You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Luckyone]

It was weak but when compared t0 the recession, it was good.

You claimed you were a stock ananlyst for 47 years? Hilarious!

But true and have the public results to show it. What do you have to show? A "let out of an insane asylum" receipt?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But true and have the public results to show it. What do you have to show? A "let out of an insane asylum" receipt?

47 years and you never noticed the deeper the decline the stronger the recovery?
Except for Obama's weak ass recovery. DURR

 

[protectionist]

Obama "inherited" the recession caused by Bush Jr. and turned it around. Obama stated his presidency in January 2009 and let me prove you easily wrong

You do know that during recessions, the stock market goes down, don't you?

Here is the chart of the DOW from 2008-2017. Obama began his presidency on January 2009 and the DOW was at 6665 and when he left the DOW was at 18100, The stock market almost tripled under his watch. Your recession is a nightmare in your mind only

View attachment 1001652


One question for you. Are you so dumb as to state something that can be proven wrong so easily?

The only thing you have proven is that you are either a bald faced liar, or a total jerk who tries to contradict government statistics.

I taught microeconomics in college for 3 years, but an 8th grade kid could refute you with ease.

Obama had 7 recessions and the proof is in the very often declining GDPs. What Trump got from Obama was an economically failed administration, riddled with 7 recessions (I will itemize them if you like), 5 below zero GDP quarters, and a row of GDPs in his last 2 years that were like a sinking ship. > (the left side of the infamous V-GRAPH always omitted on CNN, MSNBC, et al leftwing media.)

I doubt that you can even ascetain where there are recessions, by looking at the GDP graphs. Here's 2 of those recessions right here in the V-GRAPH >>

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing you have proven is that you are either a bald faced liar, or a total jerk who tries to contradict government statistics.

I taught microeconomics in college for 3 years, but an 8th grade kid could refute you with ease.

Obama had 7 recessions and the proof is in the very often declining GDPs. What Trump got from Obama was an economically failed administration, riddled with 7 recessions (I will itemize them if you like), 5 below zero GDP quarters, and a row of GDPs in his last 2 years that were like a sinking ship. > (the left side of the infamous V-GRAPH always omitted on CNN, MSNBC, et al leftwing media.)

I doubt that you can even ascetain where there are recessions, by looking at the GDP graphs. Here's 2 of those recessions right here in the V-GRAPH >>

View attachment 1002122

View attachment 1002123

Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How? You certainly made a statement about Reagan and did not provide proof as to how, why should I?

Having said that, you do know that the stock market goes down during recessions, don't you?

Here is the chart of the DOW from 2008-2017. Obama took over on January 2009. See what he did. He almost tripled the value of the DOW.

View attachment 1001657


When Reagan took office, the DOW was at 947 and 4 years later, it was at 1201, meaning that he only generated a 25% increase in price.

You certainly made a statement about Reagan and did not provide proof

You want proof that Reagan inherited inflation from Carter? Or that inflation was ended?

Obama took over on January 2009

The Dow opened at 8279 on the day he took over.

When Reagan took office, the DOW was at 947 and 4 years later, it was at 1201,

Reagan was in office for 8 years, not 4.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weakest recovery in history? Facts do not support your words

Dow increased by over 250% during Obama. It increased 30% under Reagan and

View attachment 1001882

Dow increased by over 250% during Obama.

Ummmm....the Dow opened at 8279 on the day he took over.
A 250% increase would mean it ended at nearly 29000.

You'd better double check your math.

It increased 30% under Reagan and

Not sure what you're claiming here....try again?

 

[TruthNotBS]

View attachment 1002120

Great American car brand. Here is another one:

 

[TruthNotBS]

The impact of the stimulus wasn’t just about the dollars spent right away.

LOL!

You don't have to convince me that the recession ended before anything he did could help.

That confidence likely played a big part in the recession ending in June 2009,

Meh.

Once TARP and the Fed's QE stopped the liquidity panic, the recovery was happening,
regardless of any wasteful Obama slush fund spending.

Todd, your response is a perfect example of selective memory. It’s disingenuous to claim that the recession was over before anything Obama did could help. Sure, TARP and the Fed's QE helped stop the immediate liquidity crisis, but they were just the beginning of the recovery process. The ARRA wasn’t just about spending money, it was about stabilizing the economy over the long term, creating jobs, and preventing the kind of prolonged stagnation we saw in other countries that didn’t act as aggressively. To dismiss it as a "slush fund" is not only misleading, it’s flat-out wrong.

And let’s be real here, calling out the ARRA as wasteful while giving TARP a free pass is pure hypocrisy. Both were government interventions designed to save the economy (socialism saves capitalism every few years), but it seems like you’re only willing to label something a "slush fund" when it doesn’t align with your political biases. Obama’s actions didn’t just follow Bush’s; they expanded and reinforced the recovery, ensuring that the economy didn’t fall back into the abyss. To ignore that is to ignore the facts.

