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

[Faun]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

poor poor idiot.; that is the difference between Bush's 5.2% unemployment and obamas bullshit 5.2% unemployment. that IS what i've been saying dummy

Right, what you've been saying is we didn't need to create jobs under Bush, who didn't get us to full employment, but we do need to create jobs under Obama, though we are now at full employment.

 

[bedowin62]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

And again, since it fails to penetrate you armor of ignorance, Bush added as many people onto food stamps as Obama, only with a smaller population and without being handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. Did you vote for him? You helped create this nanny state.

YAWN

obama's increases on food stamp enrollment come on top of bush's


keep trying...................................

Nice to see you're still exercising your jaw. Bush added as many but with a smaller population and without inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression.

you're bragging about minimum-wage job growth leftard?

if so many jobs have been created why are there 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps LATE INTO OBAMA'S SEVENTH YEAR?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dear Donald Trump: China, Japan and Mexico are not ‘killing us’

Last quarter, the U.S. economy grew at a 3.7 percent clip. Annual growth now is almost twice that of Europe and four times that of Japan. Unemployment is at 5.1 percent, the lowest in seven years. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product (2.8 percent in 2014) is at its lowest since 2007.

“The U.S. has come out of the 2008 crisis better than all the others,” says Ruchir Sharma, head of global macro investing at Morgan Stanley. “Americans have reduced their debt burden more than the Europeans, while China’s debt has skyrocketed to extremely dangerous levels. If you look outside of China, U.S. growth is actually faster even than the emerging markets. Since the 2008 crisis, U.S. equity markets have outperformed all others — in fact 9 out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world are now American. The dollar is the currency of choice. Global growth is not what it used to be, but in a bad neighborhood, the U.S. has the best house by far.” Sharma points out that for the past four years, the United States’ share of global GDP has increased while Europe’s and Japan’s have moved down.




The Wall Street Journal notes that in the past five years, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have increased in value by $254.6 billion. In the same period, their European competitors, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland added just $9.5 billion. In July, Barclays Chairman John McFarlane was asked by the Wall Street Journal if America’s banks were eating European lenders’ lunch. He replied: “They are doing a good job of it.” He added that the U.S. banks “are the only ones that really claim to be global and successful.”

To compare the United States’ performance and leadership to Mexico’s, Japan’s and China’s is particularly ill-timed. Trump might be stuck in a 1980s time warp on Japan. When his “The Art of the Deal” was published in 1987, Americans were envious of Japan’s brilliant leaders, who were said to be outsmarting the United States at every turn. Since then, Japan has become the poster child for economic stagnation and political paralysis. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been unwilling or unable to get his promised reforms enacted, and the country’s economy continues to shrink.

Mexico is watching its growth collapse. While its president, Enrique Peña Nieto, is a courageous and intelligent leader who has made some very bold decisions, he has also made some significant missteps. Most important, the country was ill-prepared for plunging oil prices that have battered government revenues and growth.

China has had three decades of supercharged growth and competent government policy. But in the past few years, Beijing went on a borrowing binge, running up its total debt to levels that are unprecedented, according to Sharma. And in the past two months it has made mistakes in managing both its equity markets and currency — mistakes that have cost $400 billion, theFinancial Times reports.

That's from the feds...you know that as much I do....it decreased the buying power of the dollar...

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

poor poor idiot.; that is the difference between Bush's 5.2% unemployment and obamas bullshit 5.2% unemployment. that IS what i've been saying dummy

Right, what you've been saying is we didn't need to create jobs under Bush, who didn't get us to full employment, but we do need to create jobs under Obama, though we are now at full employment.

yawn

ONE NUMBER IS REAL

the other is FAKE

keep trying though.....................

snicker

 

[Faun]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

You said job creation isn't necessary when we're at full employment (which Bush wasn't at anyway). That's not my strawman, that's you being a retard.

And we are at full employment now. According to you, there is no need to create new jobs.

no idiot; bush's unemployment number was real, obama's is fake idiot.
just like his deportation numbers, and his drone strike casualty numbers.

just everything idiot

Holyfuckingshit!

Riiight ... because the BLS changed their accounting methods in determining the unemployment rate after Obama became president, right, bedwetter?

 

[bedowin62]

and you still cant answer the question dummy. why are WORKING-AGE AND ABLE-BODIED workers dropping out of the labor force altogether?

how are they able to do it??

 

[Faun]

But it wasn't at full employment. Interestingly enough, it is now, yet rightards still ***** and moan on the first Friday of every month when the jobs numbers come out that they're not good enough. Yet according to morons like you, the number of new jobs could be zero but that would be ok since we are at full employment. And full employment doesn't mean we stop growing jobs.

you're making a fool of your self idiot. how can it be full employment now but not when it was UNDER 5.2% when bush was in office??
you're simply a loser who lies to himself

Can someone explain to bedwetter how the full employment range changes? That what it is now is not what it was a decade ago. I don't have the heart to embarrass him like that, bless his heart.

you cant embarrass me moron, like i said you're making a fool of yourself. literall MILLIONS ARENT BEING COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED...................
you losers cry that things are being counted the same way; but you leave out the fact that millions are out of the job market altogether; NOT EVEN LOOKING .....................AND NO, THEY ARENT ALL RETIRED BABY BOOMERS..........................ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE AMERICANS are dropping out of the workforce

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Great, now the bedwetter loser points to the 94 million who are not in the labor force, though he's too stupid to comprehend that 88 million of them don't want to work.

