Fox News Sunday Anchors Upset About Obama's Job Growth:

[Campbell]

What A Short Memory They Have:

We've had about six years of continuous job growth:

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

 

[Indeependent]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's great. It's so great that we have 100 million not working and highest recorded numbers on welfare.

 

[bripat9643]

What A Short Memory They Have:

We've had about six years of continuous job growth:

This is why they're upset, numskull:

 

[Campbell]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

Beats the hell out of a near depression just before Bush handed the banks $800 billion. In 1929-1930 there was no way to avoid Hoover's recession and it took until the 2nd world war started to get out of that mess. George W. Bush was the most ignorant, most assuming, right wing pile of shit in our history. He didn't even realize the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni until AFTER he had invaded Iraq. That is a documented fact!

The Bushes...and the entire Republican party was pissed at Hussein for one reason....he tried to assassinate George Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. If you doubt that look at this letter written and signed by all key players in the Republican party trying to coax Bill Clinton into invading them in 1998:


December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely. Experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[LordBrownTrout]

9 trillion in debt under O. Worst buffoon to ever lead this country.

 

[eagle7_31]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

Beats the hell out of a near depression just before Bush handed the banks $800 billion. In 1929-1930 there was no way to avoid Hoover's recession and it took until the 2nd world war started to get out of that mess. George W. Bush was the most ignorant, most assuming, right wing pile of shit in our history. He didn't even realize the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni until AFTER he had invaded Iraq. That is a documented fact!

Bush was no prize, but your left wing rant is over rated to say the least.

 

[Indeependent]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

Beats the hell out of a near depression just before Bush handed the banks $800 billion. In 1929-1930 there was no way to avoid Hoover's recession and it took until the 2nd world war started to get out of that mess. George W. Bush was the most ignorant, most assuming, right wing pile of shit in our history. He didn't even realize the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni until AFTER he had invaded Iraq. That is a documented fact!

The problem is from de facto legislation from both sides of the aisle...
An open Southern border.
Off-Shoring with tax breaks for moving away from the US.
An overwhelming influx of mostly Indian business visas replacing Americans with advanced degrees.
The Middle Class paying taxes to subsidize utility bills for the poor.

When someone goes from earning 50K-100K/year to pumping coffee at State law minimum wage, I'm not impressed.

 

[eagle7_31]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

Beats the hell out of a near depression just before Bush handed the banks $800 billion. In 1929-1930 there was no way to avoid Hoover's recession and it took until the 2nd world war started to get out of that mess. George W. Bush was the most ignorant, most assuming, right wing pile of shit in our history. He didn't even realize the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni until AFTER he had invaded Iraq. That is a documented fact!

The problem is from de facto legislation from both sides of the aisle...
An open Southern border.
Off-Shoring with tax breaks for moving away from the US.
An overwhelming influx of mostly Indian business visas replacing Americans with advanced degrees.
The Middle Class paying taxes to subsidize utility bills for the poor.

When someone goes from earning 50K-100K/year to pumping coffee at State law minimum wage, I'm not impressed.

That sums things up very accurately.

 

[Campbell]

9 trillion in debt under O. Worst buffoon to ever lead this country.

Most of Obama's spending has been to pay the interest on the Reagan/Bushes debt. It's The Tax Cuts For The Wealthy STUPID!!!

..........................Total U S Debt...........................

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[whitehall]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

 

[eagle7_31]

The GDP is the only indication of economic growth. Under Obama the GDP has grown an average of 1.2 per year. George W. Bush had 1.6 and Ronald Reagan had 3.5

BO's cheerleaders seem to keep forgetting that part.

 

[BULLDOG]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

Perhaps you would believe the same chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Or very similar information from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

 

[Avorysuds]

The rolled-up numbers mean nothing.
More much lower paying jobs does not make for a growing economy.

Beats the hell out of a near depression just before Bush handed the banks $800 billion. In 1929-1930 there was no way to avoid Hoover's recession and it took until the 2nd world war started to get out of that mess. George W. Bush was the most ignorant, most assuming, right wing pile of shit in our history. He didn't even realize the difference in a Shiite and a Sunni until AFTER he had invaded Iraq. That is a documented fact!

The Bushes...and the entire Republican party was pissed at Hussein for one reason....he tried to assassinate George Bush41 in Qatar circa 1993. If you doubt that look at this letter written and signed by all key players in the Republican party trying to coax Bill Clinton into invading them in 1998:


December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely. Experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

You talking makes people dumber if they listen. I'll avoid yer stupidity.

 

[Avorysuds]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

Perhaps you would believe the same chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Or very similar information from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

It's not a reliable source, neither are.

Think of it like this, if you believe the UR is at 5.5 (or whatever bullshit number they said this month) you are on par with people that believe the world and all life on it was created in 6 days.

 

[rdean]

Are they angry about a hostile congress that blocks everything?

 

[BULLDOG]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

Perhaps you would believe the same chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Or very similar information from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

It's not a reliable source, neither are.

Think of it like this, if you believe the UR is at 5.5 (or whatever bullshit number they said this month) you are on par with people that believe the world and all life on it was created in 6 days.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not credible? You are really out there, aren't you?

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

Perhaps you would believe the same chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Or very similar information from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

perhaps I believe that the gvt lies, too, to promote whatever agenda they're pushing at the time.....record numbers on food stamps..record numbers of unemployed...record numbers of illegals invading.....yeah..everything is fine....you may now return to your television for further instructions, little hyperpartisan...

 

[BULLDOG]

LMAO..the graph comes from something called the "Maddow Blog"..well, THAT'S a reliable "source"...

Perhaps you would believe the same chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Or very similar information from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

perhaps I believe that the gvt lies, too, to promote whatever agenda they're pushing at the time.....record numbers on food stamps..record numbers of unemployed...record numbers of illegals invading.....yeah..everything is fine....you may now return to your television for further instructions, little hyperpartisan...

You are free to believe any crazy conspiracy theory you want, but when you say it in public, you should expect people to call you crazy.