CBO: Stimulus saved between 5 to 25 million jobs

[Listening]

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

What? and show the 3 million net missing form the equation.

I’ve been away from these boards for awhile because I generally logged-in only while at work (and I got laid off in September).

So, speaking as someone who lost their job during Obama’s recovery, I think this particular (lack of) measurement is his ace in the hole.

I say this because, during my indoctrination at the unemployment office, I was told I would not qualify for any federal unemployment extensions because they all expire on December 31.

Of course, this means all the unemployed who have been on these extensions for the past two years will drop off the radar screen at the end of the year. And, even though they are still unemployed, they will no longer be counted as such.

I think this is pretty good timing for Obama.

Best of luck in your job search.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Best of luck in your job search.

Thanks.

I would also add that, now that I see things as someone on the outside looking in, the situation is much worse than it appears.

I am finding there are plenty of good jobs but, because there are hundreds of applicants for each, there is almost no hope of ever getting hired.

 

[8537]

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

What? and show the 3 million net missing form the equation.

I’ve been away from these boards for awhile because I generally logged-in only while at work (and I got laid off in September).

So, speaking as someone who lost their job during Obama’s recovery, I think this particular (lack of) measurement is his ace in the hole.

I say this because, during my indoctrination at the unemployment office, I was told I would not qualify for any federal unemployment extensions because they all expire on December 31.

Of course, this means all the unemployed who have been on these extensions for the past two years will drop off the radar screen at the end of the year. And, even though they are still unemployed, they will no longer be counted as such.

I think this is pretty good timing for Obama.

Whether or not a person collects unemployment is not a factor in calculating the unemployment rate.

 

[Sundial]

Yes. Economically government employees are unemployed. At best they produce nothing.

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it. Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

I always like too how you make sweeping statements about government and when I challenge you of course you pick a tiny part of government that even a libertarian supports and ignore the millions of bureaucrats in this country who are obviously the ones I'm referring to.

We pay for government twice. Once when the money is removed from the economy and again when it's used to buy government.

The money doesn't disappear from the economy any more than it disappears when a private sector employee gets paid.

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it.

Police create economic value by protecting intellectual and private property rights.

Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

you don't think Somalia would be richer if they had a more robust system of hiring people to protect private property rights?

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy.

Profits don't grow an economy. Increased productivity grows an economy.

Police DO NOT protect our property rights. As a matter of fact many police jurisdictions do not investigate property crimes at all. That is as long as there is not an accompanying violent crime. In the City of Charlotte, NC, 911 will refer all property crimes to a website where the victim fills out an on-line form. The police as a matter of policy prioritize property crime as the lowest.
The job of police departments in general..Investigate crime. Police do not prevent crime unless they witness the act themselves and only if authorized by a superior.
Police enforce traffic laws, set up traffic 'check points', patrol neighborhoods as a deterrent ( not a prevention) to crime. Are used in crowd control. Work off duty as security people for public events.
Profits most certainly DO grow an economy. Without profit, there is no creation of jobs and thus no creation of wealth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So police officers produce nothing? Having a force and system to protect private property rights adds no economic value?

Really now?

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it. Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

I always like too how you make sweeping statements about government and when I challenge you of course you pick a tiny part of government that even a libertarian supports and ignore the millions of bureaucrats in this country who are obviously the ones I'm referring to.

The money doesn't disappear from the economy any more than it disappears when a private sector employee gets paid.

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.
Money may not 'care', but an economy certainly does not run on public sector jobs. The public sector( government) produces nothing. Assets are collected( taken from the economy and the rightful owners of said assets) in order to pay public employees.
Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing. If government as you state, created money, there would be no reason for taxation. Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true. Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.
Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

 

[Chris]

Really now. You even used the right word. "protect." No, the police don't produce economic value, they protect it. Can you get rich by working and saving? Yes. Can you get rich buying more insurance? No, it's protection. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist and I want a police force, but as you said, it's to protect me. In no way are we going to get richer by hiring more police.

I always like too how you make sweeping statements about government and when I challenge you of course you pick a tiny part of government that even a libertarian supports and ignore the millions of bureaucrats in this country who are obviously the ones I'm referring to.



The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.
Money may not 'care', but an economy certainly does not run on public sector jobs. The public sector( government) produces nothing. Assets are collected( taken from the economy and the rightful owners of said assets) in order to pay public employees.
Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing. If government as you state, created money, there would be no reason for taxation. Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true. Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.
Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

Government creates nothing? What a crock of shit that is.

