goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on October 06, 2014, 03:51:54 PM
-
What a stud. Economic recovery and growth Reagan wishes he had. All this after the greatest economic depression (thanks George W. Bush) since Hoover. Wow.
(https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/privatesept2014.png)
-
nice lying games, democratic operative kat kid
-
Obama is on pace for 9.9 million private sector jobs added during his 2nd term. Wow!
-
Looks pretty similar to Reagan. I think it's a little early to say he's doing better. Carter is most surprising. I wasn't alive for him, but I have never heard somebody say they thought he was a good president.
-
Clinton is such a huge stud, there's no denying that
-
Weak troll, imho
-
Looks pretty similar to Reagan. I think it's a little early to say he's doing better. Carter is most surprising. I wasn't alive for him, but I have never heard somebody say they thought he was a good president.
Obama is on pace to create 9,910,000 in his 2nd term.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html)
-
Man, Carter really needed more time. Stud job creator.
-
Part time? Full-Time? Pay?
Still all time record low work force participation.
-
Check that, all time record low LPR, with nearly 93 million Americans not in the workforce.
53% of young adults are either out of work or under employed, the government unemployment rate for young adults is 12.3%.
Full time employment is only slightly off its all-time lows seen during the economic crisis.
Median Household income has continued a steady decline under Obama and the gap between wealthy and poor is at all time record highs.
Median Value of Financial Holdings (of families with financial holdings) has declined in all sectors except the top 10%.
Go Obama!!
-
Check that, all time record low LPR, with nearly 93 million Americans not in the workforce.
53% of young adults are either out of work or under employed, the government unemployment rate for young adults is 12.3%.
Full time employment is only slightly off its all-time lows seen during the economic crisis.
Median Household income has continued a steady decline under Obama and the gap between wealthy and poor is at all time record highs.
Median Value of Financial Holdings (of families with financial holdings) has declined in all sectors except the top 10%.
Go Obama!!
serious question, do unemployment rates count students? Even part time students?
-
Students are classified as either employed, unemployed or not in the labor force. There are specific definitions for what is employed or unemployed.
-
George Bush created more private sector jobs the George Washington, fact
-
Check that, all time record low LPR, with nearly 93 million Americans not in the workforce.
53% of young adults are either out of work or under employed, the government unemployment rate for young adults is 12.3%.
Full time employment is only slightly off its all-time lows seen during the economic crisis.
Median Household income has continued a steady decline under Obama and the gap between wealthy and poor is at all time record highs.
Median Value of Financial Holdings (of families with financial holdings) has declined in all sectors except the top 10%.
Go Obama!!
Better than Reagan! Amazing!
-
Nice tap out KK.
-
Good news: attribute to (insert favorite party, 'pubs or 'crats)
Bad news: obviously fault of (insert least favorite party, 'pubs or 'crats)
-
Obama! Projected to be better than Reagan if you don't take a lot of stuff in consideration.
-
Obama! Projected to be better than Reagan if you don't take a lot of stuff in consideration.
Yeah, I mean look at the hole he started with! Pretty impressive stuff
-
George Bush created more private sector jobs the George Washington, fact
Yes, this is the most relevant comparison for this ridiculous graph.
-
George Bush created more private sector jobs the George Washington, fact
Yes, this is the most relevant comparison for this ridiculous graph.
It does make GWB look pretty terrible tho
-
It's worth noting the GWB was the only president that had to deal with 4 economic calamities (dot com bust, 9/11, accounting fraud, sub-prime mort meltdown), none of which he had anything to do with.
-
I believe the Bush administration was warning on sub-prime early and often and Dems in Congress fought reform every step of the way. Treasury Sec. Snow was warning on Sub-Prime as early as 2002-2003 and the administration proposed reform that Barney Frank and company crushed. Bush's top economists continued to warn in 2004 and 2005 calling for reforms, again, crushed on Capital Hill. Greenspan grew very vocal on the topic in 2005.
You can start with the re-write of the Community Re-Investment Act in 1995 and work way pretty much throughout the Clinton administration in terms of the groundwork that created the sub-prime mortgage bomb.
-
Damn. Too bad Bush just didn't have it in him to make those reforms. He saw the whole thing coming.
-
Damn. Too bad Bush just didn't have it in him to make those reforms. He saw the whole thing coming.
I'm sure he tried
-
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
-
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
Kat Kid is a truther. :horrorsurprise:
Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"
-
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
Kat Kid is a truther. :horrorsurprise:
Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"
Not a truther. Bush just presided over a massive, catastrophic failure to protect the American people.
