Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The private sector is doing fine - Obama
Monday, June 11, 2012 4:36 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: On another matter, isn't it sad how everything is so black and white to our righties?
Monday, June 11, 2012 4:43 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Monday, June 11, 2012 5:31 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Okay, prize for first guffaw of the day--even unintentional ones count: Quote:This was a monumental moment in this President's term.Don'tcha just love it tho'? I say, I say, MONUMENTAL!! I'll bet we hear about it for the next ten years, and the history books will be replete with it "Obama said the private sector was doing fine, when it was only doing BETTER than it had been!" -- major shock. No mention in history books of ending Iraq War, of killing Bin Laden (or any of the others who've been taken out), or ANYTHING else...just that Obama made a gaff about the economy. Wow. I can't wait...
Quote:This was a monumental moment in this President's term.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:09 AM
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:32 AM
CAVETROLL
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll: Obama saying the private sector is doing fine is the same, and just as significant as McCain saying that the fundamentals of the economy are in good shape, way back in 2008. I remember the media dogpile on McCain over that gaffe. Obama is just as deserving of a media dogpile over the same mistake in 2012. Do you remember which side of that dogpile Rappy was on? Did he support McCain back then, and insist that the economy was "on fire", by any chance?
Quote:Originally posted by CaveTroll: Obama saying the private sector is doing fine is the same, and just as significant as McCain saying that the fundamentals of the economy are in good shape, way back in 2008. I remember the media dogpile on McCain over that gaffe. Obama is just as deserving of a media dogpile over the same mistake in 2012.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: So, to the original point... Is the economy doing fine, or is it in trouble?
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:23 PM
Quote:Corporate Profits Have Skyrocketed Over Last Three Years | After dipping during the Great Recession, corporate profits have now skyrocketed past their pre-recession levels, Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal notes. After-tax profits and corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) are now higher than they were in the middle of the last decade, after a similar vertical spike. Despite massive profit gains, however, corporations are adding more jobs overseas than they are in the United States and paying one of the lowest effective tax rates in the developed world. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493870/corporate-profits-skyrocket/ a look: Quote:•Banner number of companies beating expectations. So far, 81% of companies have beaten expectations, says John Butters at FactSet. "That's unusually high," topping the 72% of companies that, on average, beat estimates the past four quarters. •Strength from sectors closely linked to the economy. Nearly all the corporate profit growth is being driven by three sectors — technology, financials and industrials — with 23.4%, 12.9% and 10.4% growth, respectively, Butters says. •Evidence companies are beyond just cutting costs. Companies have reported 6.2% revenue growth, says S&P Capital IQ. While down from 10% revenue growth in the fourth quarter, it's still healthy at this point of the economic cycle, says Jack Ablin of Harris Private Bank. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/story/2012-04-26/corporate-profit/54632048/1 while earnings have gone down and families are worth 40% less... Meanwhile, to Romney and his guys, more teachers, firefighters, cops, etc., NEED to lose their jobs:Quote:Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign isn’t backing off the candidate’s claim that America needs fewer teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Instead, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R), a top Romney campaign surrogate, backed Romney’s call this morning, telling MSNBC that changes in technology and population shifts have made layoffs of teachers and public safety officials necessary. Romney’s original comments left little room for interpretation. President Obama “says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” Romney said Friday. “Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” But to Sununu, the comments highlighted a “real issue” that showed Romney’s “wisdom,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing today:Quote:SUNUNU: Let me respond as a taxpayer, not as a representative of the Romney campaign. There are municipalities, there are states where there is flight of population. And as the population goes down, you need fewer teachers. As technology contributes to community security and dealing with issues that firefighters have to deal with, you would hope that you can, as a taxpayer, see the benefits of the efficiency and personnel that you get out of that. JANSING: But even if there’s movement to the suburbs, teachers and policemen are needed somewhere. Do you think that taxpayers of this country want to hear fewer firefighters, fewer teachers, fewer police officers, from a strategic standpoint? SUNUNU: If there’s fewer kids in the classrooms, the taxpayers really do want to hear there will be fewer teachers. [...] You have a lot of places where that is happening. You have a very mobile country now where things are changing. You have cities in this country in which the school population peaked ten, 15 years ago. And, yet the number of teachers that may have maintained has not changed. I think this is a real issue. And people ought to stop jumping on it as a gaffe and understand there’s wisdom in the comment.The facts of many of the layoffs don’t back up Sununu’s claims. Classrooms are busting at the seams because there are fewer teachers, and cities and towns across the country are closing entire public safety departments due to budget cuts. And, as Jansing noted, even if the population shifts were a legitimate argument, teachers and public safety officials are still needed where the population moves. Federal, state, and local governments have laid off more than 700,000 workers since Obama took office. Had that not happened, the unemployment rate would be a full point lower and the economic recovery would be stronger. To Romney and his campaign surrogates, however, those job losses are a step in “the right direction.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497293/sununu-romney-public-sector/] "Wisdom" my ass...
