Worst President in U.S. History

[Dana7360]

Nat, you are trying to make them think about actions and consequences. That's not going to happen. They wanted Obama to wave a magic wand in 2009 and turn a battleship around in a bathtub.

True, and I well remember the quip that someone stated about if Obama could walk on water, right wingers would be in a tizzy about the fact that he couldn't swim.

Yes, if Obama found the cure for cancer the conservatives would whine that he put the chemo therapy companies out of business.

I would love to see what would happen if Obama held a press conference and said just the following sentences and then walked away without taking questions:

I love air. I believe everyone should breathe air.

I wouldn't be surprised if millions of conservatives across the nation tried to find some way to not breathe.

 

[kaz]

Clinton left the bush boy a very sound economy a balanced budget with a surplus and low unemployment

Slick Willy left W an economy entering a recession. What is wrong with you people? Seriously? The truth means nothing to you.

And further showing that is the balanced budget claim. The deficit went up every year the sexual predator was in office, how did that happen with a “balanced” budget exactly?

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

The numbers from 2002 to 2008 are better because of a few facts.

1. Clinton left the bush boy a very sound economy a balanced budget with a surplus and low unemployment. So when you start out with good economic figures it's going to take a while for them to be destroyed. In the case of the bush boy it only took a matter of months for him and his republican controlled congress to destroy the balanced budget and surplus. They never, not once wrote a balanced budget while the bush boy was president.

2. The bush boy collapsed the economy at the end of 2008. The recession started in 2007. The bush boy left office just as business was laying off millions of workers. It takes time and money to reverse economic collapse and prevent another republican great depression. If mccain/palin had been elected we would have been in another republican great depression before 2009 was finished. The only reason it was averted was Obama was elected. The unending deregulation and tax cuts for the rich by the bush boy and republicans stopped. I can't say the proper regulations were put in place by Obama and the democrats but regulations that at least take steps to prevent another republican economic collapse were put in place.

3. Obama has reversed the unemployment from 10.1% to down below 5.5.%. The unemployment rate was 7.8% and rapidly climbing when Obama took office.

If you used the same way to measure the economy and unemployment with Obama as has been used with all presidents for decades, you will see that Obama has done what only one other US president has done in the last 100 years. That's PREVENT another republican great depression.

Unemployment was lower when the undocumented Negro took office than it was when he finished his first term. Is that Obama's fault or someone else's?
Somehow everything bad that occurred under Bush was direectly due to Bush.
Everything bad that occurred under Obama was also directly due to Bush.
Everything good that happened under Bush was due to Clinton
Everything good that happened under Obama was due to Obama.
It's amazing.

 

[kaz]

Nat, you are trying to make them think about actions and consequences. That's not going to happen. They wanted Obama to wave a magic wand in 2009 and turn a battleship around in a bathtub.

True, and I well remember the quip that someone stated about if Obama could walk on water, right wingers would be in a tizzy about the fact that he couldn't swim.

Yes, if Obama found the cure for cancer the conservatives would whine that he put the chemo therapy companies out of business.

I would love to see what would happen if Obama held a press conference and said just the following sentences and then walked away without taking questions:

I love air. I believe everyone should breathe air.

I wouldn't be surprised if millions of conservatives across the nation tried to find some way to not breathe.

You are a partisan drone, stop whining

 

[Dana7360]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

What is the unemployment rate?

The unemployment rate as of March 2015 is 5.5% and is continuing to decrease.

It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when the bush boy left office.

 

[AmericanFirst]

YAWN

life as an unhinged left-wing idiot is so easy when you dont count your victims

Trolling is so much easier than addressing the subject, especially when it comes from a right wing newspaper.

A good part of the issue is people giving up looking for jobs that are unreported, but don't let the real story get in the way of worshipping the idiot in chief.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Come on, wing nuts. Here's your chance to weigh in again on how Obama is a communist and hates America.

Truth hurts you idiot libtards.

 

[Faun]

Obama sucks donkey dick.
End of story.

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

two recessions, one Republican president ... that's what your #'s clearly show.


ok, start deflecting, (but but but) in 3..2..1.. GO!

Right, the recession that started before W took office was his fault

Umm ... the recession started after Bush became president, not before.

