight Month

40. "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0

41. "....US hourly wages have not only not increased for the past 7 years, but for thevast majority of the labor force continue to decline,....just the month of August will be enough to provide the Trump - and every other - campaign with enough soundbites and pivot points to last it for weeks on end: namely, that in August a whopping 698,000 native-born Americans lost their job. This drop was offset by 204,000 foreign-born Americans, who got a job in the month of August. .... since December 2007, according to the Household Survey,only 790,000 native born Americanjobs have been added. Contrast that withthe 2.1 million foreign-born Americanswho have found a job over the same time period..." 698K Native-Born Americans Lost Their Job In August: Why This Suddenly Is The Most Important Jobs Chart | Zero Hedge

42. October 2015: "Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower" Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower | Zero Hedge

43. "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of theoriginal $2 billion appropriated in 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.

...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses

44. "Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving
This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring."
Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving


45. "...ObamaCare experiment costing taxpayers $2.4 billionis failing. The co-ops were founded on the idealistic belief that community members could band together to create health insurance companies that would be member-driven, service-oriented, and would not have to answer to shareholders or turn a profit."

400,000 Citizens To Lose Health Insurance (Again) Because Of Obamacare Co-Op Failures


46. "The U.S. expanded at a 2.2% rate through the first nine months of the year, and the economy is projected to grow at a similar pace in the fourth quarter that ends on Dec. 31. If so, the economy will have failed to reach 3% growth for the 10th straight year, marking the slowest stretch since the end of World War II.

Historically the economy has expanded at a 3.3% rate." U.S. economy set to grow less than 3% for the 10th straight year

47. "Congress has now cleared the way for federal debt to pass$20 trillionby the end of the president’s second term. President Obama said the new budget deal will be paid for in a “balanced” and “responsible” way, but on the day the deal was signed, the federal debt jumped $339 billion—a third of a trillion dollars in one day." Societywatch

48. The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2015 is 0.8 percent on January 8, down from 1.0 percent on January 6. The forecast for the contribution of inventory investment to fourth-quarter real GDP growth declined 0.2 percentage points to -0.8 percentage points after this morning's wholesale trade report from the U.S. Census Bureau. GDPNow

49. "Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009 Sales at U.S. retailers declined in December to wrap the weakest year since 2009, raising concern about the momentum in consumer spending heading into 2016. The 0.1 percent drop matched the median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg and followed a 0.4 percent gain in November, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. For all of 2015, purchases climbed 2.1 percent, the smallest advance of the current economic expansion." Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

50. " The federal government heavily subsidizes higher education through a complex system of grants and loans. While the programs are great for colleges — they haveenabledan astronomical increase in tuition — they contain few measures holding the institutions accountable to their students. As a result, only59 percentof students graduate from four-year colleges and universities within six years. Those lucky enough to graduate face another hurdle:44 percentof recent college graduates occupy jobs which do not require a college degree. Taken together, these numbers suggest that only one-third of college enrollees emerge from the system with both a degree and a relevant job." http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/what-free-college-cant-fix/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuq/JZKXonjHpfsX57OkvWaW+lMI/0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ARcNkI+SLDwEYGJlv6SgFQ7HBMbhr1rgPWhk=

51."U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter
Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output,expanded at a 0.7% seasonally adjusted annualized ratein the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. The economy had advanced 2% in the third quarter and 3.9% in the second quarter."
U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter


52. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


53. According to the2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. Since early2009:

· Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.

· The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.

· The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.

· Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation. http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/31/americas-economic-freedom-has-rapidly-declined-under-obama/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovvKXPZKXonjHpfsX57eQrUKW0lMI/0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ASMpgMa+TFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

54. "Despite the unemployment rate being at an eight-year low (4.9 percent as of January 2016), the number of people on food stampsremains near an all-time highwhich was 47,636,000 in 2013.

Why the disparity in the numbers? Well, the unemployment rate does not take into account people who are not in, or have dropped out of, the workforce altogether.

The Bureau of Labor Statisticsreportedin January of this year that approximately 94 million Americans are not participating in the workforce.

We now have a country based on government dependence." Food Stamp Users Near Record High Despite Low Unemployment Rate

55. "CHICAGO (Reuters) - Predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago have seen poverty rise and services diminish even as the nation's third largest city has become less racially segregated,.... black areas are seeing economic stagnation or decline,.... mostly black areas have lost health clinics, social service agencies and other areas of support..." Exclusive: Poverty up, services diminished in Chicago's black neighborhoods - study


56. "Employers added more workers in February than projected but wages unexpectedly declined, dashing hopes that reduced slack in the labor market was starting to benefit all Americans..... Average hourly earnings dropped by 0.1 percent from the prior month, the first decline since December 2014 the Labor Department’s figures showed. Worker pay increased 2.2 percent over the 12 months ended in February, less than the 2.5 percent forecast in the Bloomberg survey. Wage growth has been hovering just above 2 percent year-over-year on average since the current expansion began in mid-2009." Payrolls in U.S. Surge While Wages Drop in Mixed Jobs Report

