Will Republicans win 2016?

[80zephyr]

If you look at our projected unfunded liabilities, you would not reject my premise. My premise is simply math.

And math doesn't lie.

As to the war, in the big picture, it doesn't amount to a molehill of our mountain.

Two trillion dollars is a "molehill"? Really?

In comparison to our other unfunded liabilities, yes.

A National Debt Of 14 Trillion Try 211 Trillion NPR

Mark

 

[JoeB131]

In comparison to our other unfunded liabilities, yes.

A National Debt Of 14 Trillion Try 211 Trillion NPR

Mark

Whenever I hear a Republican talk about "unfunded liabilities", I know I need to break out the hipwaders for the ensuing flood of bullshit.

 

[80zephyr]

We have had the slowest recovery from a recession in the last 60 years due to Obama's failed policies! The SM took a nosedive in the Fall of 08 when it became obvious to investors that The Kenyan was going to be elected.

Again, I have to conclude you are some kind of retard. I think that dog looks smarter than you.

We have a slow recovery because this was the worst crash in 80 years. And because the 1%ers weren't held to account for their role in it, they took advantage.

On your last point, I agree. People should have went to jail. They didn't, it shows us who really controls America.

Mark

In comparison to our other unfunded liabilities, yes.

A National Debt Of 14 Trillion Try 211 Trillion NPR

Mark

Whenever I hear a Republican talk about "unfunded liabilities", I know I need to break out the hipwaders for the ensuing flood of bullshit.

Really? It is not an issue? So, if we just ignore it, the problem will go away?

BTW, I am not a republican, I am a conservative.


Mark

 

[JoeB131]

Really? It is not an issue? So, if we just ignore it, the problem will go away?

BTW, I am not a republican, I am a conservative.

I'm glad you've found a meaningless term that has absolved you of any stake in things.

But, no, unfunded liabilities assumes that we won't have a steady stream of income, we can't generate more income or we can't control costs. All of which we can do.

 

[80zephyr]

Really? It is not an issue? So, if we just ignore it, the problem will go away?

BTW, I am not a republican, I am a conservative.

I'm glad you've found a meaningless term that has absolved you of any stake in things.

But, no, unfunded liabilities assumes that we won't have a steady stream of income, we can't generate more income or we can't control costs. All of which we can do.

Of course we can fix it, if we have the political will. Based on our unfunded liabilities, we would have to raise all taxes by 66 percent or cut all entitlements by 40 %.

Do you really see that happening?

We will simply keep kicking the can down the road until our fiscal collapse.

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

We have had the slowest recovery from a recession in the last 60 years due to Obama's failed policies! The SM took a nosedive in the Fall of 08 when it became obvious to investors that The Kenyan was going to be elected.

Again, I have to conclude you are some kind of retard. I think that dog looks smarter than you.

We have a slow recovery because this was the worst crash in 80 years. And because the 1%ers weren't held to account for their role in it, they took advantage.

You understand that's a total non sequitur, right?

 

[CowboyTed]

Libertarians?

More than likely. Democrats and Republicans claim to care about all this stuff but it seems like they're all talk and no action.

I do respect your choice because I sympathize with this party as well. But they have a significant drawback that is kinda isolationism. In our rough times the humanity needs a politician-interventionist.
The World Gendarme has some job of work on overthrowing tyrants.

The truth running a proper fiscal policy is not all about cutting taxes.

Look at Europe, up until the Banking Crisis (when all bets were off) they run fiscal conservative policies. Why? because we don't have endless credit.

We are all meant to be under 60% under the Maastricht Debt Treaty and we were holding that until the banking crisis..

Ideally, The way it works is simple in good times to take from the economy to slow the boom and in recession you spend to drive the economy through the slump. This is basic macroeconomics.
Some countries are better doing this than others, Switzerland and the Scandinavians are generally good. Ireland lost the run of themselves in the good times. But just like a football coach some plays a runs and others are passes...

Bush made a dogs ear of this by cutting taxes during a war.In a war you are already spending and borrowing money to pay for the war. He hid this in Emergency War Funding which was left off the books.
Obama ended this and put war funding back on the books:
The Obameter End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war PolitiFact

So even without the banking crisis the method of accounting for wars was screwed.