Third quarter of 2000, sorry charlie. Then the first quarter of 2001 was negative. He wasn't President until almost a month into that quarter

My name's not Charlie and you don't need to apologize for lying. You're pathological and many here have come to expect it from you.

At any rate, the third quarter of 2000 posted positive GDP growth. And of course, the NBER dates the start of the recession in March, 2001 ... after Bush became president, not before. Just as I said...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And get this ... you don't get to alter the NBER. They monitor economic cycles whereas no one gives a shit about your bizarre methods.

 

[kaz]

My name's not Charlie and you don't need to apologize for lying. You're pathological and many here have come to expect it from you.

At any rate, the third quarter of 2000 posted positive GDP growth. And of course, the NBER dates the start of the recession in March, 2001 ... after Bush became president, not before. Just as I said...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And get this ... you don't get to alter the NBER. They monitor economic cycles whereas no one gives a shit about your bizarre methods.

Actually, Mac, you are a documented liar. What happened was that the third quarter of 2000 was originally measured as negative. They revised it later to be microscopically positive. So:

1) From a technical standpoint of a recession, you’re arguing the difference between +.1% and-.1% as if the difference affects the man on the street. We were in a recession clearly in a real sense.

2) Speaking of a real sense, even your own argument is blaming W for a recession that you say started a month after he took office. That would be after 6+ years of Obama still not owning the economy.

You are the class clown, the village idiot, the fool. Stop lying, it's just pathetically silly at this point. You are a pathological liar

 

[Faun]

My name's not Charlie and you don't need to apologize for lying. You're pathological and many here have come to expect it from you.

At any rate, the third quarter of 2000 posted positive GDP growth. And of course, the NBER dates the start of the recession in March, 2001 ... after Bush became president, not before. Just as I said...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And get this ... you don't get to alter the NBER. They monitor economic cycles whereas no one gives a shit about your bizarre methods.

Actually, Mac, you are a documented liar. What happened was that the third quarter of 2000 was originally measured as negative. They revised it later to be microscopically positive. So:

1) From a technical standpoint of a recession, you’re arguing the difference between +.1% and-.1% as if the difference affects the man on the street. We were in a recession clearly in a real sense.

2) Speaking of a real sense, even your own argument is blaming W for a recession that you say started a month after he took office. That would be after 6+ years of Obama still not owning the economy.

You are the class clown, the village idiot, the fool. Stop lying, it's just pathetically silly at this point. You are a pathological liar

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie. Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.

Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

What is the unemployment rate?

The unemployment rate as of March 2015 is 5.5% and is continuing to decrease.

It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when the bush boy left office.

More people were working when the unemployment rate was 7/8% than when the unemployment rate is 5.5%.
You are an Obama knee padder. There is nothing good that happens in the world that you will not attribute to his wonderous leadership. There is nothing bad that happens under him that you will not shield him from. And there is nothing bad that is not somehow the fault of Bush and the GOP.

 

[nat4900]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

What is the unemployment rate?

The unemployment rate as of March 2015 is 5.5% and is continuing to decrease.

It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when the bush boy left office.

More people were working when the unemployment rate was 7/8% than when the unemployment rate is 5.5%.
You are an Obama knee padder. There is nothing good that happens in the world that you will not attribute to his wonderous leadership. There is nothing bad that happens under him that you will not shield him from. And there is nothing bad that is not somehow the fault of Bush and the GOP.

.....and you "learned" this [bolded] percentile while standing at the unemployment line waiting for your number to be called?
Of course, you may have gained that bit of knowledge from Sean or Rush or Breibart....in that case, I'd agree......it's like the percentile wass written on the Tablets from Mt. Sinai.

 

[Dana7360]

My name's not Charlie and you don't need to apologize for lying. You're pathological and many here have come to expect it from you.

At any rate, the third quarter of 2000 posted positive GDP growth. And of course, the NBER dates the start of the recession in March, 2001 ... after Bush became president, not before. Just as I said...

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

And get this ... you don't get to alter the NBER. They monitor economic cycles whereas no one gives a shit about your bizarre methods.