57. New Obama regulation will deprive middle class investors of access to financial information. "...the controversial pending Department of Labor regulation that would impose new restrictions on a vast swath of financial professionals... a newreportfor the Competitive Enterprise Institute, similar restrictions in Great Britain have caused a “guidance gap” in which brokers have largely stopped serving customers with assets less than £150,000 ($240,000).... Such limits on financial discussion may seem to violate the First Amendment..." How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey

58. "U.S. retail sales dropped in February and the prior month’s gain was revised to a decline, calling into question the narrative that bigger gains in consumer spending would propel economic growth at the start of 2016. The 0.1 percent decline in purchases followed a revised 0.4 percent January decrease, Commerce Department figures showed Tuesday.... “We’re seeing higher rents, higher healthcare expenses,.... Retail sales excluding autos fell 0.1 percent after a 0.4 percent decrease in January, according to Tuesday’s report." Retail Sales in U.S. Decline After January Revised Down

59. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.” The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



Excellent link showing the economy US Household Income | Department of Numbers
Too bad your logorrhea doesn't change the reality that according to Gallup, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:

the sheeples delude themselves that ronnie wasn't a horrible president
When the cons look to Raygun as their Messiah, it leaves no doubt that the GOP is not the solution. Raygun tripled the national debt, sold chemical weapons to Iraq and missiles to Iran, gave a billion dollars worth of stinger missiles to the Taliban, sold cocaine with Noriega to get money to buy weapons for the Contras...and did it all behind the backs of congress and the American people....and then claimed he had old farts decease. That is the con hero...fucking pitiful.

shall we compare Reagan's accomplishments with Obama's?

1. how many $ did Reagan add to the debt? how many $ did Obama add?
2. Reagan brought the soviet union down, Obama brought ISIS up
3. Reagan brought down the Berlin wall. Obama drew a red line in Syria and then ignored it
4. Reagan brought patriotism back, Obama has divided the country like no president in history
5. The world respected Reagan, the world laughs at Obama


But we understand, since your candidates are such failures all you can do is try to denigrate others. We get it.
You can compare all you want. Your opinion will still hold a MoE of 99 percentage points.

Meanwhile, scientific polling reveals Obama has a higher job approval rating than Reagan at this point in his presidency.

Sucks for you, I know; but that only makes it sweeter. :mm:
 
Reagan actually accomplished valuable things for America and the world.


The unmitigated failure, Barack Hussein Obama has this record:

The Obama Economic Hit-Parade!


1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%


4. When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased $7,514,567,086,650.22--which is $65,443 per household, $70,985 per full-time worker and $84,266 per full-time private-sector worker. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

5. (CNSNews.com) - The federal government drove $789,473,350,613.20 deeper into debt in calendar year 2014, an increase that equaled $6,875 per household, $7,458 per full-time year-round worker, and $8,853 per full-time year-round private-sector worker. According tothe Treasury, the debt started calendar year 2014 at $17,351,970,784,950.10 and ended it at $18,141,444,135,563.30. Under Obama: Federal Debt Up $84,266 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%


7. Debt held by the public is up 89%


However, the Obama administrationrecently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.

As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.

The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.

The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.


8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.

Obama’s Numbers, October Update


9...in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery.Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun



12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”

CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made


13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.

Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession

14. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery


15. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year...to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."

MyWay


16. "More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.

The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March."

Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in thelabor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.


17. "The U.S. economy contractedat a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the firstquarter, but there are indications that growth has sincerebounded strongly.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domesticproduct fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worstperformance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace ithad reported last month." Shrink wrapped: US economy contracted sharply in Q1

18. (CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)..... the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June

19. (CNSNews.com)– The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

20. (CNSNews.com) - 11.4 million Americans age 16 and over have left the workforce since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In July 2014, there were 92,001,000 Americans, 16 and over, who were classified as “not in the labor force,” meaning they not only did not have a job, but they didn’t actively seek one in the last four weeks

11,472,000 Americans Have Left Workforce Since Obama Took Office

21. "The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012,according to data released Tuesdayby the Census Bureau. When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits."