-
I don't really fault Bush for 9/11. The aftermath is all on him and Obama, though.
-
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
Kat Kid is a truther. :horrorsurprise:
Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"
Not a truther. Bush just presided over a massive, catastrophic failure to protect the American people.
Weird, never thought I'd encounter an actual truther.
I'd be interested in your (a truther's) take on Clinton presiding over the OKC bombing, or the original attack on the WTC for that matter.
-
Is this the thread where we post graphs demonstrating our amazing economy? All those new "jobs" must be paying crap wages, or maybe we're just not creating enough jobs for all the poverty we're importing.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcnsnews.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Flarge%2Fimages%2FFoodStampParticipationYear_0.jpg&hash=0c3211eb39a2b04febb0750fd8c3a650d049071c)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcnsnews.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Flarge%2Fimages%2FFoodStampMonth.jpg&hash=ceac0974bfc08400de948562e4e728bcd7e72287)
-
I think it is mostly that we have created a whole lot of low-paying jobs and are just working extra hard to advertise the food stamps program.
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
-
Still my favorite topic that the libs love to ignore -- Labor Force Participation
Lots of LOL in this article
America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.
But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.
How can this be? As the job market heats up and the unemployment rate falls, wouldn't that mean more people are looking for work, not less?
"The decline is without precedent," Bob Funk, chief executive of global staffing company Express Employment Professionals, told CBS MoneyWatch. Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then."
There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.
The other half of the decline gets a little fuzzy. Funk notes that some portion of the unemployed either don't want to work or don't think they can find a job. His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.
The labor force participation rate was around 66 percent of the population in 2007 before falling to 62.7 percent.
Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdMYfap9.gif&hash=d8866b258b286eeaa38d0655d6e9716ff3b90438)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/)
-
Another puzzle, why all these new jobs are paying less?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.ft.com%2Foff-message%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F02%2FReal-wage-growth-since-1964-ONS.jpg&hash=a736a7a65ea9cbdc2bf0ba222695257d026167fa)
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
maybe a tiny bit
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
maybe a tiny bit
Fair enough, and it certainly takes time to lay the foundation. That's the the two-fold disaster of two terms of Obama: not only does our business climate stink now, it's going to continue to stink for quite some time after. The massive regulatory expansion the Dems have wrought cannot be rolled back overnight. Any tax reform will also take time to implement.
-
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
Kat Kid is a truther. :horrorsurprise:
Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"
Not a truther. Bush just presided over a massive, catastrophic failure to protect the American people.
Don't forget the part where Bush's administration lied about WMD's and embroiled us in an in winnable war that cost thousands of American lives, and destroyed the lives of countless others.
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
maybe a tiny bit
Fair enough, and it certainly takes time to lay the foundation. That's the the two-fold disaster of two terms of Obama: not only does our business climate stink now, it's going to continue to stink for quite some time after. The massive regulatory expansion the Dems have wrought cannot be rolled back overnight. Any tax reform will also take time to implement.
"Blame it on Obama" is going to be great during the next president's tenure.
-
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
maybe a tiny bit
Fair enough, and it certainly takes time to lay the foundation. That's the the two-fold disaster of two terms of Obama: not only does our business climate stink now, it's going to continue to stink for quite some time after. The massive regulatory expansion the Dems have wrought cannot be rolled back overnight. Any tax reform will also take time to implement.
"Blame it on Obama" is going to be great during the next president's tenure.
What I said is true. Now, if the GOP wins back the White House in 2016 and doesn't take any action to fix Obama's mess, then the "Blame Obama" excuse will ring a bit hollow.
-
Don't forget the part where Bush's administration lied about WMD's and embroiled us in an in winnable war that cost thousands of American lives, and destroyed the lives of countless others.
If Bush "lied" about WMD, then so did Bill, Hillary, Kerry, and a host of other Dems. And Iraq was very "winnable" - Bush bungled the post-invasion management of the country, further compounded by Obama's refusal to leave security forces in Iraq.
-
Don't forget the part where Bush's administration lied about WMD's and embroiled us in an in winnable war that cost thousands of American lives, and destroyed the lives of countless others.
If Bush "lied" about WMD, then so did Bill, Hillary, Kerry, and a host of other Dems. And Iraq was very "winnable" - Bush bungled the post-invasion management of the country, further compounded by Obama's refusal to leave security forces in Iraq.
