Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To paraphrase FDR "pigs is pigs and facts is facts".
No one in their right mind can be celebrating-
1. unemployment rate of 10%
2. defictis of over $1 trillion per year
3. A debt of $13 trillion
If one "creates" (government does not create jonbs- buisnesses do) fewer jobs than are lost, that is a very bad thing. If Obama creates 100 million jobs and 110 million jobs are lost, we are in worse shape.
Barry is a job killer. Apparently, he is also fond of mortgage foreclosures and unsustainable spending. When libs support a fool like this who is obviouly failing, it just makes them look ridiculous and unreliable, as they will support ANYTHING he does, regardless of how crazy it is. Clinton at least had a good economy, and credit should be given to him the republican senate and congress during that period for that. However, Barry, with his dems in the senate and congress, has been a disaster. Bush was a liberal as well and with a dem senate and congress another disaster occured.
Be objective. Barry is bad for the economy and things will only turn around when his socialist policies are scrapped and he is out of office. I have nothing against dems- just insane dems.
Last month we had a net gain of 290,000 jobs. Which means 290,000 more jobs were created than lost. Why is this concept so hard to understand?
Other than the fact that it shows when unemployment began to rise.. You'd have to be an ignorant fool to not see that unemployment began to rise late 2007.
What...don't care to defend your bag of goat dung reasons? I can certainly understand why.
This whole thread is in regards to "290K jobs created" while discrediting the fact that the unemployment % went up as meaningless.. Are you following along with the same thread as the rest of us?
See where you liberals get the issue wrong, is you assume that everytime someone points out facts, that its an attack Obama stance, and you guys have to go on the offense, even though there was no blame being pointed. Its a FACT that unemployment rate increased, its a FACT that we have ALWAYS looked at the unemployment rate as an indicator for the economy. Its a FACT that the increase began when Democrats took over Congress and started writing all sorts of anti business bills which pushed the economy off the cliff.
You dont get to begin to pick and choose data, while ignoring other data just because "your man" says its what counts. The ONLY figure which has EVER mattered is the unemployment graph, and if you think otherwise, then find me ONE graph showing me the NUMBER OF JOBS created during the Bush years... I challenge you. All of these "new" job graphs judging "number of jobs created" were NEVER found prior to this administration because they NEVER COUNTED. Again, the ONLY COUNT ever which mattered was the unemployment graph.. PERIOD!!
Again, the reason the unemployment number went up is because those who left the labor market and stopped looking for work went back and started looking again.
Th jobs data, has always been looked at. These aren't 'new' type of graphs, the BLS has been reporting them for over 70 years. Fact of the matter is we just had our best month for job creation in a little over four years.
Obama has learned from the best of the liers, Clinton.
Clinton changed the parameters from "debt", to debt as a % of GDP to make individuals believe he had a surplus..
Just like Obama changing the parameters for his graphs from "unemployment %" to "new jobs".
When they dont like the facts, they simply play with the numbers until they get the ones to show they are doing a good job, knowing darn well that there are thousands of fools out there willing to take the new charts and run with them, ignoring reality.
Clinton did have a surplus. Fiscal years 98,99 and 00, we had a surplus.
What...don't care to defend your bag of goat dung reasons? I can certainly understand why.
So you cant dispute the fact that unemployment began to rise when Democrats took over Congress, and rather than post facts to dispute it, you just go on with your usual ridiculing attacking of the poster, rather than the facts... Typical...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I see....using net positions again to mask the underlying detail. It is possible to forgive the ignorant for speaking untruth. It is much more difficult when it comes to those who know better because they have been shown better over and over and over again. But here, for the benefit of passers-by, are links to an address by then Treasury Deputy Secretary Gary Gensler to the Bond Market Association in New York that directly speaks to the FACT of debt paydowns, and as well as to the Treasury worksheet that shows how the unified budget surpluses (which some people attempt to deny as well) resulted in those paydowns. The deliberate liars among us will of course continue to ignore these...
As the neutral observer can easily see, another poster is embarrassingly engaged for partisan purposes in the direct and intentional denial of well-established fact.
I checked here for anything from you to support your accusation of a net paydown of debt. I see a lot of deflection on the issue, . Unable to backup YOUR own goat dung? I can certainly understand why as well..
So you cant dispute the fact that unemployment began to rise when Democrats took over Congress, and rather than post facts to dispute it, you just go on with your usual ridiculing attacking of the poster, rather than the facts... Typical...
I checked here for anything from you to support your accusation of a net paydown of debt. I see a lot of deflection on the issue, . Unable to backup YOUR own goat dung? I can certainly understand why as well..
Bush still retained all the power, he got everything he wanted. The Dems majority in the Senate was minute. The GOP used the filibuster over and over again and Bush used the veto. Not to mention the problems we had that led to the crash were years in the making.
Again, the reason the unemployment number went up is because those who left the labor market and stopped looking for work went back and started looking again.
Th jobs data, has always been looked at. These aren't 'new' type of graphs, the BLS has been reporting them for over 70 years. Fact of the matter is we just had our best month for job creation in a little over four years.
I know WHY the numbers went up, But that doesnt change the fact that we have ALWAYS counted unemployment percentages and that this administration (and some of you posters) now wants everyone to ignore it. Thats NOT how it works... You dont go and just change the parameters on what gets counted because the CEO of the company changes, and then proclaim everything is getting better. You would consider a CEO doing this "fraud".. but somehow you just excuse this though because its Obama..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Clinton did have a surplus. Fiscal years 98,99 and 00, we had a surplus.
he did not.. This is the total national debt for those years.. WHERE IS THE SURPLUS? He had a decrease in debt as a PERCENTAGE of GDP, but that doesnt equate to a surplus in real dollars..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You said debt so tell me where the debt got paid down?
national debt
1993 $4.41T
1994 $4.69T
1995 $4.97T
1996 $5.22T
1997 $5.41T
1998 $5.52T
1999 $5.65T
2000 $5.67T
2001 $5.80T
Bush still retained all the power, he got everything he wanted. The Dems majority in the Senate was minute. The GOP used the filibuster over and over again and Bush used the veto. Not to mention the problems we had that led to the crash were years in the making.
Bush veto'd 12 bills in total, 4 of them were overridden.
Compare this to Clinton, who had 37, Bush Sr, who had 44, Reagan, 78, Carter 31, Ford, with 66, Nixon with 43... Shall I go on?
The bs about him using the veto power is just that.. non stop bs from the left who doesnt have a clue..
Do you want to prove you have a clue, list some bills that Democrats wanted that would have improved unemployment, that Bush vetod..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