So Obama was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor. He took control and has reduce the amount needed. US is now borrowing less that it did in 2003 or 2004 when the GOP had total control (per GDP).

Excellent post.

It would be fascinating to see an impartial overview of the state of the economy each president inherited during the past 100 years. I suspect no president has ever inherited the mess Obama inherited, and that nust be taken into account when evaluating his presidency.

That is not to blame the meltdown entirely on rhe GOP either - but merely to be objective about what Obma started with in comparison to those who came before him.

Well, if Obama was not cut out to handle the job, then perhaps he should not have run for president. After all, it was HE who said he could fix everything.

Well he was looking at Bush screwing up at incredible levels and thought he could do a better job than he did...

The thing is you have to judge a president, did he leave it better than he found it...

Obama has improved things. Therefore Obama is a success.

Bush is a failure...

Simple..

 

[80zephyr]

More than likely. Democrats and Republicans claim to care about all this stuff but it seems like they're all talk and no action.

I do respect your choice because I sympathize with this party as well. But they have a significant drawback that is kinda isolationism. In our rough times the humanity needs a politician-interventionist.
The World Gendarme has some job of work on overthrowing tyrants.

The truth running a proper fiscal policy is not all about cutting taxes.

Look at Europe, up until the Banking Crisis (when all bets were off) they run fiscal conservative policies. Why? because we don't have endless credit.

We are all meant to be under 60% under the Maastricht Debt Treaty and we were holding that until the banking crisis..

Ideally, The way it works is simple in good times to take from the economy to slow the boom and in recession you spend to drive the economy through the slump. This is basic macroeconomics.
Some countries are better doing this than others, Switzerland and the Scandinavians are generally good. Ireland lost the run of themselves in the good times. But just like a football coach some plays a runs and others are passes...

Bush made a dogs ear of this by cutting taxes during a war.In a war you are already spending and borrowing money to pay for the war. He hid this in Emergency War Funding which was left off the books.
Obama ended this and put war funding back on the books:
The Obameter End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war PolitiFact

So even without the banking crisis the method of accounting for wars was screwed.

So Obama was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor. He took control and has reduce the amount needed. US is now borrowing less that it did in 2003 or 2004 when the GOP had total control (per GDP).

Excellent post.

It would be fascinating to see an impartial overview of the state of the economy each president inherited during the past 100 years. I suspect no president has ever inherited the mess Obama inherited, and that nust be taken into account when evaluating his presidency.

That is not to blame the meltdown entirely on rhe GOP either - but merely to be objective about what Obma started with in comparison to those who came before him.

Well, if Obama was not cut out to handle the job, then perhaps he should not have run for president. After all, it was HE who said he could fix everything.

Well he was looking at Bush screwing up at incredible levels and thought he could do a better job than he did...

The thing is you have to judge a president, did he leave it better than he found it...

Obama has improved things. Therefore Obama is a success.

Bush is a failure...

Simple..

Hmm. So, what if the economy collapses before Obama leaves office?

Mark

 

[Mac1958]

.

Obama took over such a horrific mess that there will never really be a way to judge his overall performance on the economy.

I sure as hell wish he had done things differently, but we'll still never know.

Okay, back to the partisan slap fight.

.

 

[CowboyTed]

Good question

Where were we before Obama became President?
The middle class was being layed off at 770,000 jobs a month. We have added 200,000 or more a month all year now.....that is a million jobs a month difference

But . . .

New U.S. economy Part-time and temp job markets explode - Washington Times

The new economic reality in the United States is this: The workforce has shifted from full-timers to part-timers.

On top of that, more Americans receive food stamps than work full time, Fox News reported.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an estimated 28 million peolpe in America now work at part-time jobs. And as the Washington Examiner noted, a record level of workers in the nation now hold temporary positions — about 2.7 million — that are obtained through a job placement service.

The American Staffing Association reported that in the first quarter of 2013 staffing agencies employed about 2 percent of non-farm workers in the nation. That’s up by 2.9 percent from the similar quarter in 2012. And comparing June 2013 with June 2012, the number of Americans working at positions obtained through temp agencies jumped 6.7 percent.

“Nearly one-fifth of all jobs gained since the recession ended have been temporary,” said Ashe Schow in the Examiner report.

At the same time, full-time jobs decreased by 240,000 positions.