Quote:•Banner number of companies beating expectations. So far, 81% of companies have beaten expectations, says John Butters at FactSet. "That's unusually high," topping the 72% of companies that, on average, beat estimates the past four quarters. •Strength from sectors closely linked to the economy. Nearly all the corporate profit growth is being driven by three sectors — technology, financials and industrials — with 23.4%, 12.9% and 10.4% growth, respectively, Butters says. •Evidence companies are beyond just cutting costs. Companies have reported 6.2% revenue growth, says S&P Capital IQ. While down from 10% revenue growth in the fourth quarter, it's still healthy at this point of the economic cycle, says Jack Ablin of Harris Private Bank. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/story/2012-04-26/corporate-profit/54632048/1 while earnings have gone down and families are worth 40% less... Meanwhile, to Romney and his guys, more teachers, firefighters, cops, etc., NEED to lose their jobs:Quote:Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign isn’t backing off the candidate’s claim that America needs fewer teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Instead, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R), a top Romney campaign surrogate, backed Romney’s call this morning, telling MSNBC that changes in technology and population shifts have made layoffs of teachers and public safety officials necessary. Romney’s original comments left little room for interpretation. President Obama “says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” Romney said Friday. “Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” But to Sununu, the comments highlighted a “real issue” that showed Romney’s “wisdom,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing today:Quote:SUNUNU: Let me respond as a taxpayer, not as a representative of the Romney campaign. There are municipalities, there are states where there is flight of population. And as the population goes down, you need fewer teachers. As technology contributes to community security and dealing with issues that firefighters have to deal with, you would hope that you can, as a taxpayer, see the benefits of the efficiency and personnel that you get out of that. JANSING: But even if there’s movement to the suburbs, teachers and policemen are needed somewhere. Do you think that taxpayers of this country want to hear fewer firefighters, fewer teachers, fewer police officers, from a strategic standpoint? SUNUNU: If there’s fewer kids in the classrooms, the taxpayers really do want to hear there will be fewer teachers. [...] You have a lot of places where that is happening. You have a very mobile country now where things are changing. You have cities in this country in which the school population peaked ten, 15 years ago. And, yet the number of teachers that may have maintained has not changed. I think this is a real issue. And people ought to stop jumping on it as a gaffe and understand there’s wisdom in the comment.The facts of many of the layoffs don’t back up Sununu’s claims. Classrooms are busting at the seams because there are fewer teachers, and cities and towns across the country are closing entire public safety departments due to budget cuts. And, as Jansing noted, even if the population shifts were a legitimate argument, teachers and public safety officials are still needed where the population moves. Federal, state, and local governments have laid off more than 700,000 workers since Obama took office. Had that not happened, the unemployment rate would be a full point lower and the economic recovery would be stronger. To Romney and his campaign surrogates, however, those job losses are a step in “the right direction.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497293/sununu-romney-public-sector/] "Wisdom" my ass...