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

22. "(CNSNews.com)-- In June 2014, there were 46,496,145 recipients of the food stamp program, which is enough to fill the Yankee Stadium 925 times, according todata fromthe Department of Agriculture " 46,496,145: Food Stamp Recipients Can Fill Yankee Stadium 925 Times

23. In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls“an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton." Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart

24. "Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama
Those of you paying attention have noticed that the Obama administration is actually doing what it promised: transforming America into a gigantic welfare state." Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama

25. Washington, D.C.- An unabated influx of illegal aliens along the southern border of the United States is causing a health crisis in the border region. Actions by the Obama Administration to disperse illegals across America while providing an incentive for more illegals to come could lead to a nationwide health crisis that is likely to manifest itself first within our public schools.....It has spread as far north as southern Mexico and south into Panama. Diseases such as this could be carried across our border by illegal immigrants and could create a nationwide health crisis. Chicken pox, measles, mumps and tuberculosis are already causing problems." — Project 21 member Michael Dozier, Ph.D., an expert in homeland security issues and talk radio host who has worked with humanitarian aid missions in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the United States

Public Schools Face Health Threat from Illegal Aliens


26. "Despite the improving economy, most Americans continue to say that they are falling behind the cost of living. Overall, 55% said in theJan. 7-11 surveythat their family’s income is falling behind the cost of living,.... Views on this question have shown no improvement over the course of the last year..." Public opinion on the economy and Obama’s handling of it


27. "But with February’s slow down the 12-month wage growth rate ticked down to 2%....[Under Reagan: 'In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures ] Totalemployment gains in December and January were therefore 18,000 lower than what BLS previously reported. The labor force participation rate ticked lower to 62.8% from 62.9%, ..." Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Added 295,000 Jobs In February, Unemployment Down To 5.5%

a. "But wage gains continued to lag, rising only 0.1 percent in February for private-sector workers after a reported 0.5 increase in January.... .“We hear we’re on the road to recovery, but people aren’t convinced of that.”Log In - The New York Times

b. "White youths saw their rate decrease 1.4 percent to 15 percent, but young African-Americans saw theirs reach 30 percent, a 0.3 percent increase.... For the population as a whole, participation rates are still hovering around their 1978 lows at 62.8 percent,..." Unemployment Down To 5.5 Percent In February

c. "92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February, according todatareleased from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Friday. ...The 157,002,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 249,899,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level since February 1978 (62.7 percent) in September and December of 2014. 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months

(CNSNews.com) - A record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, were not in the labor force in February.,,, According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January. 56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force

28. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

29. "More Businesses Shutting Down than Starting Up
'Business deaths now exceed business births for the first time' in decades.
The American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades. That's the conclusion of anew study out from the Brookings Institution, which looks at the rates of new business creation and destruction since 1978.

Not only that, but during the most recent three years of the study -- 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed, a first. Overall, new businesses creation (measured as the share of all businesses less than one year old) declined by about half from 1978 to 2011." More Businesses Shutting Down than Starting Up

30. Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low
Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low

31. Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year
In fresh data that adds fire to a growing debate over income inequality, the department said that Americans on average saw income decline for the second straight year in the 12 months to June 2014.

The average pre-tax income fell 0.9 percent from the same period a year earlier, to $64,432. Except for rich, Americans' incomes fell last year

32. "The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you arenotcounted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.

Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringlylow rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population,..." The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

a. "....the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called "market" which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus - the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy." Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000 | Zero Hedge

33. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record

34. After 6 1/2 years of Obama, 47% of Americans could not handle a $400 expense:

"The survey results reveal a lack of economic preparedness among many adults. Only 53 percent of respondents indicate that they could cover a hypothetical emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money. Thirty-one percent of respondents report going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it." FRB: Press Release--Federal Reserve Board issues Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households--May 27, 2015


35. "The share of North America in the global high-income population decreased from 54% in 2001 to 46% in 2011,.... several countries in Western Europe had higher shares of high-income populations than the U.S. in 2011...the U.S. had the unfortunate distinction of slipping backwards as the share of its high-income population decreased from 58% in 2001 to 56% in 2011....The proportion of Americans who are upper-middle income barely moved from 31% in 2001 to 32% in 2011, and the share that is high income actually fell, as noted, from 58% to 56%....The median annual household income in the U.S. fell from $53,646 in 2001 to $50,054 in 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau)..... Unlike in the U.S., Canadian residents progressed from upper-middle income to the high-income standard of living...."Despite Poverty’s Plunge, Middle-Class Status Remains Out of Reach for Many

36. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush.And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion

37. The number of people not in the labor force reached another record high in July, according to new jobs data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
TheBLS reportsthat 93,770,000 people (16 and older) were neither employed last month nor had made specific efforts to find work in the prior four weeks.

Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force - Breitbart

.... a 38-year low, the Labor Department reported on Friday.... -- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2,180,000 in July (up from 2,121,000 in June). These individuals accounted for 26.9 percent of the unemployed. Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 38-Year Low

According to the BLS,56,209,000 women aged 16 and older were not participating in the workforce in July, besting April’srecordof 56,167,000 Record 56,209,000 Women Not in Labor Force - Breitbart


38. Average unemployment rate under Bush: 5.31

Average unemployment rate under Obama: 8.46 United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016 (thru 2014)

39. "(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July ---- The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) held at 2.2 million in August and accounted for 27.7 percent of the unemployed..." Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Stuck at 38-Year Low for 3rd Straight Month

40. "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." Log In - The New York Times

41. "....US hourly wages have not only not increased for the past 7 years, but for thevast majority of the labor force continue to decline,....just the month of August will be enough to provide the Trump - and every other - campaign with enough soundbites and pivot points to last it for weeks on end: namely, that in August a whopping 698,000 native-born Americans lost their job. This drop was offset by 204,000 foreign-born Americans, who got a job in the month of August. .... since December 2007, according to the Household Survey,only 790,000 native born Americanjobs have been added. Contrast that withthe 2.1 million foreign-born Americanswho have found a job over the same time period..." 698K Native-Born Americans Lost Their Job In August: Why This Suddenly Is The Most Important Jobs Chart | Zero Hedge

42. October 2015: "Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower" Payrolls Disaster: Only 142K Jobs Added In September With Zero Wage Growth; August Revised Much Lower | Zero Hedge

43. "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of theoriginal $2 billion appropriated in 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.

...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses

44. "Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving
This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring."
Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving


45. "...ObamaCare experiment costing taxpayers $2.4 billionis failing. The co-ops were founded on the idealistic belief that community members could band together to create health insurance companies that would be member-driven, service-oriented, and would not have to answer to shareholders or turn a profit."

400,000 Citizens To Lose Health Insurance (Again) Because Of Obamacare Co-Op Failures


46. "The U.S. expanded at a 2.2% rate through the first nine months of the year, and the economy is projected to grow at a similar pace in the fourth quarter that ends on Dec. 31. If so, the economy will have failed to reach 3% growth for the 10th straight year, marking the slowest stretch since the end of World War II.

Historically the economy has expanded at a 3.3% rate." U.S. economy set to grow less than 3% for the 10th straight year

47. "Congress has now cleared the way for federal debt to pass$20 trillionby the end of the president’s second term. President Obama said the new budget deal will be paid for in a “balanced” and “responsible” way, but on the day the deal was signed, the federal debt jumped $339 billion—a third of a trillion dollars in one day." Societywatch

48. The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the fourth quarter of 2015 is 0.8 percent on January 8, down from 1.0 percent on January 6. The forecast for the contribution of inventory investment to fourth-quarter real GDP growth declined 0.2 percentage points to -0.8 percentage points after this morning's wholesale trade report from the U.S. Census Bureau. GDPNow

49. "Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009 Sales at U.S. retailers declined in December to wrap the weakest year since 2009, raising concern about the momentum in consumer spending heading into 2016. The 0.1 percent drop matched the median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg and followed a 0.4 percent gain in November, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. For all of 2015, purchases climbed 2.1 percent, the smallest advance of the current economic expansion." Retail Sales in U.S. Decrease to End Weakest Year Since 2009

50. " The federal government heavily subsidizes higher education through a complex system of grants and loans. While the programs are great for colleges — they haveenabledan astronomical increase in tuition — they contain few measures holding the institutions accountable to their students. As a result, only59 percentof students graduate from four-year colleges and universities within six years. Those lucky enough to graduate face another hurdle:44 percentof recent college graduates occupy jobs which do not require a college degree. Taken together, these numbers suggest that only one-third of college enrollees emerge from the system with both a degree and a relevant job." http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/what-free-college-cant-fix/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuq/JZKXonjHpfsX57OkvWaW+lMI/0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ARcNkI+SLDwEYGJlv6SgFQ7HBMbhr1rgPWhk=

51."U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter
Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output,expanded at a 0.7% seasonally adjusted annualized ratein the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. The economy had advanced 2% in the third quarter and 3.9% in the second quarter."
U.S. Economy Grew Anemic 0.7% in Fourth Quarter


52. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


53. According to the2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress. Since early2009:

· Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.

· The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.

· The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.

· Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation. http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/31/americas-economic-freedom-has-rapidly-declined-under-obama/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovvKXPZKXonjHpfsX57eQrUKW0lMI/0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ASMpgMa+TFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

54. "Despite the unemployment rate being at an eight-year low (4.9 percent as of January 2016), the number of people on food stampsremains near an all-time highwhich was 47,636,000 in 2013.

Why the disparity in the numbers? Well, the unemployment rate does not take into account people who are not in, or have dropped out of, the workforce altogether.

The Bureau of Labor Statisticsreportedin January of this year that approximately 94 million Americans are not participating in the workforce.