Please don't quote the Washington Times, you are better than that

Any way that right wing propaganda spins it, we are MUCH better than we were in 2008. It is not even close
A million jobs a month is better no matter how you spin it
3.9% GDP growth is better than the negative GDP
26 trillion in additional household wealth is huge

That article used valid sources, so there is no reason for you to make such a statement. The claims made in the article are true. I see it in my own community. Also, employers are offering less money for the same jobs. This is because the economy sucks and they can. There are more people than ever collecting benefits too, and there are those people who are not being counted anymore because they aren't eligible to collect unemployment benefits anymore. Only those collecting unemployment benefits will be counted as "unemployed." However, people out there who are looking for jobs are going to be very disappointed.

Any way you cut it....Bush lost 5 million jobs of all levels

That is the economic situation Obama inherited. Losing 750,000 jobs a month and then you ***** because the 200,000 plus jobs Obama is adding are not all executive positions. The market rose from 6900 to over 17000. Five quarters of negative GDP under Bush

Can you SERIOUSLY claim the economy s not better?

I'm not sticking up for Bush. Yes, the economy is modestly better. I still wonder if things wouldn't have been better if the government had not involved itself in bail outs and other such things to begin with though.

Thats a what if... The bailouts have paid off

PolitiFact reviews but does not rate Obama s auto bailout claims TheHill

 

[Theowl32]

Cowboy Ted claimed he was not a liberal. Such ******* liars. Delusional ignorant moronic ******* liars.

He was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor? ******* ignorant hack.

Here are some more facts for you that you obviously do not know about.

The last time the republicans had majority power was 2006. At the end of that, the unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent. The dow was healthy and it was NOT due to ZIRP. You have no clue what ZIRP is, cause you are ignorant as hell. Here is a clue.

You ******* occupy wall street hypocrites all of a sudden have no problem with the artificial inflation of the stock market so obama can pay off his contributors. Naaaaah, that is not it. Cause republicans are only for the rich. I guess Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Jeffrey Immelt are not rich. ******* idiot.


The democrats took over power in 2007 and have had majority of the power since 2007. Maybe you do not remember, you ignorant ape, that the democrats took over the House AND Senate in 2007. What happened to the economy AFTER the democrats took over power? Look up the results between 2007 till 2010 (then republicans took over congress again, thank God.)

Bush, warned no less than 17 times (all documented in official archives) of the housing bubble. The democrats, in their typical treasonous fashion, ignored ALL of the warnings knowing they could wrap the collapse around republicans. If you do not remember, that was a big election year in 2008. The democrats once again played dirty politics, sabotaged the country's welfare for political gain and political expediency. They of course propped up your favorite scapegoat.....BOOOOOOOOOOSH.

You are so ******* stupid that you bought it then and you buy it now. You and your pathetic gaggle of liberal morons then brag (get this), you ******* brag and celebrate in 2012 that the unemployment rate went "down" to 7.8 percent. Meanwhile the gas prices at the pump was the HIGHEST EVER. Not one ******* word from CNN types......EXCEPT they actually said it was a good thing "for the environment."

Now I have to read your stupid dreck and see you act as though you have any ******* clue about anything.

You stupid ******* hack.

Your so nice... And pretty clueless...

So can you tell us what laws Democrats brought in signed by Bush which caused the crash in 2007?

You simple minded ******* idiot... You are what those boys who are ******* up the country need, a complete fool.

Your problem with Obama is that he didn't fix your **** ups quick enough...

Foxx blames recession on Democratic Congressional takeover PolitiFact

As to your Interest Rate Policy:
Janet Yellen Shows Foolishness of GOP Monetary Policy at Hearing New Republic

Republicans have been 100 percent wrong on monetary policy throughout the Obama presidency. They have frequently critiqued Fed policy, predicting it would cause high inflation. That has not happened, even though the Fed has ignored the GOP’s dire warnings and kept interest rates at zero. Huizenga and many of his Republican colleagues now want to assert even more control over the Federal Reserve by attempting to lock it into a rules-based policy. Or else ensure the Fed chair will have to report to Huizenga and Co. directly.

So you completely wrong in the past but like the fool you are you keep on knocking your head on the wall..

And are we still trying to blame Democrats...
There s plenty of bipartisan blame for crisis PolitiFact


So Fuckwit... I don't normally call most people Horse's asses but you have been the exception as you have been incredibly rude... Misinformed and complete joke...