Quote:Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign isn’t backing off the candidate’s claim that America needs fewer teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Instead, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R), a top Romney campaign surrogate, backed Romney’s call this morning, telling MSNBC that changes in technology and population shifts have made layoffs of teachers and public safety officials necessary. Romney’s original comments left little room for interpretation. President Obama “says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” Romney said Friday. “Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” But to Sununu, the comments highlighted a “real issue” that showed Romney’s “wisdom,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing today:Quote:SUNUNU: Let me respond as a taxpayer, not as a representative of the Romney campaign. There are municipalities, there are states where there is flight of population. And as the population goes down, you need fewer teachers. As technology contributes to community security and dealing with issues that firefighters have to deal with, you would hope that you can, as a taxpayer, see the benefits of the efficiency and personnel that you get out of that. JANSING: But even if there’s movement to the suburbs, teachers and policemen are needed somewhere. Do you think that taxpayers of this country want to hear fewer firefighters, fewer teachers, fewer police officers, from a strategic standpoint? SUNUNU: If there’s fewer kids in the classrooms, the taxpayers really do want to hear there will be fewer teachers. [...] You have a lot of places where that is happening. You have a very mobile country now where things are changing. You have cities in this country in which the school population peaked ten, 15 years ago. And, yet the number of teachers that may have maintained has not changed. I think this is a real issue. And people ought to stop jumping on it as a gaffe and understand there’s wisdom in the comment.The facts of many of the layoffs don’t back up Sununu’s claims. Classrooms are busting at the seams because there are fewer teachers, and cities and towns across the country are closing entire public safety departments due to budget cuts. And, as Jansing noted, even if the population shifts were a legitimate argument, teachers and public safety officials are still needed where the population moves. Federal, state, and local governments have laid off more than 700,000 workers since Obama took office. Had that not happened, the unemployment rate would be a full point lower and the economic recovery would be stronger. To Romney and his campaign surrogates, however, those job losses are a step in “the right direction.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497293/sununu-romney-public-sector/] "Wisdom" my ass...
Quote:SUNUNU: Let me respond as a taxpayer, not as a representative of the Romney campaign. There are municipalities, there are states where there is flight of population. And as the population goes down, you need fewer teachers. As technology contributes to community security and dealing with issues that firefighters have to deal with, you would hope that you can, as a taxpayer, see the benefits of the efficiency and personnel that you get out of that. JANSING: But even if there’s movement to the suburbs, teachers and policemen are needed somewhere. Do you think that taxpayers of this country want to hear fewer firefighters, fewer teachers, fewer police officers, from a strategic standpoint? SUNUNU: If there’s fewer kids in the classrooms, the taxpayers really do want to hear there will be fewer teachers. [...] You have a lot of places where that is happening. You have a very mobile country now where things are changing. You have cities in this country in which the school population peaked ten, 15 years ago. And, yet the number of teachers that may have maintained has not changed. I think this is a real issue. And people ought to stop jumping on it as a gaffe and understand there’s wisdom in the comment.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:35 PM
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:39 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Obama is the worst president we've EVER had.....
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:57 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The economy and private sector are NOT " doing fine ".
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Kwickie, Why do you ask if the economy is " in trouble "? No one is phrasing the situation like that, save you. The President said it absolutely isn't doing fine ( he said the private sector , which shows his idiocy ) The economy and private sector are NOT " doing fine ". 8.2 ( or more ) % unemployment isn't 'fine'. It's pretty piss poor. Which is why Obama will be a one and done President, if the American people are wise enough. No one's 'dodging' you silly ass questions. Some of us have real lives. ( And nice lie there, saying the GOP are trying to outlaw abortion AND contraception. Why even toss that red herring into the discussion? Sure, there are those IN the GOP would like that to be the law of the land, but the party itself has no interest in pursuing that as an agenda. It'd be like saying the Dems want to take over the oil companies, and do away with private ownership... Silly, right ? )
Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:06 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Obama is the worst president we've EVER had..... Naw, still Dubya. He spent our trillions on what should have been a simple hit on Saddam (if it was even necessary at all) that the SF dudes did recently with Bin Laden. Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives
Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: BTW... Bush actually only spent Billions on that. I know we mindlessly throw the word "Trillion" around now, but Obama is the first president to make Trillion a precedent.
Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:25 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:I don't need to invent facts to blame him for; he's got plenty of REAL things for me to be pissed at him about!
Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: BTW... Bush actually only spent Billions on that. I know we mindlessly throw the word "Trillion" around now, but Obama is the first president to make Trillion a precedent.
Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:49 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:51 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Nope. You're wrong, yet again. Date Dollar Amount 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 14T 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 12T 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 20T 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 9T 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 9T 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 8T 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 7T 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 7T 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 6T 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 6T http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:00 PM
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Nope. You're wrong, yet again. Date Dollar Amount 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 14T 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 12T 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 20T 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 9T 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 9T 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 8T 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 7T 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 7T 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 6T 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 6T http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Nope... iKiki.... Right again.... Any president from henceforth can walk into a trillion dollar debt. Obama was the first to make a yearly trillion dollar addition to the debt a reality, and that's what I meant. Sorry for not keeping it up to speed with you. :)
Quote: EDITED TO ADD: True knit-pickers like you or Kwicko might point out that from 2007 to 2008 there was more than a trillion debt created. Although I could show graphs that show the other route, I'll even work with that....
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:09 PM
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Sorry man... Trillion Dollar Debts, under a Single President, is Obama country....
Quote: I know there is inflation and all the like, but that's the truth.
Quote: I hated GWB for one reason above all others, and that was his spending, even above his imperialism....
Quote: There is ZERO chance you could claim that GWB spent in his entire 2 terms what Obama over spent in one term....
Quote: Sorry Kwick...
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:17 PM
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Adjusted for inflation today, perhaps you have a point, but nobody even knew the meaning of Trillion when Reagan was president...
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:33 PM
Friday, June 15, 2012 3:27 AM
Friday, June 15, 2012 5:42 AM
Quote: Trillion Dollar Debts, under a Single President, is Obama country
Quote: There is ZERO chance you could claim that GWB spent in his entire 2 terms what Obama over spent in one term
Quote: what can you say has changed in 4 years????
Quote:The economy had already lost 4.5 million jobs before President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, with job losses that month alone surging to 818,000. Economic contraction had also accelerated, reaching a staggering 8.9 percent annualized decline in the fourth quarter of 2008—the worst in 60 years. In February 2009, Obama enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the pace of economic contraction and job loss immediately decelerated. As the stimulus ramped up, sustained economic growth took hold in mid-2009, and job growth resumed early in 2010—with 3.5 million jobs added since February 2010. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that without the Recovery Act, unemployment would have averaged roughly 10.7 percent in 2010, instead of 9.6 percent. The Recovery Act was intended to jump-start the economy and avert a depression, not to restore full employment. The $831 billion price tag, spread over more than four years, was dwarfed by the staggering loss in economic activity caused by the bursting of the $7 trillion housing bubble. After economic growth resumed, mass unemployment and underemployment compelled more fiscal support. However, passing additional economic support through Congress proved a Herculean task. In December 2010, the administration negotiated a payroll tax cut, continuation of emergency unemployment benefits, and targeted tax credits to sustain the delicate recovery as the stimulus began winding down. Without this boost, the economy would actually have slipped back into contraction in the first quarter of 2011. While the economy has improved greatly under Obama's stewardship, creating jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans who want to work remains imperative. In September 2011, Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, which would boost employment by roughly another 2 million jobs, according to numerous outside economists, including Mark Zandi. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-obama-turning-the-economy-around/president-obamas-policies-revived-the-economy Bush, we were in two wars; under Obama, we're out of one and pulling out of the other. Dow Jones And there's this, if you had any desire to be logical:Quote: Upon taking office, Obama inherited two costly wars and an economy that had violently imploded just months before. The abrupt downturn brought an end to two venerable Wall Street firms, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and it sent U.S. automakers General Motors (GM) and Chrysler into bankruptcy. Credit markets were frozen so solid that even creditworthy firms such as GE had difficulty borrowing. The government lent these firms trillions of dollars to keep them solvent. Here's a review of where the economy has progressed, and where it continues to falter, under the current administration: Stock Market: The S&P is up 50% since Obama took office. In 2008, the index fell 37%. Helping the rebound is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts -- and the realization the government has made a profit on many of its bailouts. Still, the S&P is up only 2.3% over the past five years, leaving the retirement savings of many investors in tatters. Taxes: Extending the Bush tax cuts added $700 billion to the deficit over the next decade and preserved the estate tax, which Republicans wanted to eliminate. But without these extensions, the average tax bill would have jumped by several thousand dollars. Research from Moody's found that rich people tend to save their tax cuts rather than spend them. In December 2008, just before he entered office, the economy shed 673,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In December 2010, the economy added 103,000 jobs, a figure that surprised some economists and sent the unemployment rate down to 9.4%, its lowest level since May of 2009. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/01/25/whats-the-state-of-the-economy-under-obama/] After a rocky start to his presidency, in which the unemployment rate topped out at 10 percent nine months after he was inaugurated, the economy has steadily chugged back toward normalcy. The jobless rate has dropped .9 percent in the last year, sitting now at 8.1 percent Since the beginning of 2011, things have looked better. After stagnating between 8.9 percent and 9.1 percent from January to October, 2010, unemployment has steadily dropped to 8.1 percent. The rate is .9 percent lower than it was last April. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/unemployment-politics-how-much-economic-recovery-does-obama-need/ about another one?Quote: Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama. Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that. And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/ is saying things are where they should be, absolutely nobody. But to say nothing has changed--wow, that really IS out there! Actually, what this is, is repetition of the right's talking points, given they repeat it over and over again. But it's not TRUE, it's bullshit. So if you want to just parrot the right, be our guest. But to say NOTHING has changed is absolutely insane. Why, after saying he doesn't like the right OR the left, is Six so determined, every single time, to claim Obama was worse than Bush? It's fascinating...one can only imagine what TRUE hell we'd be in if Bush had been forced to deal with the consequences of what he did to the country. Because Obama hasn't fixed it all in three years, THAT makes him worse than Bush? Because he continued some of the most egregious policies BUSH PUT IN PLACE, how can that make him "worse"?? Because the situation is only slightly better than what Bush left us with, that makes Obama "worse"? Just think where we'd be if the Republicans hadn't decided, the day Obama was inaugurated, to block anything and everything he proposed--including the things they'd been FOR until he came into office... What world does Six live in, exactly? RappyWorld™, of course, silly me.
Quote: Upon taking office, Obama inherited two costly wars and an economy that had violently imploded just months before. The abrupt downturn brought an end to two venerable Wall Street firms, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and it sent U.S. automakers General Motors (GM) and Chrysler into bankruptcy. Credit markets were frozen so solid that even creditworthy firms such as GE had difficulty borrowing. The government lent these firms trillions of dollars to keep them solvent. Here's a review of where the economy has progressed, and where it continues to falter, under the current administration: Stock Market: The S&P is up 50% since Obama took office. In 2008, the index fell 37%. Helping the rebound is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts -- and the realization the government has made a profit on many of its bailouts. Still, the S&P is up only 2.3% over the past five years, leaving the retirement savings of many investors in tatters. Taxes: Extending the Bush tax cuts added $700 billion to the deficit over the next decade and preserved the estate tax, which Republicans wanted to eliminate. But without these extensions, the average tax bill would have jumped by several thousand dollars. Research from Moody's found that rich people tend to save their tax cuts rather than spend them. In December 2008, just before he entered office, the economy shed 673,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In December 2010, the economy added 103,000 jobs, a figure that surprised some economists and sent the unemployment rate down to 9.4%, its lowest level since May of 2009. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/01/25/whats-the-state-of-the-economy-under-obama/] After a rocky start to his presidency, in which the unemployment rate topped out at 10 percent nine months after he was inaugurated, the economy has steadily chugged back toward normalcy. The jobless rate has dropped .9 percent in the last year, sitting now at 8.1 percent Since the beginning of 2011, things have looked better. After stagnating between 8.9 percent and 9.1 percent from January to October, 2010, unemployment has steadily dropped to 8.1 percent. The rate is .9 percent lower than it was last April. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/unemployment-politics-how-much-economic-recovery-does-obama-need/ about another one?Quote: Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama. Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that. And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/ is saying things are where they should be, absolutely nobody. But to say nothing has changed--wow, that really IS out there! Actually, what this is, is repetition of the right's talking points, given they repeat it over and over again. But it's not TRUE, it's bullshit. So if you want to just parrot the right, be our guest. But to say NOTHING has changed is absolutely insane. Why, after saying he doesn't like the right OR the left, is Six so determined, every single time, to claim Obama was worse than Bush? It's fascinating...one can only imagine what TRUE hell we'd be in if Bush had been forced to deal with the consequences of what he did to the country. Because Obama hasn't fixed it all in three years, THAT makes him worse than Bush? Because he continued some of the most egregious policies BUSH PUT IN PLACE, how can that make him "worse"?? Because the situation is only slightly better than what Bush left us with, that makes Obama "worse"? Just think where we'd be if the Republicans hadn't decided, the day Obama was inaugurated, to block anything and everything he proposed--including the things they'd been FOR until he came into office... What world does Six live in, exactly? RappyWorld™, of course, silly me.