Do you drive on the interstate?

 

[editec]

That's an interesting claim.

I have yet to see a graph on unemployment that takes into accout those who have dropped out of the job search.

Can you provide that information ?

What? and show the 3 million net missing form the equation.

I’ve been away from these boards for awhile because I generally logged-in only while at work (and I got laid off in September).

So, speaking as someone who lost their job during Obama’s recovery, I think this particular (lack of) measurement is his ace in the hole.

I say this because, during my indoctrination at the unemployment office, I was told I would not qualify for any federal unemployment extensions because they all expire on December 31.

Of course, this means all the unemployed who have been on these extensions for the past two years will drop off the radar screen at the end of the year. And, even though they are still unemployed, they will no longer be counted as such.

I think this is pretty good timing for Obama.

Wrong. That is NOT what it means

How long it will be before people realize that the unemployment number is NOT computed based on the number of people collecting unemployment?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.
Money may not 'care', but an economy certainly does not run on public sector jobs. The public sector( government) produces nothing. Assets are collected( taken from the economy and the rightful owners of said assets) in order to pay public employees.
Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing. If government as you state, created money, there would be no reason for taxation. Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true. Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.
Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

Government creates nothing? What a crock of shit that is.

Do you drive on the interstate?

You keep asking that same dopey question. Apparently in desperation.
Newsflash, infrastructure( roads) are essential functions of government.
BTW genius, the roads that make up the interstate system are largely the responsibility of the state in which they lie. The states are enhanced with federal funds. However, the states have the larger fiscal responsibility.
At the end of the day, government creates nothing. It consumes yet generates to commerce, no profit.
You sya government puts money into the economy. FALSE. Because government must borrow to fund and funding comes from the private sector, government actually takes TWICE from the economy.
Now, you will respond with the typical lib knee jerk reaction on the order of "so you're saying we should have no government"..Come back with something like that and I knock it over the Left Field wall across Waveland Ave.

 

[Sundial]

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.[/QUOTE]

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.

Wealth is created by people - specifically, people doing work.

Money may not 'care', but an economy certainly does not run on public sector jobs.

Of course it does. Teachers, firefighters, soldiers, judges - all are examples of public sector workers creating wealth.

The public sector( government) produces nothing.

Education, safety, justice - these things are "nothing"?

Assets are collected( taken from the economy and the rightful owners of said assets) in order to pay public employees.

"Assets"? You mean money? The same money the government created in the first place?

And isn't the "rightful owner" determined by the law?

Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing.

So you keep saying.

Do you have any argument as to why roads, schools, national defense, healthcare, retirement and money itself are "nothing"?

If government as you state, created money,
there would be no reason for taxation.
Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true.

I don't understand. Are you saying government doesn't create money?

Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.



Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

If government does "nothing", how can it perform essential services? And if it provides essential services, how is that nothing? Which is it?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

reduction[/B] of underemployment as well as unemployment.

Your graph shows that unemployment shot up in the last year of the Bush administration; stopped growing in the first year of the Obama administration; and has been declining since then.

Everyone agrees that that's the case.

Everyone also agrees that unemployment is not falling fast enough. Liberals, like myself, say that what's needed is a jobs program, and an extension of Obama's payroll tax cut.

Republicans want to fire police and teachers and other public sector workers, in hopes that will somehow create jobs.

It's quite "convenient" you left out how on long term unemployment seeking work over 26 weeks has gone UP since Obama took office. Look at the graph again, it's dated up to Oct 2011, showing a gradual increase.

Underemployment for december is STILL at 18.40% and has been averaging over 18% for over a year. ( US Underemployment Rate Chart and Data - YCharts ) Unemployment doesn't represent the entire picture, and is only used to create an "illusion" of growth without revealing the TRUE state of the economy. Why does the main stream media refuse to talk about the UNDERemployment rate, what do they have to hide by informing people of the real state of our economy?



Look at the underemployment rate in orange below:

Underemployment represents those who are (1) working part time, (2) not able to attain their full previous income they had lost, or (3) those who have given up and have moved onto lower paying jobs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The private sector employee is paid by money that is generated by the company producing a profit. And the employee is used in some way to generate more profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The government employee is also paid from profits generated by companies, only they are not used to create more profit. It's not sustainable. No, it's not the same. It's a different world entirely. You have a bucket and a half empty pool. An employee of the company is taking water from outside the pool and putting it in the pool. The government employee is taking money out of the pool and throwing it up in the air. Some of the water goes in the pool, some doesn't. But the pool will never get more full that way.

