The Obama legacy: 92898000 Americans not working

[Faun]

And OBTW.....

Know those 295,000 jobs dimocraps are crowing about?

They forgot to tell you that 320,000 NEW jobless claims were filed during the same time period.

And since Math is always an adventure with dimocraps, that leaves you with a net job growth of MINUS 25,000

dimocraps are what they are... You know the rest of it by now

I suppose this means you aren't even bright enough to know the 295,000 jobs added is a net gain.

 

[MarathonMike]

Of course the economy has "improved" from a 70 year low. Here are the issues that I have and most Independents and Conservatives have with what Obama did about it. 1) Instead of making jobs priority #1 he made Obamacare #1 and paid lip service to jobs totally screwing the middle class. 2) His policies drove even more people into Food stamps/Welfare 3) The Dems and Obama play the "job is a job" game with unemployment. In other words when someone who was making $80K before the crash manages to get a $40K job after being unemployed for a year, that is counted as a success.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No no, you ******* hack. The question is NOT whether the polls turned out to be fairly close to the mark, you dopey ****.

The question was WHETHER (or not) they were skewed. And they were.

Due to a much larger than anticipated voter turnout, however, the skewed polls (much like a broken clock being "right" twice a day) did correspond roughly with the actual results.

Wrong again. Voter turnout in 2012 was expected to be close to 2008. It ended up being lower in 2012. Are you ever right about anything?

You are delusional and inaccurate. So, take the beam out of your own eye, ya dopey dishonest hack.

It is so cute when a hack calls someone else a hack.

As you just did again, deuce? But you really aren't that cute. just not all that concerned with honesty or accuracy. Understood. You're a lolberal.

You should stop before you find yourself in a bigger hole. You've been wrong about everything you've posted in this thread.

Because a hack lying **** like you makes that claim?

No. You are just mad that I keep calling bullshit on you. That's ok. Be mad. I will continue to laugh at your pathetic hack efforts.

 

[Faun]

One nutter after another......desperate to soothe their butthurt over the fact that the US economy has improved under the guidance of President Barack Hussein Obama.

You really think this is an economic boom? How ******* stupid does a person have to be to believe that? If you ever choose to venture out of your mom's basement you will see things aren't all that great out here. God forbid your mom cut you off and make you participate in this sewer of obie's economy and support yourself. Maybe then you would actually get it.

Whether you can deal with it or not -- we are at full employment.

Left wing <> Reality

How Far Are We From Full Employment Brookings Institution

The Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. The economy has expanded in all but one calendar quarter since the recovery began. Unfortunately, progress in pushing down the unemployment rate and improving worker compensation has been modest. The July 2013 unemployment rate was 7.4%. While this is much lower than the peak unemployment rate we experienced in fall 2009 (10.0%), it is 2.8 percentage points higher than the average rate in 2007. The nation’s job market remains a long way from full employment.

Exactly how insane must one be to think an opinion piece from 2013 is relevant in 2015? The article you quoted even says we were a long way from full employment ... that was true in 2013. But this is 2015 and we are now at full employment. Your acceptance of this fact is not really even necessary.

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

 

[rightwinger]

[

U-6 is down 5.5%

Anyway you look at it, unemployment has dropped dramatically

Stop your ******* lying. You are either a liar or a dumbass that doesn't know the difference between U-6 and U-3. Seeing that you are a Moon Bat then the dumbass explanation is probably it.

In February the U-6 rate was 11%.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The U-6 rate takes into consideration people that have gave up looking for work that the U-3 rate ignores. It is a much better indicator of unemployment.

Obama has been a failure you dumbass and you are too stupid to know it.

You mean this rate that is down 6%?

Thanks president Obama

Quite a drop, don't ya think?

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

 

[Siete]

Flash, the dumbass, calling others a bumbass.

U6 confusing you?

LMAO

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Of course the economy has "improved" from a 70 year low.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

maybe Obama should be asking for a raise for Americans in wages ...maybe he should start with a higher minimum wage....wait he is already on it...way to Big O...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You really think this is an economic boom? How ******* stupid does a person have to be to believe that? If you ever choose to venture out of your mom's basement you will see things aren't all that great out here. God forbid your mom cut you off and make you participate in this sewer of obie's economy and support yourself. Maybe then you would actually get it.