Quote: Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama. Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that. And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/ is saying things are where they should be, absolutely nobody. But to say nothing has changed--wow, that really IS out there! Actually, what this is, is repetition of the right's talking points, given they repeat it over and over again. But it's not TRUE, it's bullshit. So if you want to just parrot the right, be our guest. But to say NOTHING has changed is absolutely insane. Why, after saying he doesn't like the right OR the left, is Six so determined, every single time, to claim Obama was worse than Bush? It's fascinating...one can only imagine what TRUE hell we'd be in if Bush had been forced to deal with the consequences of what he did to the country. Because Obama hasn't fixed it all in three years, THAT makes him worse than Bush? Because he continued some of the most egregious policies BUSH PUT IN PLACE, how can that make him "worse"?? Because the situation is only slightly better than what Bush left us with, that makes Obama "worse"? Just think where we'd be if the Republicans hadn't decided, the day Obama was inaugurated, to block anything and everything he proposed--including the things they'd been FOR until he came into office... What world does Six live in, exactly? RappyWorld™, of course, silly me.
Friday, June 15, 2012 7:01 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: What world does Six live in, exactly? RappyWorld™, of course, silly me.
Saturday, June 16, 2012 4:46 AM
Sunday, June 17, 2012 8:58 PM
Quote:'Taxing the ultra wealthy , a lot '. ( As if they're not being taxed already.) Yeah, Carter tried that, how'd that work out for him ?
Quote:It's because the govt spends TOO GOD DAMN FUCKING MUCH OF OUR MONEY! ... More like bridges to no where, airports for dead congressmen which don't serve anyone, excessive trips by the President making campaign appearances....
Quote:Tax cuts got us OUT of a recession
Quote:... the housing bubble bust ( mostly a Dem created issue )
Quote:The solution to our problem is NOT tax increases.
Quote: We can't tax our way out of this
Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:04 PM
Friday, June 22, 2012 4:00 AM
Friday, June 22, 2012 7:20 AM
Saturday, June 23, 2012 5:26 AM
Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:35 PM
Monday, June 25, 2012 5:01 AM
Monday, June 25, 2012 9:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: 6IX I agree with you. Perhaps you did not read or don't remember what I proposed as the real solution for this current worldwide clusterfuck... 1) Separate out "banks" and "insurances" from "investments", and regulate banks and insurances so that they will be once again safe places for your money. 2) Require 100% capitalization on all loans. This prevents banks from (literally) making money. Leave the money-making to the government, which is (last I checked) the ONLY authority empowered by Congress to issue currency. 3) Tax the ultra-wealthy...a lot. Recycle the money downwards. My vote on this would be to invest in healthcare, education and the environment... investments which the private sector is unlikely to make. Why recycle the money downwards? Because it doesn't matter HOW MUCH money you inject into the economy if you inject it at the top, it will stay at the top. As we know, neither trickle down nor austerity works. 4) Impose high tariffs on all cheap-labor imports. Injecting money into the economy will not create jobs if the money is used to purchase foreign-made products. 5) Solve our debt by winding down our foreign adventures. But when The Fed does something necessary that The Prez refuses to do... well, even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Monday, June 25, 2012 7:14 PM
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Jack, if you're going to keep blithering on and on about six sigma, could you at least get the history and origin right? You're making yourself sound like a bigger idiot than you usually do. Or, to put it in terms you might (*might*, I emphasize) understand, you're committing error after error after defect after defect. YOU have become the problem area! "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:44 PM
Quote:Number 3 is the only thing I'm not sure I agree with though. Sure, in theory, it sounds great, but for me to ever be on board with taxing the ultra-rich at a high rate would have to be worth it.As things are today, I don't recognize any benefit of highly taxing the uber-rich. We'd still find ourselves running up an even larger national debt no matter which "side" controlled things. Bottom line, I'm good with 1-5, except for 3 the way things are today. As soon as we do some meaningful housecleaning in the government and impose meaningful ways for the citizens to hold the "public servants" accountable for their actions, I can't in good conscience say that 3 is a good idea.