Money isn't "generated". It's created by government. Without money there'd be no profits. Without government, there'd be no corporations, because they're created by law. There'd be no contracts, no courts, no roads, and no security.

No one "throws money in the air". There's no "pool" that corporations get their money outside of. Money doesn't care if it's earned by workers building parks or teachers teaching kids, or stock market schemers ripping off investors. It's all the same money - the only thing that matters is whether workers are doing something useful. If private corporations are pouring toxic waste into the watershed, it's useless, no matter how profitable it is.

You need to get over the idea that "profits" somehow guarantees that something useful has been done, and that government spending somehow means money has disappeared. Neither is remotely true.

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.

Wealth is created by people - specifically, people doing work.



Of course it does. Teachers, firefighters, soldiers, judges - all are examples of public sector workers creating wealth.



Education, safety, justice - these things are "nothing"?



"Assets"? You mean money? The same money the government created in the first place?

And isn't the "rightful owner" determined by the law?

Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing.

So you keep saying.

Do you have any argument as to why roads, schools, national defense, healthcare, retirement and money itself are "nothing"?

If government as you state, created money,
there would be no reason for taxation.
Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true.

I don't understand. Are you saying government doesn't create money?

Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.



Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

If government does "nothing", how can it perform essential services? And if it provides essential services, how is that nothing? Which is it?[/QUOTE]
Don't play stupid with me. I never stated "government does nothing". I stated government CREATES nothing.
Government does not create WEALTH. There is a difference between 'money'( currency) and wealth.
Government is overstuffed with redundant positions. In many instances government employees only function is to insure employment is maintained.
For example. The procedures under which government budgets are funded and the rules by which departments continue to grow their budgets.
Here's a typical scenario. The road department of Anytown, USA has a snow removal budget of $1. This includes salt and sand for the roads Anytown experiences a mild winter and uses 75% of their snow removal budget. Fearing next year's budget and possibly jobs will be cut, the Anytown road dept managers figure out a way to spend the $1.
That is stupid. It is wasteful and it is a ripoff to taxpayers. Why they simply cannot stockpile the material and save the fuel for the next big winter is a mystery.
Civil Service protections are a joke. Workers know damned well they are virtually untouchable. That enables government employees to just show up and put in time rather than produce.
Government consumes. In order to operate, government must draw it's funding from other sources.
Government is necessary buy to provide only essential services. PERIOD.
"The same money the government created in the first place?"....Stop it. This is the issue being debated. You don't get away with making this conclusion without presenting pertinent facts to support such a claim.
Now, in order for you to continue participation in the discussion, you must show facts indicating how it is government 'creates money'.

Do you have any argument as to why roads, schools, national defense, healthcare, retirement and money itself are "nothing"?.....Roads( infrastructure) national defense, public safety are essential services. It is understood that government requires taxation to raise revenue to pay for these services. Government schools are NOT a necessity. Education would be much better off in the hands of the private sector. However, that is not practical. Government schools are a captive marketplace. Whether one uses them or not, they still must pay for them. Unfortunately, public schools are probably the least audited and least scrutinized of any public service. Hence the reason why as much as 80% of property taxes go to pay for schools. Public education wastes tons of money. I think school funding should be for education only. All sports and activity programs should be funded by the users. SO if your kid plays a school sport, let his/her parents pay for participation. Same applies to other activities as well. The taxpayers should not be funding these things as they are not education. Many school districts are in fact going to pay for play.
School boards and other officials are called on the carpet for failing or under performing schools. The pat response is 'we need more funding'....As we have seen, that never works. Take a look at Washington DC public education spending. The highest in the country. Has that done a thing to increase graduation rates? No it has not. One of the indications of government insanity is trying to solve a problem by throwing money at the problem.. Never works. All it does is ensure school employees are paid more money which if they were paid based on performance, they would be getting PAY CUTS...Only in government do employees get rewarded for mediocre performance. If you do not do your job in the private sector, you get replaced by better a better worker. Government should work the same way.
And isn't the "rightful owner" determined by the law? The rightful owner of wealth is the person or people that created it.
"
What is it you do not understand?

 

[Rozman]

so we went from 1.4 to 3.3, now they have decided to widen the scope from 5 to..........25 million?


I see that they have given up on CREATED.....now we are down to the obama rah rah saved!!!!!!!!! not 1.4 million, not 3.6...but 25 Million!!!!

you've got be psychotically delusional to buy this crap, seriously.