You are now been owned too.. You continue to embarrass yourself by repeating lie after lie... That might work on your news sources but they are the tactics of Hitler... And we see that you are using that tactic...

The thing about you is you will wrap yourself the Flag and talk about being a good christian and then go screw the fellow American beside you... You support War profiteering GOP... You are that type of scum... Lowest for on dogshit really...

So this embarrassment of a poster has just been owned and could the next time someone answer my post act like you come from civil society. Your mother must have really fucked up in bringing you up to talk the way you do, you must be a constant embarrassment.

You are nothing but socialist cocksucking moron. You think Obama is a success. That is all we need to know about a ******* moron like you.

Yeah the dems had majority of the power from 2007 till present and all you do is blame boooooosh for the economic collapse in 2008. You stupid useless ****.

You ignore the FACT that Bush warned congress 17 times in 2008. You ******* ignore fanny and Freddie and the roles Dodd and Frank played.


Was Bush responsible? Yeah, in a lot of ways he carried on liberal programs. Fair Housing Act to name a few.


Anyone that voted for a communist like Obama is a ******* moron. Anyone who then voted for him again, is just a useless piece of shit, and anyone claiming Obama is a big success should have been flushed or swallowed.

Makes you wonder why most of the democrat candidates did not want anything to do with the community organizing pile of shit. It must be because all of his policies have even so successful.


Remember when you claimed you were not a liberal yesterday? You ******* liar.

 

[The Rabbi]

More than likely. Democrats and Republicans claim to care about all this stuff but it seems like they're all talk and no action.

I do respect your choice because I sympathize with this party as well. But they have a significant drawback that is kinda isolationism. In our rough times the humanity needs a politician-interventionist.
The World Gendarme has some job of work on overthrowing tyrants.

The truth running a proper fiscal policy is not all about cutting taxes.

Look at Europe, up until the Banking Crisis (when all bets were off) they run fiscal conservative policies. Why? because we don't have endless credit.

We are all meant to be under 60% under the Maastricht Debt Treaty and we were holding that until the banking crisis..

Ideally, The way it works is simple in good times to take from the economy to slow the boom and in recession you spend to drive the economy through the slump. This is basic macroeconomics.
Some countries are better doing this than others, Switzerland and the Scandinavians are generally good. Ireland lost the run of themselves in the good times. But just like a football coach some plays a runs and others are passes...

Bush made a dogs ear of this by cutting taxes during a war.In a war you are already spending and borrowing money to pay for the war. He hid this in Emergency War Funding which was left off the books.
Obama ended this and put war funding back on the books:
The Obameter End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war PolitiFact

So even without the banking crisis the method of accounting for wars was screwed.

So Obama was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor. He took control and has reduce the amount needed. US is now borrowing less that it did in 2003 or 2004 when the GOP had total control (per GDP).

Excellent post.

It would be fascinating to see an impartial overview of the state of the economy each president inherited during the past 100 years. I suspect no president has ever inherited the mess Obama inherited, and that nust be taken into account when evaluating his presidency.

That is not to blame the meltdown entirely on rhe GOP either - but merely to be objective about what Obma started with in comparison to those who came before him.

Well, if Obama was not cut out to handle the job, then perhaps he should not have run for president. After all, it was HE who said he could fix everything.

Well he was looking at Bush screwing up at incredible levels and thought he could do a better job than he did...

The thing is you have to judge a president, did he leave it better than he found it...

Obama has improved things. Therefore Obama is a success.

Bush is a failure...

Simple..

Bush was far and away a superior leader to Obozo. That's not to mention as a human being, where Bush should have been Obama's owner, not his predecessor.
Bush inherited a recession. Bush inherited an unprecedented terror problem. Was Bush perfect? No. But he had a tough hand.
Obama inherited an economy on the mend. Obama inherited a successful Iraq War and a stand off in Afghanistan. Obama inherited terrorists on the run. He inherited $10T in debt and a AAA rating. He inherited a huge amount of good will both abroad and at home.
And in six short years he's managed to turn everything to shit.

 

[TooTall]

Republicans can rightly pat themselves on the back for the 2014 election. But if they think it will carry over to 2016, they will be sadly disappointed. A presidential election at the same time Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats (Dems defend 10) will not bode well for the GOP

In the 1986 election there were 22 Republicans and 12 Democrats seats up for election. 7 of the seats the Republicans lost were first term Senators.