We now have a country based on government dependence." Food Stamp Users Near Record High Despite Low Unemployment Rate

55. "CHICAGO (Reuters) - Predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago have seen poverty rise and services diminish even as the nation's third largest city has become less racially segregated,.... black areas are seeing economic stagnation or decline,.... mostly black areas have lost health clinics, social service agencies and other areas of support..." Exclusive: Poverty up, services diminished in Chicago's black neighborhoods - study


56. "Employers added more workers in February than projected but wages unexpectedly declined, dashing hopes that reduced slack in the labor market was starting to benefit all Americans..... Average hourly earnings dropped by 0.1 percent from the prior month, the first decline since December 2014 the Labor Department’s figures showed. Worker pay increased 2.2 percent over the 12 months ended in February, less than the 2.5 percent forecast in the Bloomberg survey. Wage growth has been hovering just above 2 percent year-over-year on average since the current expansion began in mid-2009." Payrolls in U.S. Surge While Wages Drop in Mixed Jobs Report

57. New Obama regulation will deprive middle class investors of access to financial information. "...the controversial pending Department of Labor regulation that would impose new restrictions on a vast swath of financial professionals... a newreportfor the Competitive Enterprise Institute, similar restrictions in Great Britain have caused a “guidance gap” in which brokers have largely stopped serving customers with assets less than £150,000 ($240,000).... Such limits on financial discussion may seem to violate the First Amendment..." How Fiduciary Rule May Censor Financial Broadcasters Like Dave Ramsey

58. "U.S. retail sales dropped in February and the prior month’s gain was revised to a decline, calling into question the narrative that bigger gains in consumer spending would propel economic growth at the start of 2016. The 0.1 percent decline in purchases followed a revised 0.4 percent January decrease, Commerce Department figures showed Tuesday.... “We’re seeing higher rents, higher healthcare expenses,.... Retail sales excluding autos fell 0.1 percent after a 0.4 percent decrease in January, according to Tuesday’s report." Retail Sales in U.S. Decline After January Revised Down

59. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.” The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



Excellent link showing the economy US Household Income | Department of Numbers
Too bad your logorrhea doesn't change the reality that according to Gallup, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:
That you will have to prove, regressive.
Reagan .... 51%
Obama .... 53%




Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval



Now....this post is going to be both instructive,and dispositive, with respect to those giving their approve to the most destructive President in American history.


Watch this.

1. Are there any of the 60 abject failures of Barack Hussein Obama that I documented in post #1095, that you can deny, or respond to in a fashion that would put Obama in a favorable light?

That's some five dozen failures that you have tried to ignore.


2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?

3.Therefore, approval must simply mean that the positive raters are simply uninformed......or less than honest.
True?



BTW....I can provide a similar list for his failures in foreign policy....just ask.
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
 
Too bad your logorrhea doesn't change the reality that according to Gallup, Obama's job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:
That you will have to prove, regressive.
Reagan .... 51%
Obama .... 53%




Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval



Now....this post is going to be both instructive,and dispositive, with respect to those giving their approve to the most destructive President in American history.


Watch this.

1. Are there any of the 60 abject failures of Barack Hussein Obama that I documented in post #1095, that you can deny, or respond to in a fashion that would put Obama in a favorable light?

That's some five dozen failures that you have tried to ignore.


2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?

3.Therefore, approval must simply mean that the positive raters are simply uninformed......or less than honest.
True?



BTW....I can provide a similar list for his failures in foreign policy....just ask.
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
Piling on idiocy on top of idiocy doesn't help you.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......
 
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:
 
That you will have to prove, regressive.
Reagan .... 51%
Obama .... 53%




Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval



Now....this post is going to be both instructive,and dispositive, with respect to those giving their approve to the most destructive President in American history.


Watch this.

1. Are there any of the 60 abject failures of Barack Hussein Obama that I documented in post #1095, that you can deny, or respond to in a fashion that would put Obama in a favorable light?

That's some five dozen failures that you have tried to ignore.


2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?

3.Therefore, approval must simply mean that the positive raters are simply uninformed......or less than honest.
True?



BTW....I can provide a similar list for his failures in foreign policy....just ask.
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
Piling on idiocy on top of idiocy doesn't help you.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......




"Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......


Take notes:

The entry of Democrat policy into the private home mortgage market caused the mortgage meltdown.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and, ultimately, Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.

I don't believe you can handle the details.



It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.




BTW....the Bush administration warned over and over....and I'd be happy to document that if you have any doubts.
 
Last edited:
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:



And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?
 
Reagan .... 51%
Obama .... 53%




Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval



Now....this post is going to be both instructive,and dispositive, with respect to those giving their approve to the most destructive President in American history.


Watch this.

1. Are there any of the 60 abject failures of Barack Hussein Obama that I documented in post #1095, that you can deny, or respond to in a fashion that would put Obama in a favorable light?

That's some five dozen failures that you have tried to ignore.


2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?

3.Therefore, approval must simply mean that the positive raters are simply uninformed......or less than honest.
True?