Actually, Mac, you are a documented liar. What happened was that the third quarter of 2000 was originally measured as negative. They revised it later to be microscopically positive. So:

1) From a technical standpoint of a recession, you’re arguing the difference between +.1% and-.1% as if the difference affects the man on the street. We were in a recession clearly in a real sense.

2) Speaking of a real sense, even your own argument is blaming W for a recession that you say started a month after he took office. That would be after 6+ years of Obama still not owning the economy.

You are the class clown, the village idiot, the fool. Stop lying, it's just pathetically silly at this point. You are a pathological liar

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie. Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.

Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

The real definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

That didn't happen in 2000. In fact that fourth quarter growth in 2000 was 2.1% so for the bush boy's recession to have started in the Clinton years the last couple of quarters of 2000 would have required negative economic growth, which that didn't happen.

There wasn't two consecutive quarters of negative growth until the bush boy years. In fact, his tax cuts for the rich and his very unbalanced budget starting in 2001 was contributing causes of the recession in the first few years of the bush boy's presidency. 9-11 happened and it sent the economy into a tailspin which wasn't really recovered. Then in 2007 another bush boy recession started which lead to the bush boy's great recession from the economic collapse of 2008.

I will say that in the beginning of 2000 alan greenspan raised interest rates. He said he wanted to slow down consumption so that there wasn't inflation due to short supply and over demand. It takes at least 6 months for an interest rate increase to be felt completely throughout the economy. In June 2000, six months later, the economy started to slow down. A slow down isn't negative growth or recession.

 

[boedicca]

Regardless of the definition of Recession, ZERO PERCENT GROWTH doesn't feel very good to the working and middle classes.

 

[kaz]

[QUO

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie

Back at you, Hammy. You never get tired of arguing like an eight year old, do you?. You’re about to get ass whipped for your lies … again. Sucks to be you.

Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.


Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

Oh, it’s bad to be you. Caught in another flagrant lie. From the LA Times:

“Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP -- the value of the country's total output of goods and services -- shrank at an annual rate of 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

Previously, the government had said the GDP had risen at a weak annual rate of 0.6% during that quarter.”

New Data Show GDP Fell in 2000 s 3rd Quarter - latimes

So that's two lies for you. It wasn't postitive and they did revise it. Ouch! Also, LOL, you’re arguing the technical definition of recessions and you don’t even know what it is. Another lie we can document. It’s 2 out of 3 months of negative growth.

Again, that is the technical, economic definition. Once again you don’t give a shit about the man on the street as you’re arguing what to him is clearly a recession isn’t because of technical definitions (but only when they help Democrats). Yet another lie we nailed you in

 

[Dana7360]

Regardless of the definition of Recession, ZERO PERCENT GROWTH doesn't feel very good to the working and middle classes.

Not much happened because much of the nation was buried under up to over 6 feet of snow.

My cousin and wife had to close their Toy Store in Massachusetts due to no one was able to go anywhere or buying anything on top of the rent being increased a lot. They still have their other business and they are expecting things to pick up now that the snow is gone and people can drive again.

My cousin had over 6 feet of snow where he lives.

However, zero growth isn't negative growth and one quarter is not an indication of a slowing trend of the economy.

I won't be surprised to see larger growth in the coming quarters.

 

[kaz]

My name's not Charlie and you don't need to apologize for lying. You're pathological and many here have come to expect it from you.


At any rate, the third quarter of 2000 posted positive GDP growth. And of course, the NBER dates the start of the recession in March, 2001 ... after Bush became president, not before. Just as I said...


http://www.nber.org/cycles.html


And get this ... you don't get to alter the NBER. They monitor economic cycles whereas no one gives a shit about your bizarre methods.

Actually, Mac, you are a documented liar. What happened was that the third quarter of 2000 was originally measured as negative. They revised it later to be microscopically positive. So:


1) From a technical standpoint of a recession, you’re arguing the difference between +.1% and-.1% as if the difference affects the man on the street. We were in a recession clearly in a real sense.


2) Speaking of a real sense, even your own argument is blaming W for a recession that you say started a month after he took office. That would be after 6+ years of Obama still not owning the economy.