I would have to see how many of the Republican seats are first term Senators to draw an equivalent profile of the 2016 election.

 

[rightwinger]

I do respect your choice because I sympathize with this party as well. But they have a significant drawback that is kinda isolationism. In our rough times the humanity needs a politician-interventionist.
The World Gendarme has some job of work on overthrowing tyrants.

The truth running a proper fiscal policy is not all about cutting taxes.

Look at Europe, up until the Banking Crisis (when all bets were off) they run fiscal conservative policies. Why? because we don't have endless credit.

We are all meant to be under 60% under the Maastricht Debt Treaty and we were holding that until the banking crisis..

Ideally, The way it works is simple in good times to take from the economy to slow the boom and in recession you spend to drive the economy through the slump. This is basic macroeconomics.
Some countries are better doing this than others, Switzerland and the Scandinavians are generally good. Ireland lost the run of themselves in the good times. But just like a football coach some plays a runs and others are passes...

Bush made a dogs ear of this by cutting taxes during a war.In a war you are already spending and borrowing money to pay for the war. He hid this in Emergency War Funding which was left off the books.
Obama ended this and put war funding back on the books:
The Obameter End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war PolitiFact

So even without the banking crisis the method of accounting for wars was screwed.

So Obama was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor. He took control and has reduce the amount needed. US is now borrowing less that it did in 2003 or 2004 when the GOP had total control (per GDP).

Excellent post.

It would be fascinating to see an impartial overview of the state of the economy each president inherited during the past 100 years. I suspect no president has ever inherited the mess Obama inherited, and that nust be taken into account when evaluating his presidency.

That is not to blame the meltdown entirely on rhe GOP either - but merely to be objective about what Obma started with in comparison to those who came before him.

Well, if Obama was not cut out to handle the job, then perhaps he should not have run for president. After all, it was HE who said he could fix everything.

Well he was looking at Bush screwing up at incredible levels and thought he could do a better job than he did...

The thing is you have to judge a president, did he leave it better than he found it...

Obama has improved things. Therefore Obama is a success.

Bush is a failure...

Simple..

Hmm. So, what if the economy collapses before Obama leaves office?

Mark

Then Obama will be accountable won't he

But nobody screwed up as much as Bush did in 2008. A deer in the headlights in a panic over his diminishing legacy

 

[rightwinger]

I do respect your choice because I sympathize with this party as well. But they have a significant drawback that is kinda isolationism. In our rough times the humanity needs a politician-interventionist.
The World Gendarme has some job of work on overthrowing tyrants.

The truth running a proper fiscal policy is not all about cutting taxes.

Look at Europe, up until the Banking Crisis (when all bets were off) they run fiscal conservative policies. Why? because we don't have endless credit.

We are all meant to be under 60% under the Maastricht Debt Treaty and we were holding that until the banking crisis..

Ideally, The way it works is simple in good times to take from the economy to slow the boom and in recession you spend to drive the economy through the slump. This is basic macroeconomics.
Some countries are better doing this than others, Switzerland and the Scandinavians are generally good. Ireland lost the run of themselves in the good times. But just like a football coach some plays a runs and others are passes...

Bush made a dogs ear of this by cutting taxes during a war.In a war you are already spending and borrowing money to pay for the war. He hid this in Emergency War Funding which was left off the books.
Obama ended this and put war funding back on the books:
The Obameter End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war PolitiFact

So even without the banking crisis the method of accounting for wars was screwed.

So Obama was dealt a bad hand from his predecessor. He took control and has reduce the amount needed. US is now borrowing less that it did in 2003 or 2004 when the GOP had total control (per GDP).

Excellent post.

It would be fascinating to see an impartial overview of the state of the economy each president inherited during the past 100 years. I suspect no president has ever inherited the mess Obama inherited, and that nust be taken into account when evaluating his presidency.

That is not to blame the meltdown entirely on rhe GOP either - but merely to be objective about what Obma started with in comparison to those who came before him.

Well, if Obama was not cut out to handle the job, then perhaps he should not have run for president. After all, it was HE who said he could fix everything.

Well he was looking at Bush screwing up at incredible levels and thought he could do a better job than he did...