BTW....I can provide a similar list for his failures in foreign policy....just ask.
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
Piling on idiocy on top of idiocy doesn't help you.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......


The entry of Democrat policy into the private home mortgage market caused the mortgage meltdown.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.

I don't believe you can handle the details.



It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.



BTW....the Bush administration warned over and over....and I'd be happy to document that if you have any doubts.
This shit again? <smh>

The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.​

A 30 year old law did not cause the crash. Get over it.

As far as Bush warning Congress... that was almost entirely while Republicans controlled both chambers.

Nice lack of personal responsibility you'you're sportin' there.
thumbsup.gif
 
Now....this post is going to be both instructive,and dispositive, with respect to those giving their approve to the most destructive President in American history.


Watch this.

1. Are there any of the 60 abject failures of Barack Hussein Obama that I documented in post #1095, that you can deny, or respond to in a fashion that would put Obama in a favorable light?

That's some five dozen failures that you have tried to ignore.


2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?

3.Therefore, approval must simply mean that the positive raters are simply uninformed......or less than honest.
True?



BTW....I can provide a similar list for his failures in foreign policy....just ask.
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
Piling on idiocy on top of idiocy doesn't help you.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......


The entry of Democrat policy into the private home mortgage market caused the mortgage meltdown.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.

I don't believe you can handle the details.



It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.



BTW....the Bush administration warned over and over....and I'd be happy to document that if you have any doubts.
This shit again? <smh>

The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.​

A 30 year old law did not cause the crash. Get over it.

As far as Bush warning Congress... that was almost entirely while Republicans controlled both chambers.

Nice lack of personal responsibility you'you're sportin' there.
thumbsup.gif


1. Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


2. Now, the truth about the CRA, and why it is responsible to the damage:

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

c. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_homeownership.html




It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.
 
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:



And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?
I already pointed out you list is meaningless since much of it was influenced by the Great Recession Bush handed Obama.

As far as the link you posted, here's what the hedge-fund manager you linked said...

Because he's [Obama] done a great job.

"The strides we've made the last eight years are pretty amazing," billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Chanos told CNN's Poppy Harlow this week from his midtown Manhattan office.

[......]

Chanos rattled off a laundry list of things that reflect the Obama economy's success: The country is nearing full employment, the stock market is near all-time highs, corporate profits have shattered records, there's universal health care, gas prices are near $2 a gallon, and the federal deficit has shrunk.

"Of all the major economies right now, we're the place to be," Chanos said.

Yep, that some condemnation of Obama you linked.

:dance:
 
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:



And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?
I already pointed out you list is meaningless since much of it was influenced by the Great Recession Bush handed Obama.

As far as the link you posted, here's what the hedge-fund manager you linked said...

Because he's [Obama] done a great job.

"The strides we've made the last eight years are pretty amazing," billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Chanos told CNN's Poppy Harlow this week from his midtown Manhattan office.

[......]

Chanos rattled off a laundry list of things that reflect the Obama economy's success: The country is nearing full employment, the stock market is near all-time highs, corporate profits have shattered records, there's universal health care, gas prices are near $2 a gallon, and the federal deficit has shrunk.

"Of all the major economies right now, we're the place to be," Chanos said.

Yep, that some condemnation of Obama you linked.

:dance:


"I already pointed out you list is meaningless since much of it was influenced by the Great Recession Bush handed Obama."

The incompetent you voted for has had seven years to deal with the recession.

Republican Harding ended a far worse downturn in 1-2 years.

Why couldn't Obama do it?



Why don't you care to answer this question:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Simple query....why the fear?



And why has Obama been the first President in almost 90 years that hasn't had even 3% real GDP growth?
Why is that?

BTW....a little economics education:
a. "A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion." Milton Friedman, "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau," ch.12, in "The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays."

b. "...since the 1880's, the average annual growth rate of real GDP during financial recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%, while the growth rate from non-financial crisis recessions was 6.9%." Bardo and Haubrich, "Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence From the American Record," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June 2012.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf


You made a mistake with Obama, didn't you.
 
Your logorrhea isn't a list of failures you idiotically think it is. While you attribute every dime of debt since the day he was sworn in, every person fallen to poverty, every job lost, etc....

.... you do so by ignoring the Great Recession he inherited from Bush which is largely responsible for those numbers during his first year in office.

That you seek to hold him responsible for the Great Recession speaks more to your dishonesty than it does his performance.

Most people understand that which is why most people think he's doing a good job and why his job approval rating is higher than Reagan's was at this same point in his presidency.

:dance:


1. If you assign the blame for the Democrat mortgage meltdown to Bush...and it only occurred at the end of his presidency....his average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
...why, then, isn't Obama responsible for every failure....almost 60 that I cataloged....during his entire seven years?

Why?

2. If every one is correct in highlighting the inability of Obama to govern in a way that would benefit our citizens.....