Whether you can deal with it or not -- we are at full employment.

Left wing <> Reality

How Far Are We From Full Employment Brookings Institution

The Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. The economy has expanded in all but one calendar quarter since the recovery began. Unfortunately, progress in pushing down the unemployment rate and improving worker compensation has been modest. The July 2013 unemployment rate was 7.4%. While this is much lower than the peak unemployment rate we experienced in fall 2009 (10.0%), it is 2.8 percentage points higher than the average rate in 2007. The nation’s job market remains a long way from full employment.

Exactly how insane must one be to think an opinion piece from 2013 is relevant in 2015? The article you quoted even says we were a long way from full employment ... that was true in 2013. But this is 2015 and we are now at full employment. Your acceptance of this fact is not really even necessary.

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

 

[AceRothstein]

And OBTW.....

Know those 295,000 jobs dimocraps are crowing about?

They forgot to tell you that 320,000 NEW jobless claims were filed during the same time period.

And since Math is always an adventure with dimocraps, that leaves you with a net job growth of MINUS 25,000

dimocraps are what they are... You know the rest of it by now

The stupid is strong with you, isn't it?

The monthly jobs numbers released by the BLS are net numbers. So the 300k who lost their jobs? There were 600k who found a job. I know math may be difficult for you as you're a republican but do try to keep up.

 

[Faun]

Of course the economy has "improved" from a 70 year low. Here are the issues that I have and most Independents and Conservatives have with what Obama did about it. 1) Instead of making jobs priority #1 he made Obamacare #1 and paid lip service to jobs totally screwing the middle class. 2) His policies drove even more people into Food stamps/Welfare 3) The Dems and Obama play the "job is a job" game with unemployment. In other words when someone who was making $80K before the crash manages to get a $40K job after being unemployed for a year, that is counted as a success.

Can you cite his policies which drove up food stamp recipients?

 

[Faun]

Whether you can deal with it or not -- we are at full employment.

Left wing <> Reality

How Far Are We From Full Employment Brookings Institution

The Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. The economy has expanded in all but one calendar quarter since the recovery began. Unfortunately, progress in pushing down the unemployment rate and improving worker compensation has been modest. The July 2013 unemployment rate was 7.4%. While this is much lower than the peak unemployment rate we experienced in fall 2009 (10.0%), it is 2.8 percentage points higher than the average rate in 2007. The nation’s job market remains a long way from full employment.

Exactly how insane must one be to think an opinion piece from 2013 is relevant in 2015? The article you quoted even says we were a long way from full employment ... that was true in 2013. But this is 2015 and we are now at full employment. Your acceptance of this fact is not really even necessary.

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think "full employment" means .... ?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Stop your ******* lying. You are either a liar or a dumbass that doesn't know the difference between U-6 and U-3. Seeing that you are a Moon Bat then the dumbass explanation is probably it.

In February the U-6 rate was 11%.

U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven

The U-6 rate takes into consideration people that have gave up looking for work that the U-3 rate ignores. It is a much better indicator of unemployment.

Obama has been a failure you dumbass and you are too stupid to know it.

You mean this rate that is down 6%?

Thanks president Obama

Quite a drop, don't ya think?

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Left wing <> Reality

How Far Are We From Full Employment Brookings Institution

The Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. The economy has expanded in all but one calendar quarter since the recovery began. Unfortunately, progress in pushing down the unemployment rate and improving worker compensation has been modest. The July 2013 unemployment rate was 7.4%. While this is much lower than the peak unemployment rate we experienced in fall 2009 (10.0%), it is 2.8 percentage points higher than the average rate in 2007. The nation’s job market remains a long way from full employment.

Exactly how insane must one be to think an opinion piece from 2013 is relevant in 2015? The article you quoted even says we were a long way from full employment ... that was true in 2013. But this is 2015 and we are now at full employment. Your acceptance of this fact is not really even necessary.