You are the class clown, the village idiot, the fool. Stop lying, it's just pathetically silly at this point. You are a pathological liar

Projecting your pathological lying doesn't help you as you can't quote me telling a lie. Despite your senility, at no point in history was that recession dated from the third quarter of 2000 regardless of the GDP numbers being revised. The 4th quarter of that year was never negative and the NBER determines recessions based on monthly GDP data, not quarterly -- and as you've been shown, the NBER dates the start of the recession after Bush became president.


Your lie that it started before remains a lie.

The real definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.


That didn't happen in 2000. In fact that fourth quarter growth in 2000 was 2.1% so for the bush boy's recession to have started in the Clinton years the last couple of quarters of 2000 would have required negative economic growth, which that didn't happen.


There wasn't two consecutive quarters of negative growth until the bush boy years. In fact, his tax cuts for the rich and his very unbalanced budget starting in 2001 was contributing causes of the recession in the first few years of the bush boy's presidency. 9-11 happened and it sent the economy into a tailspin which wasn't really recovered. Then in 2007 another bush boy recession started which lead to the bush boy's great recession from the economic collapse of 2008.


I will say that in the beginning of 2000 alan greenspan raised interest rates. He said he wanted to slow down consumption so that there wasn't inflation due to short supply and over demand. It takes at least 6 months for an interest rate increase to be felt completely throughout the economy. In June 2000, six months later, the economy started to slow down. A slow down isn't negative growth or recession.

So your argument comes down to nuh uh, the two quarters before W were negative then positive, then they went negative for multiple quarters in a row as he was sworn in, so it is W’s fault. LOL, classic. What a tool.

So Skippy, on another topic, it’s been six years and two months since Obama was sworn in, does he own the economy yet?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

What is the unemployment rate?

The unemployment rate as of March 2015 is 5.5% and is continuing to decrease.

It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when the bush boy left office.

More people were working when the unemployment rate was 7/8% than when the unemployment rate is 5.5%.
You are an Obama knee padder. There is nothing good that happens in the world that you will not attribute to his wonderous leadership. There is nothing bad that happens under him that you will not shield him from. And there is nothing bad that is not somehow the fault of Bush and the GOP.

.....and you "learned" this [bolded] percentile while standing at the unemployment line waiting for your number to be called?
Of course, you may have gained that bit of knowledge from Sean or Rush or Breibart....in that case, I'd agree......it's like the percentile wass written on the Tablets from Mt. Sinai.

Oh yeah? Well, BENGHAZI!

 

[The Rabbi]

Regardless of the definition of Recession, ZERO PERCENT GROWTH doesn't feel very good to the working and middle classes.

Not much happened because much of the nation was buried under up to over 6 feet of snow.

My cousin and wife had to close their Toy Store in Massachusetts due to no one was able to go anywhere or buying anything on top of the rent being increased a lot. They still have their other business and they are expecting things to pick up now that the snow is gone and people can drive again.

My cousin had over 6 feet of snow where he lives.

However, zero growth isn't negative growth and one quarter is not an indication of a slowing trend of the economy.

I won't be surprised to see larger growth in the coming quarters.

See, this is why libs can never learn anything. They take one factoid out of context, often an anecdote or personal experience, and then proceed to ignore every contrary.
In fact this winter was overall one of the warmest, with the least snowfall. Yes, New England got slammed in record proportions. But New England isnt the US.
The GDP growth rate has never exceeded 3% except one quarter since Boy Negro took office. That is a shameful record that reflects policies and laws enacted in the first 2 years of Obozo's reign.
I wouldnt be surprised to see the economy slip into actual recession as layoffs in the energy sector spread to other areas.

 

[boedicca]

Regardless of the definition of Recession, ZERO PERCENT GROWTH doesn't feel very good to the working and middle classes.

Not much happened because much of the nation was buried under up to over 6 feet of snow.

My cousin and wife had to close their Toy Store in Massachusetts due to no one was able to go anywhere or buying anything on top of the rent being increased a lot. They still have their other business and they are expecting things to pick up now that the snow is gone and people can drive again.

My cousin had over 6 feet of snow where he lives.

However, zero growth isn't negative growth and one quarter is not an indication of a slowing trend of the economy.

I won't be surprised to see larger growth in the coming quarters.

That is a crock. And although you cite the SNOW as a reason, I bet you also believe in Global Warming.