.....how, then, can you justify assigning any positive approval rating to the man?
Piling on idiocy on top of idiocy doesn't help you.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Name the bill(s) the 2007 Democrat-led Congress passed (or failed to pass) that you think caused the Great Recession......


The entry of Democrat policy into the private home mortgage market caused the mortgage meltdown.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.

I don't believe you can handle the details.



It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.



BTW....the Bush administration warned over and over....and I'd be happy to document that if you have any doubts.
This shit again? <smh>

The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.​

A 30 year old law did not cause the crash. Get over it.

As far as Bush warning Congress... that was almost entirely while Republicans controlled both chambers.

Nice lack of personal responsibility you'you're sportin' there.
thumbsup.gif


1. Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.


2. Now, the truth about the CRA, and why it is responsible to the damage:

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

c. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_homeownership.html




It's simple enough to prove:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Of course not.
Yeah, good idea for you to pretend I didn't just post the results of a study showing CRA loans comprised only 6% of the higher priced loans and that some 80% of the lenders who wrote toxic loans were not subject to CRA regulations.

Good job!
thumbsup.gif
 
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:



And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?
I already pointed out you list is meaningless since much of it was influenced by the Great Recession Bush handed Obama.

As far as the link you posted, here's what the hedge-fund manager you linked said...

Because he's [Obama] done a great job.

"The strides we've made the last eight years are pretty amazing," billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Chanos told CNN's Poppy Harlow this week from his midtown Manhattan office.

[......]

Chanos rattled off a laundry list of things that reflect the Obama economy's success: The country is nearing full employment, the stock market is near all-time highs, corporate profits have shattered records, there's universal health care, gas prices are near $2 a gallon, and the federal deficit has shrunk.

"Of all the major economies right now, we're the place to be," Chanos said.

Yep, that some condemnation of Obama you linked.

:dance:


"I already pointed out you list is meaningless since much of it was influenced by the Great Recession Bush handed Obama."

The incompetent you voted for has had seven years to deal with the recession.

Republican Harding ended a far worse downturn in 1-2 years.

Why couldn't Obama do it?



Why don't you care to answer this question:
If there had been no Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Simple query....why the fear?



And why has Obama been the first President in almost 90 years that hasn't had even 3% real GDP growth?
Why is that?

BTW....a little economics education:
a. "A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion." Milton Friedman, "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau," ch.12, in "The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays."

b. "...since the 1880's, the average annual growth rate of real GDP during financial recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%, while the growth rate from non-financial crisis recessions was 6.9%." Bardo and Haubrich, "Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence From the American Record," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June 2012.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf


You made a mistake with Obama, didn't you.
And the Great Recession is over. Again, from your link...

The country is nearing full employment, the stock market is near all-time highs, corporate profits have shattered records, there's universal health care, gas prices are near $2 a gallon, and the federal deficit has shrunk.

Did I mention that was from a link you posted? :lmao:
 
Last edited:
BS, a representative sample is at least 5%, anything less is meaningless.

Oh, I understand how the pollsters claim that their 1000 people proportionally represents the entire 330 million americans, but anyone who buys that is lacking some brain cells.
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Holyfuckingshit! :eusa_doh:

You didn't read your own link, did you?

logo.gif


It was 384 at half a million and didn't grow any larger even out of a population of one million.

You're actually stupid enough to think you should multiply that 384 by the number of millions in the population size. :eusa_doh:

1233796371590.gif
that one never disappoints :D

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk
 
BS, a representative sample is at least 5%, anything less is meaningless.

Oh, I understand how the pollsters claim that their 1000 people proportionally represents the entire 330 million americans, but anyone who buys that is lacking some brain cells.
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Only about 120 million vote
But you ignore what happens when you take multiple samples from the same population and the samples repeatedly give the same to results. Something called Standard Deviation.


I am quite sure that I understand SD much better than you do. You are free to believe the pollsters if you choose, I really don't care what you believe. A sample of 1000 out of 330 million or 120 million is not statistically meaningful no matter how you try to spin it. Math is math, its laws are not subject to political manipulation.

I repeat: current polling is designed to influence public opinion rather than report on it.

Do you think that the Luntz gatherings of 20 or 30 people have any significance as to what the entire nation is thinking? Did you believe the polls in 2012 that said Romney would win? How about the ones in 2008 that said that Hillary would be the dem nominee? did you believe them?
 
BS, a representative sample is at least 5%, anything less is meaningless.

Oh, I understand how the pollsters claim that their 1000 people proportionally represents the entire 330 million americans, but anyone who buys that is lacking some brain cells.
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Holyfuckingshit! :eusa_doh:

You didn't read your own link, did you?

logo.gif


It was 384 at half a million and didn't grow any larger even out of a population of one million.