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

 

[Faun]

Exactly how insane must one be to think an opinion piece from 2013 is relevant in 2015? The article you quoted even says we were a long way from full employment ... that was true in 2013. But this is 2015 and we are now at full employment. Your acceptance of this fact is not really even necessary.

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

If you think you know what it means, then say what you think it is .... and who do you think determines what that rate is?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Words have no fixed meaning to you lunatic lolberals.

"Full" does NOT actually mean "partial."

Pass it on.

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

If you think you know what it means, then say what you think it is .... and who do you think determines what that rate is?

I already know and it is not necessary to demonstrate it to you. Afterall, you hack, you are the one whio introduced the full employment nonsense into the discussion. So, go get your own facts and definitions straight. Tell us in your own words what YOU meant when YOU used the term "full employment."

In the process, you WILL reveal what you imagine that term means, but it will not be at all consistent with the normal meaning of words.

The question you posted last is silly, too. It is not something determined by a "who."

 

[Siete]

You mean this rate that is down 6%?

Thanks president Obama

Quite a drop, don't ya think?

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If you believe the numbers (which I don't) that's a good start. Sure.

But why would anyone give "credit" to Obumbler for any improvement in the nation's employment figures? Is he hiring more Secret Service agents or sumpin'?

Denial....then, Obama didn't do it

About what I expected

And we all expect you to "buy" the notion that a President IS personally responsible for and deserving of credit when the economy generates jobs.

Job cycles have nothing to do with it. No no. An uptick in the reported economy MUST be the personal accomplishment of that hack in the Oval Office.

Of course. Now that you've explained it all so clearly, it's obvious.

As we all expected.

Of course Obama is personally responsible for employment

Just read the OP

No. At MOST a President (by his policies) can help foster an economic atmosphere that assists the economy OR undermines the economy. And in a working Constitutional Republic, the legislative branch would also share that power and ability.

Many of your fellow liberals are more than happy to USE the fairly random upticks in the economy as evidence that The ONE must be doing a good job. But it remains a fantasy.

At present, Obumbler is more of a stumbling block than anything else. The Keystone veto springs to mind.

ALL of your fellow Republitards refuse to accept U3 as the official unemployment rate ... the BLS isn't good enough .. unless its shows a major increase in unemployment #'s.


yaaaaaaaaaaawn

You disgustingly hack ***** laughable lolberals are such massive hypocrites. You pretend that the U-3 is meaningful when it suits your hack agendas. But, still, it isn't.

The BLS figures are often used by lolberals and Republicans and conservatives. The important thing is to realize that their numbers are often wrong. I suppose a dip shit like you has never noted how regularly they publish "corrections," though.

So you need to learn how to take some data with a grain of salt, you pathetic shit head.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wow. Some folks on the left do seem to show SOME appreciation for how little a President is either a cause of economic improvements or downturns.

Even the article I offer in the below link tends toward making Obumbler a beneficiary of the theory that he has much power of these things (in some instances). But it still demonstrates the first gleanings of understanding that the economy is largely going to move on the basis of things outside of the control of any one President, his policies or Congressional acts.

Does Obama deserve credit for the economy - Ben White - POLITICO

 

[Faun]

You should learn the definition of "full employment."

I already know it. I also reject the make-believe daffynitions employed by left wing hacks where words are required to take on the opposite of their every day actual meanings.

You laughable lolberals ought to try honesty someday.

What do you think it means .... ?

I know what it means. I also know your silly make believe daffynition of "full" employment.

If you think you know what it means, then say what you think it is .... and who do you think determines what that rate is?

I already know and it is not necessary to demonstrate it to you. Afterall, you hack, you are the one whio introduced the full employment nonsense into the discussion. So, go get your own facts and definitions straight. Tell us in your own words what YOU meant when YOU used the term "full employment."

In the process, you WILL reveal what you imagine that term means, but it will not be at all consistent with the normal meaning of words.

The question you posted last is silly, too. It is not something determined by a "who."

I need no further evidence you don't have a clue to what the term means.

Thanks.

Economists declare: 'Full employment!'

Full Employment