Agree that they all lied
-
Some lied, some just believed the lie
-
I think they wanted to believe the lie because they wanted to a start a war which is probably worse than just lying
-
Iraq War truthers
:D
-
I think they wanted to believe the lie because they wanted to a start a war which is probably worse than just lying
This is fair
-
It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.
-
The scenario that makes the most sense, seeing that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed he had them, that all of the chemical weapons had been moved to Syria during the year or so prior to the invasion.
-
The scenario that makes the most sense, seeing that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed he had them, that all of the chemical weapons had been moved to Syria during the year or so prior to the invasion.
I don't know, the unsubstantiated bipartisan conspiracy to start a war is pretty compelling.
#truthers
-
It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.
No, it was deception.
The CIA director in the fall of 2002, George Tenet, informed the Bush administration that the threat was next to none and the WMDs did not exist. From there on Cheney and Rumsfield created their own intelligence wing in the Pentagon, "the office of special plans", to wring out the information they wanted even if it was fabricated or unsubstantiated.
There's a reason Colin Powell showed cartoons, and stock pics at the U.N. .
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
(http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/)
-
It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.
No, it was deception.
The CIA director in the fall of 2014, George Tenet, informed the Bush administration that the threat was next to none and the WMDs did not exist. From there on Cheney and Rumsfield created their own intelligence wing in the Pentagon, "the office of special plans", to wring out the information they wanted even if it was fabricated or unsubstantiated.
There's a reason Colin Powell showed cartoons, and stock pics at the U.N. .
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
(http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/)
Either your 2014 date is wrong, or you're a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.
-
And I think Team America does a pretty good job of demonstrating how stupid the U N'S plans to disarm Iraq were. Even so, Iraq showed Hand Blix their chemical weapons stock pile.
-
Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.
Wait, they found WMD and then left them there? The hell is wrong with Bush?
-
Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.
Wait, they found WMD and then left them there? The hell is wrong with Bush?
They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again. You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?
-
But you just can't get around the facts that Hillary and Joe Biden (among others) were chomping on the bit to invade Iraq. Even John Kerry before he ran for president and was suddenly against it.
All three voted for the war for political reasons. The vote came up right before the 2002 mid-term and no incumbent wanted to seem weak on national security. It was one of Karl Roves brilliant, but evil moves.
-
It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.
No, it was deception.
The CIA director in the fall of 2014, George Tenet, informed the Bush administration that the threat was next to none and the WMDs did not exist. From there on Cheney and Rumsfield created their own intelligence wing in the Pentagon, "the office of special plans", to wring out the information they wanted even if it was fabricated or unsubstantiated.
There's a reason Colin Powell showed cartoons, and stock pics at the U.N. .
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
(http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/)
Either your 2014 date is wrong, or you're a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
It was a typo.
-
Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.
Wait, they found WMD and then left them there? The hell is wrong with Bush?
They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again. You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?
The majority of those were recovered and destroyed after the 91 Gulf war.
-
Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog
-
I think they are both crap heads, fwiw.
-
The Clintons are the best. Some of the all time bests.
-
But you just can't get around the facts that Hillary and Joe Biden (among others) were chomping on the bit to invade Iraq. Even John Kerry before he ran for president and was suddenly against it.
All three voted for the war for political reasons. The vote came up right before the 2002 mid-term and no incumbent wanted to seem weak on national security. It was one of Karl Roves brilliant, but evil moves.
So you're saying that these people that most Dems absolutely love voted to send our men and women off to die strictly for political reasons?
Well, at least that's better than the "they were fooled by the administration" defense that I've heard before . . . which in essence is saying that they're gullible and dumb but we love them anyway because they're Democrats.
Im saying they're lousy political opportunists without a backbone.
I may be to the left, but I really don't take kindly to the republican-lite Democrats.
-
Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog
This blog doesn't cover all of Prog Dem World.
Plus, you know in your little heart that you :love: both of them at some point in time.
I voted for Nader :th_twocents:
-
Also, they did find WMD in iraq, just not nearly the quality and quantity expected, and ISIS has them now.
Wait, they found WMD and then left them there? The hell is wrong with Bush?
They promised the UN they'd take them apart, again. You guys realize Saddam used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people, and now so has Assad?
The majority of those were recovered and destroyed after the 91 Gulf war.
Majority = half+1 /= all
But thanks for discrediting your ridiculous post above.
-
Dax, I challenge you to dig up some Hillary or kerry love posts on this blog
This blog doesn't cover all of Prog Dem World.
Plus, you know in your little heart that you :love: both of them at some point in time.
I voted for Nader :th_twocents:
Confirmed tard
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-nytimes