The thing is you have to judge a president, did he leave it better than he found it...

Obama has improved things. Therefore Obama is a success.

Bush is a failure...

Simple..

Bush was far and away a superior leader to Obozo. That's not to mention as a human being, where Bush should have been Obama's owner, not his predecessor.
Bush inherited a recession. Bush inherited an unprecedented terror problem. Was Bush perfect? No. But he had a tough hand.
Obama inherited an economy on the mend. Obama inherited a successful Iraq War and a stand off in Afghanistan. Obama inherited terrorists on the run. He inherited $10T in debt and a AAA rating. He inherited a huge amount of good will both abroad and at home.
And in six short years he's managed to turn everything to shit.

NEVER seen such spin

Thanks for the amusement

 

[TooTall]

What's going to happen in 2016? The Dems are going to take the White House, re-take the Senate and make large gains in the House.

Why? Simple.......................over the next 2 years people are going to really understand the ACA and vote against anyone who says they want to repeal it.

Additionally, the GOP is going to get even crazier in their opposition to Obama, the people are going to see it and get tired of it, and then they will vote the GOP out.

Obamacare is nothing more than an increased spending program to make our situation worse, not better. If that is what the people want, they are voting to ensure their own demise as a country.

Mark

Mark,

Obama has decreased spending (Federal Spending in Trillions):
2009 24.40
2010 23.11
2011 23.19
2012 21.77
2013 20.57
2014 20.22

So you basically wrong. Obama is just like Clinton in decreasing spending...
The 2009 Budget is Bush's last Budget....

Obama decreased? Or did the GOP congress force spending cuts? Was it called reconciliation? I don't recall.

Never the less, most spending is now mandatory, and the CBO has yet to show us even one study where we can get our budget under control without deep cuts in social spending.

The current projection adds 100 trillion to our debt. Look at it this way. It took up until Reagan for our debt to total one trillion dollars.

That is 200 and some years in our country's history. As of today, Obama has added about 6 trillion dollars.

You aren't worried about that? Don't people realize that the gravy train we ride today HAS TO STOP, or the country will cease to exist ala the USSR?

Mark

Well lets start... Bush requested the 2009 Budget, so he added the 6 trillion.

Now you accused Obama of increasing spending, I just pointed out it went down. Suddenly congress gets all that credit...

So when you thought it was increasing it was Obama but if it went down it is all Congress...

On a $100 trillion debt, Can you give me a link for $100 trillion debt? I think you are again misinformed.

I am sorry but looking at your post, your assumptions are wrong.

The 800 Billion stimulus that Obama added to Bush's 2009 budget ran it up a few bucks.
The Congress no longer passes budgets, just continuing resolutions. The only time spending was lowered was when the Congress passed sequestration. You do know that Obama has submitted budgets that did not receive a single vote, Democrat or Republican in the Senate don't you?

 

[TooTall]

But . . .

New U.S. economy Part-time and temp job markets explode - Washington Times

The new economic reality in the United States is this: The workforce has shifted from full-timers to part-timers.

On top of that, more Americans receive food stamps than work full time, Fox News reported.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an estimated 28 million peolpe in America now work at part-time jobs. And as the Washington Examiner noted, a record level of workers in the nation now hold temporary positions — about 2.7 million — that are obtained through a job placement service.

The American Staffing Association reported that in the first quarter of 2013 staffing agencies employed about 2 percent of non-farm workers in the nation. That’s up by 2.9 percent from the similar quarter in 2012. And comparing June 2013 with June 2012, the number of Americans working at positions obtained through temp agencies jumped 6.7 percent.

“Nearly one-fifth of all jobs gained since the recession ended have been temporary,” said Ashe Schow in the Examiner report.

At the same time, full-time jobs decreased by 240,000 positions.

Please don't quote the Washington Times, you are better than that

Any way that right wing propaganda spins it, we are MUCH better than we were in 2008. It is not even close
A million jobs a month is better no matter how you spin it
3.9% GDP growth is better than the negative GDP
26 trillion in additional household wealth is huge

That article used valid sources, so there is no reason for you to make such a statement. The claims made in the article are true. I see it in my own community. Also, employers are offering less money for the same jobs. This is because the economy sucks and they can. There are more people than ever collecting benefits too, and there are those people who are not being counted anymore because they aren't eligible to collect unemployment benefits anymore. Only those collecting unemployment benefits will be counted as "unemployed." However, people out there who are looking for jobs are going to be very disappointed.