Let morons like bedwetter serve as a prime example why parents should educate their kids unless they want them to be as dumb as bedwetter.

Oh, and bedwetter -- no one is saying the drop in the LFPR is 100% due to retiring baby boomers. That is a strawman put out by imbeciles like you who can't deal with reality.

you keep making my point for me and it's HILARIOUS!! now use some of your critical thinking skillz moron and ask youself why those people "dont want to work", why they dont have to..

you're simply an idiot; lying to himself

Half of the increase is due to baby boomers retiring. Why do you think they no longer want to work?

 

[edthecynic]

actually nutjob many of you losers on the Left are saying exactly that; that all or even most of the drop in LFPR is due to retiring Baby Boomers

And all of you lying scum CON$ have been claiming all who left the workforce dropped out due to discouragement, even though the number of discouraged workers is DECREASING!

 

[jillian]

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

cited by the maddow blog, idiota. .

damn, you're a moron.

 

[Faun]

But it wasn't at full employment. Interestingly enough, it is now, yet rightards still ***** and moan on the first Friday of every month when the jobs numbers come out that they're not good enough. Yet according to morons like you, the number of new jobs could be zero but that would be ok since we are at full employment. And full employment doesn't mean we stop growing jobs.

you're making a fool of your self idiot. how can it be full employment now but not when it was UNDER 5.2% when bush was in office??
you're simply a loser who lies to himself

Can someone explain to bedwetter how the full employment range changes? That what it is now is not what it was a decade ago. I don't have the heart to embarrass him like that, bless his heart.

you cant embarrass me moron, like i said you're making a fool of yourself. literall MILLIONS ARENT BEING COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED...................
you losers cry that things are being counted the same way; but you leave out the fact that millions are out of the job market altogether; NOT EVEN LOOKING .....................AND NO, THEY ARENT ALL RETIRED BABY BOOMERS..........................ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE AMERICANS are dropping out of the workforce

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Great, now the bedwetter loser points to the 94 million who are not in the labor force, though he's too stupid to comprehend that 88 million of them don't want to work.

Let morons like bedwetter serve as a prime example why parents should educate their kids unless they want them to be as dumb as bedwetter.

Oh, and bedwetter -- no one is saying the drop in the LFPR is 100% due to retiring baby boomers. That is a strawman put out by imbeciles like you who can't deal with reality.

actually nutjob many of you losers on the Left are saying exactly that; that all or even most of the drop in LFPR is due to retiring Baby Boomers

try again................

Quote someone saying 100% of the drop is due to baby boomers ...... that was your accusation.

 

[jillian]

you're making a fool of your self idiot. how can it be full employment now but not when it was UNDER 5.2% when bush was in office??
you're simply a loser who lies to himself

Can someone explain to bedwetter how the full employment range changes? That what it is now is not what it was a decade ago. I don't have the heart to embarrass him like that, bless his heart.

you cant embarrass me moron, like i said you're making a fool of yourself. literall MILLIONS ARENT BEING COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED...................
you losers cry that things are being counted the same way; but you leave out the fact that millions are out of the job market altogether; NOT EVEN LOOKING .....................AND NO, THEY ARENT ALL RETIRED BABY BOOMERS..........................ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE AMERICANS are dropping out of the workforce

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Great, now the bedwetter loser points to the 94 million who are not in the labor force, though he's too stupid to comprehend that 88 million of them don't want to work.

Let morons like bedwetter serve as a prime example why parents should educate their kids unless they want them to be as dumb as bedwetter.

Oh, and bedwetter -- no one is saying the drop in the LFPR is 100% due to retiring baby boomers. That is a strawman put out by imbeciles like you who can't deal with reality.

you keep making my point for me and it's HILARIOUS!! now use some of your critical thinking skillz moron and ask youself why those people "dont want to work", why they dont have to..

you're simply an idiot; lying to himself

Half of the increase is due to baby boomers retiring. Why do you think they no longer want to work?

they made enough money playing the stock market?

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HILARIOUS REALLY; the Left's intellectual cruiosity and critical-thinking skils stop at their talking points, memes, and false narrative.

why dont people want to work leftard? more importantly if they arent trust fund kids why dont they HAVE to work to survive?

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

You said job creation isn't necessary when we're at full employment (which Bush wasn't at anyway). That's not my strawman, that's you being a retard.

And we are at full employment now. According to you, there is no need to create new jobs.

no idiot; bush's unemployment number was real, obama's is fake idiot.
just like his deportation numbers, and his drone strike casualty numbers.

just everything idiot

Holyfuckingshit!