Quote:5) Solve our debt by winding down our foreign adventures.
Quote:Recycle the money downwards. ... Why recycle the money downwards? Because it doesn't matter HOW MUCH money you inject into the economy if you inject it at the top, it will stay at the top. As we know, neither trickle down nor austerity works.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:46 PM
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Rappy, do you have any thought that you will eventually try to back up your (numerous) claims in this thread?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:30 PM
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Well, as rappy was very careful to point out, there is a difference between claims and facts. So: YO RAPPY!!! If you want us to take ANY of your claims at all seriously, now might be a good time to start explaining them with some good supporting data!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: 6IX, do you have ADHD/ ADD?? Apparently you didn't read to the end of my post: Quote:Number 3 is the only thing I'm not sure I agree with though. Sure, in theory, it sounds great, but for me to ever be on board with taxing the ultra-rich at a high rate would have to be worth it.As things are today, I don't recognize any benefit of highly taxing the uber-rich. We'd still find ourselves running up an even larger national debt no matter which "side" controlled things. Bottom line, I'm good with 1-5, except for 3 the way things are today. As soon as we do some meaningful housecleaning in the government and impose meaningful ways for the citizens to hold the "public servants" accountable for their actions, I can't in good conscience say that 3 is a good idea. What I wrote about the deficit was Quote:5) Solve our debt by winding down our foreign adventures. My point about taxing the rich is NOT to reduce the deficit. I would reduce the deficit by cutting our military. So, if you have any curiosity at all, you might wonder WHY I want to tax the rich. I think I said something about that... Quote:Recycle the money downwards. ... Why recycle the money downwards? Because it doesn't matter HOW MUCH money you inject into the economy if you inject it at the top, it will stay at the top. As we know, neither trickle down nor austerity works. Of course, I've been saying the same thing over and over for about five years now... the reason to tax the rich is to REDISTRIBUTE MONEY. It has NOTHING to do with the deficit; that's YOUR obession, not mine.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:20 AM
Quote:Let's give money to the bottom feeders who will blow it at the casino or lottery tickets, or will go to ikea and wal-mart and spend a ton on products made in china and send money out of the country, or (since drugs are illegal) will send money to mexico and south America for their pot and cocaine. Almost none of these people who are just getting by today will save any of that money. It will more often than not end up leaving our country entirely.
Quote:4) Impose high tariffs on all cheap-labor imports. Injecting money into the economy will not create jobs if the money is used to purchase foreign-made products.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:35 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Hey 6IX, those five points I made? They really meant something, each and every part. So as to your last objection ... Quote:Let's give money to the bottom feeders who will blow it at the casino or lottery tickets, or will go to ikea and wal-mart and spend a ton on products made in china and send money out of the country, or (since drugs are illegal) will send money to mexico and south America for their pot and cocaine. Almost none of these people who are just getting by today will save any of that money. It will more often than not end up leaving our country entirely. I pre-empted that by saying... Quote:4) Impose high tariffs on all cheap-labor imports. Injecting money into the economy will not create jobs if the money is used to purchase foreign-made products. So I'm ahead of you on that point already. In a rush, but let me just say that savings are evil, and are merely the flip side of loans. Later.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL