Trumplethinskin hasn't done anything to embarrass the office or the country in a few days. Maybe he's learned his lesson but I doubt it. On another subject, I see he's touting the jobs report and unemployment. I guess he must've cleaned house at the BLS since the numbers they produced for Obama were fake....dropouts in the work force, minimum wage paying jobs, etc. Glad to see he can now trust their numbers.
I've got to give credit where it's due....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
I heard Obama's jobs numbers blared all over the news even if only 90,000 new jobs had been "created" under his watch.
There was hardly a mention of these jobless numbers on any of the major news media broadcasts yesterday. You'd hardly even know there was even a jobs report released.
Based on your daily criticism of our President, you are in for a long 8 years.
Hey einstein, Obama created 11.3 million new jobs during his 8 years. Not as good as Reagan's 16 million or Clinton's 23 million. But considering that he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression, 11.3 million is pretty good. Certainly better than W's 2.1 million net gain and his 12 straight months of massive jobs losses totaling about 4 million over those 12 months. Obama followed that with 75+ straight months of private sector job growth. I mean, you can look it up.
Hey Newton...the worst unemployment and/or economic growth of W was better than Obama's best. I mean you can look it up.
Hey RPJ in case you're interested....your economic "savior" is in last place in the Conference...just like Kansas football in the Big 12.
pull quote from NYT survey:
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
full article:
ranking the Presidents
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/ranking-the-presidents-by-g-d-p/?_r=0
pull quote from NYT survey:
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%
full article:
ranking the Presidents
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/ranking-the-presidents-by-g-d-p/?_r=0
This is why nobody can have an intelligent discussion with you. You cannot acknowledge facts. If you can't accept reality, then debating anything with you is pointless,. W led us into the worst economic calamity we've seen since the Great Depression. Fact. Obama lead us from a massive jobs losses to consistent job growth-75+ straight months and 11 million new jobs. Fact. Unemploymnent rate was at 10% at the end 0f W's admin. When Obama left, it was 4.8. Fact. I could go on about the real estate crisis, banking crisis, auto crisis, etc. But I've already wasted all this time in typing these facts that you refuse to accept. Have a good weekend, dumbass.
And remember, Reagan had to raise interest rates dramatically to slay inflation which was 13 or 14% under Carter. That led to a recession. After the recession ended in 1982, Reagan GDP average 4.9%. Astounding.
Reagan inherited an absolute mess. Inflation of 13 to 14%. Which required interest rates to go as high as 20% to cure the absolute devastation of inflation that huge.. This led to a significant recession. We also had the incredible oil embargo to deal with.
Once inflation came down, and the recession ended, Reagan averaged 4.9% GDP growth from 1982 to 1989.
Last edited:
Its funny watching you true believers spout this nonesense to defend Obama. Look at government today. It is all GOP. That is Obamas legacy. Congrats.
I unclicked ignore just long enough to see this ridiculous piece of falsehood ... alternate facts.
Under W, our GDP went NEGATIVE for his last year and into 2009... since you have trouble discerning and analyzing facts ... a negative GDP isn't good. So, by extending your "logic" that W's worst was better than Obama's best, then the GDP has to have been even MORE negative for 8 straight years. We know that isn't true, so let's just call your claim what it is ... an outright lie.
Obama's best GDP per capita was over $51k, Bush's was $49k ... no not only wasn't Bush's worst better than Obama's best, Bush's best wasn't as good as Obama's best.
I'm almost curious where you come up with this ridiculous **** ... but since you're so sure of God and religion I'll just remind you of something you claim to believe in "thou shalt not bear false witness"
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
You can see for yourself ... although I will warn you that the cognitive dissonance may cause you headaches.
There are dozens of other ways to prove your point as a blatant lie, but I know you'll still maintain that water isn't wet ... so, you've gotten all of my time you'll ever get.
You go above and beyond crazy sometimes. The worst unemployment numbers of W was better than the best of Obamas. Yeah, so the economy lost 750,000 jobs the month W left and Obama came in. If Obama did worse than that he he lost at least 750,001 jobs per month. For eight years, which is 96 months. That is 72,000,096 jobs lost during Obama's time in office. Makes perfect sense.
Liars figure and figures lie Op2. Obama never had GDP exceeding 1.5%, no matter how many "new jobs" you want to claim he added (without also subtracting the number of jobs lost during his terms) there is no way that 75 straight months of economic 'growth' would lead to such a paltry GDP result....and as I mentioned and also posted THAT growth measured in terms of real GDP is the worst of GWB's best.
You are above and beyond crazy when it comes to economics, and you just need to stop posting on the subject because the more you do, the more obvious it becomes your are virtually clueless about the most basic economic assumptions and principles. Like arguing that "negative externalities" lead to long term economic expansion?
Clueless.
But it is certainly a free country... meaning there's always plenty of room for ignorance Op2. So go ahead and jump on in, the water's fine.
Do yourself a favor WhitetailEER (while I will continue to Pray for you)
Please keep me on ignore...you'll feel much better about whatever it is you don't read that I post.
FYI, I was talking about Bush v Obama and their overall economic performance for both terms they served in Office...I wasn't parsing out Bush's last two years, and comparing it to Obama's overall record which I did post was dead last among the 10 previous Presidents.
But Thank You for the Bible lesson, I'd suggest instead of "un-ignoring" me, you click on that more often to soften your hardened heart against Godly Wisdom which in my opinion you are surely in need of to dissolve your absorption in human arrogance.
Who cares? Last place is still last place no matter where the race starts.
So how many jobs were lost during that same period RPJ? It's useless debating "facts" with you when you leave out important ones that don't suit your agenda.
So what was Obama's overall economic record? What was his best GDP? Fact check THAT, then get back to me and complain some more about how I don't consider facts.
You are in good company ATL. He has put me on ignore also. The guy is a coward and can't stand a rational debate. He gets beat so often I think it depresses him which may cause serious mental issues. And I cannot stress the word coward enough.
I have to be honest RPJ...in full disclosure here
One of the things that's always impressed me about you and that I honestly admire is your ability to quickly and accurately assess one's deficiencies, and apply your limitless insight into the very imperfections and anomalies you prescribe to others fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of your enlightened deficiency abundant analysis.
It takes a special requisite sense of dexterity, sensitivity, empathy, and of course well practiced and precision honed accomplishment to be able to so completely and thoroughly recognize and synthesize those unique qualities and unmistakable negative assets only a person such as yourself who has institutionalized myopia as "state of the art" performance.
An academy award winner cannot be told how to act, and you Sir have proven to me your Oscar winning performances describing those who even attempt to copy your level of decrepitude are nothing short of fraudulent copy cats.
So I am honestly impressed to receive such lofty evaluations from the "master" of imperfection, and all I can sincerely say is Thank you for your wonderful example.
I have been truly inspired by you, and can only hope one day to even dream to be as ineffective as you no doubt believe I am trying to match your considerable ineffective skills.
Can I have your autograph RPJ?
I'm so impressed that you, RPJ, the original "expert" of all you subscribe to me--think I am even near approaching your already well chartered capabilities in the exact negative traits you've so obviously noticed in me.
Gosh, I'm...just....speechless!
Last edited:
He "un ignores" me to let me know how little he thinks of whatever I post.
Very bold indeed.
Liberals like Whitetail and RPJ don't want to the debate facts. They want to look at specific time period that supports their point of view. The problem is GDP is nonnegotiable. GDP under Bush was higher than under Obama. That is a simple fact. And to blame the 2008 collapse on Bush is simply ignorance on their part, extreme ignorance.
They cite stats based on the entry and exit for the Bush presidency which does not take into account 9/11 and the collapse in 2008. The 2008 collapse was not Bush's fault. That is a phony set of statistics.
The key is to look at GDP by year. Bush defeats Obama easily. And Reagan easily the defates Clinton after the 1982 recessio. And he provided for the peace dividend that supported the Clinton economic record.
Last edited:
Yeah, the collapse of 2008 isn't Bush's fault. 9/11 isn't Bush's fault. You forgot to say that Bush was saddled with a Clinton recession but I'm sure you'll say it next time.
Why can you not just say Bush wasn't so good of a POTUS? And that considering the crapola economy that Obama got handed (worse than any since FDR got handed the Depression from Herbert Hoover) he didn't do all that bad.
I've never argued that negative externalities lead to long term economic expansion. You never even heard of negative externalities until I mentioned them. You still don't even know what they are despite my patiently explaining them to you about a half dozen times.
Here's an extremely easy to read graph. Let's see how you screw this up. There are so many possibilities.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Wrong again. You are always wrong.
Hell, Carter was better than Bush. Good lord man, you partisanship just totally blinds you....and the illegitimate news sources you constantly cram your feeble mind with.
Wrong again. You are always wrong.
Hell, Carter was better than Bush. Good lord man, you partisanship just totally blinds you....and the illegitimate news sources you constantly cram your feeble mind with.
OK countryroads89. Why don't you "correct" my feeble mind and show me what Obama's final GDP was and show me how his average growth per year that you've posted here ended up for his entire 8 year term?
Surely he'd be among the top Presidents of all time if he averaged growth of 2.20 % each year?
Link me to your "legitimate" news sources that proves the average number of GDP growth each year for Obama that obviously will demonstrate the results you're posting here.
I'll eagerly wait for those final results which should be easy for you to produce with your "legitimate" sources.
It is above. Can you not read a graph?
Bush was worse than Carter. Fact! Obama was better than Bush. Fact!
He has you on ignore because you aren't intelligent enough to have a debate with and can't recognize facts. You are disengenuous (a polite way of calling you a liar).
Speechless? What did it take you...10 minutes to compose that? And then go back and edit? Get a life. You, patx and 82 need to move in together. Losers.
Wrong again. You are always wrong.
Hell, Carter was better than Bush. Good lord man, you partisanship just totally blinds you....and the illegitimate news sources you constantly cram your feeble mind with.
Really countryroads89?
According to this 'illegitimate" news source, Obama was dead last in avg GDP growth per quarter while in Office. And how many years was that countryroads89?
source: US. News and World Report 10.21.15
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
Really countryroads89?
According to this 'illegitimate" news source, Obama was dead last in avg GDP growth per quarter while in Office. And how many years was that countryroads89?
source: US. News and World Report 10.21.15
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/d...ich-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
You posted a chart that is two years old and has both Bush numbers wrong.
How long does it take you to find a name to call me RPJ .... 02 of a second?
Just flies from your brain right into your nimble fingers and onto the keyboard right my friend?
Effortless childish insults...makes you feel so superior doesn't it?
Got any more?
go ahead...serenade us RPJ...no body does it better....
I'm still waiting for your data countryroads89. Show me those Obama stats with his final GDP numbers affirming what you posted prior to criticizing my numbers.
You made the charge, now back it up.