You're actually stupid enough to think you should multiply that 384 by the number of millions in the population size. :eusa_doh:

1233796371590.gif


of course that's not what it said, but you are a lib so no one expects to actually read something and absorb it.
 
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Only about 120 million vote
But you ignore what happens when you take multiple samples from the same population and the samples repeatedly give the same to results. Something called Standard Deviation.


I am quite sure that I understand SD much better than you do. You are free to believe the pollsters if you choose, I really don't care what you believe. A sample of 1000 out of 330 million or 120 million is not statistically meaningful no matter how you try to spin it. Math is math, its laws are not subject to political manipulation.

I repeat: current polling is designed to influence public opinion rather than report on it.

Do you think that the Luntz gatherings of 20 or 30 people have any significance as to what the entire nation is thinking? Did you believe the polls in 2012 that said Romney would win? How about the ones in 2008 that said that Hillary would be the dem nominee? did you believe them?
You can say you do until you're blue in the face, but if you truly did, you never would have said the margin of error on 1,000 respondents is 15% and you certainly never would have multiplied 384 x 330, according to the chart you posted. That was just absolutely fucking brain-dead and fully exposed just how ignorant you really are when it comes to scientific polling.

1233796371590.gif
 
....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..
By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

:dance:



And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?
You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.
 
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Holyfuckingshit! :eusa_doh:

You didn't read your own link, did you?

logo.gif


It was 384 at half a million and didn't grow any larger even out of a population of one million.

You're actually stupid enough to think you should multiply that 384 by the number of millions in the population size. :eusa_doh:

1233796371590.gif


of course that's not what it said, but you are a lib so no one expects to actually read something and absorb it.
Umm.... that's exactly what it said. For a margin of error of 5% with a confidence level of 95%, notice it increases by only one (383 to 384) when going from 100,000 respondents to 500,000.

And notice it didn't change at all when going from 500,000 to 1,000,000....

estimate_population_survey_sample.gif


... now while it would increase by 1, to 385, in a population of 330 million -- you'd have to be completely fucking retarded to think the way you arrive at the number of respondents is to multiply that 384 figure for every million in the population you're sampling.

1233796371590.gif
 
That is complete nonsense

If I do a random sample of 1000 and every one says they would not vote for Trump, you do not think that is statistically significant?

Your 5% number is completely arbitrary


math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Only about 120 million vote
But you ignore what happens when you take multiple samples from the same population and the samples repeatedly give the same to results. Something called Standard Deviation.


I am quite sure that I understand SD much better than you do. You are free to believe the pollsters if you choose, I really don't care what you believe. A sample of 1000 out of 330 million or 120 million is not statistically meaningful no matter how you try to spin it. Math is math, its laws are not subject to political manipulation.

I repeat: current polling is designed to influence public opinion rather than report on it.

Do you think that the Luntz gatherings of 20 or 30 people have any significance as to what the entire nation is thinking? Did you believe the polls in 2012 that said Romney would win? How about the ones in 2008 that said that Hillary would be the dem nominee? did you believe them?

Evidently, your knowledge of statistical sampling theory is very limited and simplistic

Yes, you can draw conclusions about a population based on a sample of 1000. Within the stated error
 
math is not arbitrary. I understand that you libs don't like the reality of it. but it is what it is.

https://www.checkmarket.com/2013/02/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-survey-sample-size/

Your own link recommends a sample size of 384 for a population of one million at 5% confidence

Did you bother to read it?


yes, 5% margin of error, ASSUMING that the sample proportionally includes all the demographics in the population.

But lets extend that to the entire US population. OK? 384 for 1 million. there are 330 million in the USA, can you multiply 384 times 330?
Only about 120 million vote
But you ignore what happens when you take multiple samples from the same population and the samples repeatedly give the same to results. Something called Standard Deviation.


I am quite sure that I understand SD much better than you do. You are free to believe the pollsters if you choose, I really don't care what you believe. A sample of 1000 out of 330 million or 120 million is not statistically meaningful no matter how you try to spin it. Math is math, its laws are not subject to political manipulation.

I repeat: current polling is designed to influence public opinion rather than report on it.

Do you think that the Luntz gatherings of 20 or 30 people have any significance as to what the entire nation is thinking? Did you believe the polls in 2012 that said Romney would win? How about the ones in 2008 that said that Hillary would be the dem nominee? did you believe them?

Evidently, your knowledge of statistical sampling theory is very limited and simplistic

Yes, you can draw conclusions about a population based on a sample of 1000. Within the stated error
He's in deep denial because Hillary's lead over Trump is so yuge at this point. Again, he does believe in scientific polling (even though he clearly doesn't understand it) as I posted that link earlier to a thread he started as he boasted about how favorable a scientific poll at that time confirmed whatever point it was he was trying to make.
 

Forum List

Back
Top