If you want to have an honest debate, let’s do that. But dismissing everything Obama did as irrelevant while conveniently ignoring the broader context is just biased claptrap. The recovery didn’t just happen by magic, it required sustained effort, much of which came from the policies you’re so quick to belittle.

 

[TruthNotBS]

His enemies seem to fall from 7 stories or higher, maybe he'll do the same?

What seems to be true, isn't necessarily reality.

 

[Stryder50]

Bottom line is their approach to the type of governing that is best for the people, Are you saying that because of their resources, they have that type of approach. That is hilarious.

Because of the natural resources wealth they can afford it better than many other examples that are running up national debt to buy short term false "prosperity".

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

What a BS question. You check it out and let us know.

Jobs are jobs

The Federal government is the largest employer in the US.

 

[Stryder50]

Capitalism is all about control over workers and public resources. So your views couldn't be more warped. Norway is the way it is partly yes to its natural wealth, however, also due to its social democratic values and policies. It's a socialistic society, that has a mixed economy. Some capitalism with some socialism. What anti-socialist polemicists like you refuse to recognize is that socialism and communism, come in different forms, despite your objections to that fact.

The countries that consistently rank highest in terms of standard of living, satisfaction, and happiness are those that have mixed economies—combining elements of market capitalism with strong social welfare systems. These nations provide their citizens with a robust social safety net, which includes comprehensive healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, and pensions, among other social services.

Examples include:

1. Scandinavian Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland):
   
   • These countries are often cited as examples of successful mixed economies. They combine a free-market capitalist system with extensive social welfare programs, including universal healthcare, free or heavily subsidized education, generous parental leave, and strong labor protections. As a result, they consistently rank high on the World Happiness Report and have some of the highest standards of living in the world.
2. Germany:
   
   • Germany has a strong social market economy, which blends free-market capitalism with a comprehensive social safety net. The country provides universal healthcare, free higher education, and robust unemployment benefits. Germany's economy is also characterized by strong labor unions and cooperative relationships between employers and employees, which contribute to high levels of worker satisfaction.
3. Canada:
   
   • Canada combines a market-based economy with a wide range of social services, including universal healthcare, social security, and various forms of social assistance. Canadians benefit from a strong public education system and programs that help reduce poverty and inequality. Canada consistently ranks high in global quality of life indexes.
4. Netherlands:
   
   • The Netherlands has a mixed economy with a strong welfare state. The country provides universal healthcare, excellent public education, and substantial social benefits, including unemployment and disability insurance. The Dutch system promotes a high standard of living and ranks high on happiness and well-being measures.
5. Switzerland:
   
   • Switzerland has a mixed economy with a strong focus on social insurance and public services. While it has a highly developed free-market economy, the country also provides extensive healthcare coverage, a well-functioning pension system, and various social protections. Switzerland frequently ranks high in terms of quality of life and happiness.

These countries demonstrate that a balanced approach, combining a well-regulated market capitalism with the equity and security provided by socialism, can lead to a prosperous, satisfied, and happy populace. The key is to ensure that economic growth and wealth are distributed in a way that benefits society as a whole, rather than just a select few. This model contrasts sharply with more laissez-faire capitalist systems, like we have here in the US, where the lack of a strong social safety net, has led to higher levels of inequality, poverty, and social dissatisfaction.

Now don't tell me to go to these other countries, NO. I'm an American and I have just as much a right to advance my political ideology and social values, as you do. So spare me the nasty stupid comments against democratic socialists like me, demanding that we leave our country and go live somewhere else. No, I live here, this is my country just as much as it is yours, and I'm a democratic council-socialist. If anyone should leave, why not you? You leave, I stay.

Source of this diatribe (other than your imagination) would be helpful on credibility.

Most of these nations are living off of the R&D and industrial advances of others, mostly from the USA.

Most also aren't expected to provide military defense and aid to others, and in some cases, not even cover their own defense.

Most are not seen as major sources of foreign aid to other nations.

Many benefit from neighbors that help subsidize their "lifestyles". Check out how many Canadian license plates are in the parking lots of Costco and other major retailers here in the USA, providing more affordable consumer goods with more variety than can be found up North. As one example.

Many are living off of their national "credit card" as shown by their Debt to GDP ratios;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Spare me the false propaganda about democratic socialism/communism if you want to whine about 'nasty', dear Komrade.
I've as much Right to advance my Free Enterprise and limited State-controled views and agenda as well. Your views on socialism/communism don't match out founding principles and therefore make you not an American.

 

[Stryder50]

What seems to be true, isn't necessarily reality.

What seems to be popular isn't necessarily workable.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What seems to be popular isn't necessarily workable.

So it's not popular, it just seems to be, and it's not workable? What exactly are you referring to? Go ahead.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Source of this diatribe (other than your imagination) would be helpful on credibility.

Most of these nations are living off of the R&D and industrial advances of others, mostly from the USA.

Most also aren't expected to provide military defense and aid to others, and in some cases, not even cover their own defense.

Most are not seen as major sources of foreign aid to other nations.