The closer we get to election the higher the number will be.
6 months before election and the Obama lackeys here will be saying
he saved 250 million jobs and created 500 million...

 

[Chris]

Money(currency) is manufactured on government printing equipment. WEALTH is created by commerce.
Money may not 'care', but an economy certainly does not run on public sector jobs. The public sector( government) produces nothing. Assets are collected( taken from the economy and the rightful owners of said assets) in order to pay public employees.
Essential government services notwithstanding, most public sector work is redundant and in most cases could be done without ( non essential). Government grows because it is advantageous for it to do so. Increasing government requires revenue which must be taken from somewhere. Government creates nothing. If government as you state, created money, there would be no reason for taxation. Creation ( of money) indicates self sufficiency. As we know in the case of government, that is not true. Government by design cannot ever be self sufficient.
Government has gone far outside it's intended boundaries of providing essential services.
Incrementally, we are seeing government and public employees and their unions being reined in. The one sided battle between taxpayers and public employees ( and their labor representation) has favored the public sector for long enough. Time for the people to get control of the public sector.

Government creates nothing? What a crock of shit that is.

Do you drive on the interstate?

You keep asking that same dopey question. Apparently in desperation.
Newsflash, infrastructure( roads) are essential functions of government.
BTW genius, the roads that make up the interstate system are largely the responsibility of the state in which they lie. The states are enhanced with federal funds. However, the states have the larger fiscal responsibility.
At the end of the day, government creates nothing. It consumes yet generates to commerce, no profit.
You sya government puts money into the economy. FALSE. Because government must borrow to fund and funding comes from the private sector, government actually takes TWICE from the economy.
Now, you will respond with the typical lib knee jerk reaction on the order of "so you're saying we should have no government"..Come back with something like that and I knock it over the Left Field wall across Waveland Ave.

Government creates a great deal.

Healthcare, education, research, infrastructure, the military, the police department, the fire department, the FDA, the CIA, the EPA, the FAA, all contribute greatly to our society.

You really are living in a fantasy world.

 

[Listening]

Government creates a great deal.

Healthcare, education, research, infrastructure, the military, the police department, the fire department, the FDA, the CIA, the EPA, the FAA, all contribute greatly to our society.

You really are living in a fantasy world.

You are the one whose head is up his ass.

Government steals our money to pay for inefficient systems that we could supply better ourselves...given the chance.

Government creates chaos....now that they have down to a science.

 

[Listening]

Look at the real unemployment numbers.

President Obama is toast.

His approval ratings just fell back below 45. His disapproval is almost back to 50.

BBQ'd.

 

[Chris]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 7 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 20 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

Obama has done a very good job.

 

[Listening]

Barack Obama made a bunch of promises he couldn't keep.

He was sworn in as president and never bothered to show up.

Along the way, he signed a terrible stimulus bill that got in the way of a natural recovery that would have happened anyway.

Job growth and GDP during his tenure have been pathetic.

The American people have figured out that he is a fraud and his approval rating has been below 50 for quite a long time (often being below 45 which is about the worst in history for a 3 year President).

Deficits are still a problem and will be as long as Obama and Ried are in office.

My dead grandmother could do a better job than Barack Obama.

He deserves to return to Chicago in 2013 on a garbage truck.

 

[Chris]

A rush of shoppers helped the auto industry post an annual U.S. sales rate of 13.6 million vehicles in November, the best this year and the strongest since August 2009, when the federal cash-for-clunkers economic stimulus program was in effect.

The industry posted sales of 1 million in November, up 13.9% from a year earlier, according to automaker statistics released Thursday and compiled by Autodata Corp.

Auto sales soar in November - latimes.com

 

[Listening]

The current policies of Mr. Barack Obama and his Democratic cronies are stifling the efforts of small businesses to be successful. Tens of thousands have closed in response to his failed policies, which has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs and a 9 percent rate of unemployment. Unfortunately, Americans are suffering the results of electing a man who calls himself president, who never ran a business, never had to make payroll and never had to balance the cost of overhead with receivables. Mr. Obama came to this office as a rebound candidate and has been an abject failure in providing any moral or financial leadership. His only success is to drive us into more debt than any president in history.

With the national debt growing at $2.8 million every minute, or $4 billion a day, this nation can no longer wait on the continued rhetoric of a Marxist/socialist to lead it out of this economic morass.

The Obama Debt Monitor | Tracking the US National Debt through the Obama Administration (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)