Riiight ... because the BLS changed their accounting methods in determining the unemployment rate after Obama became president, right, bedwetter?

i already explaine this leftard. the U3 isnt a reliable measure by ANY president. the U6 i s better, and U6 under Bush was better

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Faun]

Great, another imbecile who thinks Bush did a better job than Reagan when it came to jobs.

Oh, and imbecile, even ignoring the Great Recession, Bush still comes in dead last in job creation. Even by this point in his presidency, only 5.4 million jobs were created. There have been 8.4 million jobs added in Obama's first 80 months, and that is including the Great Recession.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Again if Obama created all those jobs why didn't they go to the blue state's?

Because the president doesn't determine which state hires.

So how does he create jobs? Name the policy?

Ending Bush's Great Recession.

How did Obama do that? Name the policy?

It started with ARRA.

 

[bedowin62]

Long-term unemployment has doubled under Obama | Poor ...
poorrichardsnews.com/.../long-term-unemployment-has-doubled-under-...

• Cached

The media has focused on prolonged unemployment over 8 percent, while generally downplaying a shocker: the soaring number of people unemployed for ...

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Oh, but Rick Perry and the state of Texas would disagree with you.

 

[Faun]

Food stamps does not measure unemployment. Not to mention, Bush added about than many as well but with a smaller population. And of course, the unemployment rate is now 5.1%, which is why rightards like you talk about disability and food stamps.

yes loon; as YOU noted "with a smaller population". taking into account population increases under obama AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR MARKET ALTOGETHER THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST ZERO job growth under obama

thanks!!

Showing you as the rightard you are is always my pleasure, bedwetter ...

Civilian non-institutional population under Bush grew by 21 million and 17 million under Obama.

Meanwhile, Bush added 5 million jobs compared to Obama's 8. That makes Obama's job creation even better than Bush's when not factoring in population growth. And that's even factoring in how Bush dumped his Great Recession on Obama.

once again you choose to embarrass youself provinig your ignorance for all to see. bush had a MUCH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR MOST OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE; often in the 4% range; so of course job creation didnt need to happen on the scale.

you're the one using a false narrative loser

and nothing you post about me can change that fact

We're within the full employment range now. According to bedwetter, we no longer need to create new jobs.

no we're not idiot; because unlike under bush, under obama record numbers of WORKING-AGE AMERICANS who are ABLE-BODIED arent participating in the Labor Force. i guess you're right if you count the WELFARE STATE INCREASE under obama though leftard!

Yes, ya flaming imbecile, we are.

According to its latest projections, the Fed sees "full employment" as the U3 rate falling between 5.2% and 5%.

US full employment - Business Insider

 

[bedowin62]

and of course long-term unemployment would be even worse than it is now under obama if you mindless morons had succeeded with your narrative of Republicans taking food out of people's mouths and kept unemployment benefits AT 99 WEEKS WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE UP TO


losers who lie..........................to themselves

 

[Muhammed]

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

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:

The letter states several reasons, not one.

You are a liar.

Why do you base your political ideology on lies?

 

[jillian]

Of course we want people to work. You're the one defending Bush's abysmal record in job creation when you claimed creating jobs wasn't necessary because we were near full employment.

"job creation isnt necessary when you have near full employment you idiot." ~ another rightard​

you just cant stop makin a fool of yourself. when unemployment is in the 4% range you wont have as much job creation

you're the one using a straw man

keep trying

You said job creation isn't necessary when we're at full employment (which Bush wasn't at anyway). That's not my strawman, that's you being a retard.

And we are at full employment now. According to you, there is no need to create new jobs.

no idiot; bush's unemployment number was real, obama's is fake idiot.
just like his deportation numbers, and his drone strike casualty numbers.

just everything idiot

Holyfuckingshit!

Riiight ... because the BLS changed their accounting methods in determining the unemployment rate after Obama became president, right, bedwetter?

i already explaine this leftard. the U3 isnt a reliable measure by ANY president. the U6 i s better, and U6 under Bush was better

libs are losers who lie to themselves

wackjob. your idea of what is accurate isn't....

 

[Faun]

and isnt it you losers always saying food stamps arent enough to live on?
so the low-paying jobs obama "created" allow you to still collect food stamps? and if you qualify for that you qualify for other programs idiot; especially if you ARENT working.

together you can get enough from Big Nanny Government where you DONT HAVE TO WORK

UR A MORON

And again, since it fails to penetrate you armor of ignorance, Bush added as many people onto food stamps as Obama, only with a smaller population and without being handed the worst economy since the Great Depression. Did you vote for him? You helped create this nanny state.

YAWN

obama's increases on food stamp enrollment come on top of bush's


keep trying...................................

Nice to see you're still exercising your jaw. Bush added as many but with a smaller population and without inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression.

you're bragging about minimum-wage job growth leftard?

if so many jobs have been created why are there 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps LATE INTO OBAMA'S SEVENTH YEAR?

For the same reason 13 million were added under Bush -- because they qualify.