Many benefit from neighbors that help subsidize their "lifestyles". Check out how many Canadian license plates are in the parking lots of Costco and other major retailers here in the USA, providing more affordable consumer goods with more variety than can be found up North. As one example.

Many are living off of their national "credit card" as shown by their Debt to GDP ratios;
https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
Spare me the false propaganda about democratic socialism/communism if you want to whine about 'nasty', dear Komrade.
I've as much Right to advance my Free Enterprise and limited State-controled views and agenda as well. Your views on socialism/communism don't match out founding principles and therefore make you not an American.

Source of this diatribe (other than your imagination) would be helpful on credibility.

Gebberish.

Most of these nations are living off of the R&D and industrial advances of others, mostly from the USA.

What nations are those? The US "lived off" or borrowed much of the industrial technology developed in Britain and Western Europe in the late 1700s, and 1800s. The US actually had spies engaging in industrial espionage, taking technology from the UK and other European countries.

The Spies Who Launched America’s Industrial Revolution | HISTORY

From water-powered textile mills, to mechanical looms, much of the machinery that powered America's early industrial success was "borrowed" from Europe.

www.history.com

In trade wars of 200 years ago, the pirates were Americans

Intellectual pirates were celebrated in the young United States, just as they are now in China. A man who smuggled a cotton-processing machine from London was hailed by one Pennsylvania trade group as "the ingenious artizan who counterfeited the Carding and Spinning Machine" and was promised awards

apnews.com

The US complains that others steal its technology, but America was once a tech pirate itself - The World from PRX

The US complains constantly of China and other nations stealing US technology. But it seems in the early days of the republic, the shoe was on the other foot.

theworld.org

Moreover, so what? Every nation has benefited from the technology and scientific discoveries of other nations. How does that in any way render a system of production or political ideology incorrect? The industrialists of the 19th century benefited from technology developed by other countries, under monarchies, and yet they had no issue basing the mass production of goods upon that technology.

Most also aren't expected to provide military defense and aid to others, and in some cases, not even cover their own defense.

To be more specific, what are you talking about? NATO? NATO members have to defend each other if attacked.

Most are not seen as major sources of foreign aid to other nations.

The US government spends a very small % of its budget on foreign aid.

Many benefit from neighbors that help subsidize their "lifestyles". Check out how many Canadian license plates are in the parking lots of Costco and other major retailers here in the USA, providing more affordable consumer goods with more variety than can be found up North. As one example.

Many are living off of their national "credit card" as shown by their Debt to GDP ratios;
https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

And my brother-in-law drives into Canada through Niagra Falls from upstate NY, to buy cheap insulin for himself and his son, because it costs ten times more here in the USA.

Spare me the false propaganda about democratic socialism/communism if you want to whine about 'nasty', dear Komrade.
I've as much Right to advance my Free Enterprise and limited State-controled views and agenda as well. Your views on socialism/communism don't match out founding principles and therefore make you not an American.

There is nothing in our nation's founding principles that prohibits Americans from abandoning markets and adopting a marketless, non-profit system of mass production. So you're not an American for imposing capitalism upon everyone, even when it's no longer a viable mode of production.

 

[Faun]

I mean the election was stolen. It was and is still obvious. Period.

It was your brain that was stolen, not the election.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 1001046

Election was stolen, it is obvious and period.

Meaning facts, data, statistics, legal system and common sense are thrown out the window and this is the only thing (words from a liar and conman) that is real, right?

By the way, in AUGUST 2020, 3 months BEFORE the election, Trump said this:


Explain to me how someone can say that "the election WAS likely to be STOLEN" 3 months before the actual election occurred? and if he knew 3 months before that it could be stolen, being president couldn't he have made sure that nothing could happen to steal the election?

Be careful what you answer, because if you continue with this type of thinking (facts, statistics, data, and common sense don't matter), you will lose all my interest in communicating between us. Fair warning

Days before the election, Steve Bannon, former Trump advisor, said this...

 

[Faun]

What war did Bush start ? Last I recall, Clinton was trying to kill Bin Laden, and doing a damned bad job of it. Next we had 9-11 because Bill Clinton's only interest was grabbing interns by the coochie...

When Bush Senior went after Sadam, it was because of the move Sadam made against Kuwait. So he didn't start a war either, so what the hell are you talking about ?

Idiot, Bush Jr. started a war with Iraq. And he, not Clinton, was president on 9/11.

 

[Luckyone]

Dow increased by over 250% during Obama.

Ummmm....the Dow opened at 8279 on the day he took over.
A 250% increase would mean it ended at nearly 29000.

Yes but in March, just 6 weeks after he took over, it was at 6665 and the day he left it was at 18140. That is a 200% move up (I was wrong about 250%)

You'd better double check your math.

It increased 30% under Reagan and

Not sure what you're claiming here....try again?

 

[Faun]

Approved by demofks

Nope. Democrats voted to let Bush decide. No one could have known he would lie us into a war.