Any way you cut it....Bush lost 5 million jobs of all levels

That is the economic situation Obama inherited. Losing 750,000 jobs a month and then you ***** because the 200,000 plus jobs Obama is adding are not all executive positions. The market rose from 6900 to over 17000. Five quarters of negative GDP under Bush

Can you SERIOUSLY claim the economy s not better?

I'm not sticking up for Bush. Yes, the economy is modestly better. I still wonder if things wouldn't have been better if the government had not involved itself in bail outs and other such things to begin with though.

The banks were failing like dominoes. Let them fail and pick up the economic pieces was not a viable option. Bush knew it and so did Obama.
Only rightwing fanatics seriously believe the way to handle an economic collapse is to walk away

And that $800 billion for 'shovel ready jobs' really worked out as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Please don't quote the Washington Times, you are better than that

Any way that right wing propaganda spins it, we are MUCH better than we were in 2008. It is not even close
A million jobs a month is better no matter how you spin it
3.9% GDP growth is better than the negative GDP
26 trillion in additional household wealth is huge

That article used valid sources, so there is no reason for you to make such a statement. The claims made in the article are true. I see it in my own community. Also, employers are offering less money for the same jobs. This is because the economy sucks and they can. There are more people than ever collecting benefits too, and there are those people who are not being counted anymore because they aren't eligible to collect unemployment benefits anymore. Only those collecting unemployment benefits will be counted as "unemployed." However, people out there who are looking for jobs are going to be very disappointed.

Any way you cut it....Bush lost 5 million jobs of all levels

That is the economic situation Obama inherited. Losing 750,000 jobs a month and then you ***** because the 200,000 plus jobs Obama is adding are not all executive positions. The market rose from 6900 to over 17000. Five quarters of negative GDP under Bush

Can you SERIOUSLY claim the economy s not better?

I'm not sticking up for Bush. Yes, the economy is modestly better. I still wonder if things wouldn't have been better if the government had not involved itself in bail outs and other such things to begin with though.

The banks were failing like dominoes. Let them fail and pick up the economic pieces was not a viable option. Bush knew it and so did Obama.
Only rightwing fanatics seriously believe the way to handle an economic collapse is to walk away

And that $800 billion for 'shovel ready jobs' really worked out as well.

Only half of the $800 billion was for shovel ready jobs, the rest was tax cuts
Those shovel ready jobs included police, fire, teachers as well as local infrastructure projects

 

[guno]

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told the Washington Post. "We're (the white christian party) not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.".

 

[TooTall]

That article used valid sources, so there is no reason for you to make such a statement. The claims made in the article are true. I see it in my own community. Also, employers are offering less money for the same jobs. This is because the economy sucks and they can. There are more people than ever collecting benefits too, and there are those people who are not being counted anymore because they aren't eligible to collect unemployment benefits anymore. Only those collecting unemployment benefits will be counted as "unemployed." However, people out there who are looking for jobs are going to be very disappointed.

Any way you cut it....Bush lost 5 million jobs of all levels

That is the economic situation Obama inherited. Losing 750,000 jobs a month and then you ***** because the 200,000 plus jobs Obama is adding are not all executive positions. The market rose from 6900 to over 17000. Five quarters of negative GDP under Bush

Can you SERIOUSLY claim the economy s not better?

I'm not sticking up for Bush. Yes, the economy is modestly better. I still wonder if things wouldn't have been better if the government had not involved itself in bail outs and other such things to begin with though.

The banks were failing like dominoes. Let them fail and pick up the economic pieces was not a viable option. Bush knew it and so did Obama.
Only rightwing fanatics seriously believe the way to handle an economic collapse is to walk away

And that $800 billion for 'shovel ready jobs' really worked out as well.

Only half of the $800 billion was for shovel ready jobs, the rest was tax cuts
Those shovel ready jobs included police, fire, teachers as well as local infrastructure projects

Of the $787 billion economic stimulus package signed into law by President Barack Obama in February 2009, approximately $300 billion represented tax provisions.

Economic Stimulus Package In Detail Tax Cut Stimulus IRS Stimulus Tax Cuts