I already did in the post above. You seriously can't understand graphs can you?
Here is another one.
I've got to give credit where it's due....
- Thread starter RichardPeterJohnson
- Start date
I already did in the post above. You seriously can't understand graphs can you?
Here is another one.
I already did in the post above. You seriously can't understand graphs can you?
Here is another one.
countryroads89 please link me to whatever source you prefer where I can see that Obama had among the best GDP per year during his 8 years, and what his final number was? This graph is not his final number.
Annualized growth for Obama's 2nd term isn't even listed there. You said I don't know how to read graphs.
Do you know how to post them?
Very good RPJ...I'm impressed.
How about another one, you're so creative! Dumb & dumber....
So tell me RPJ, how many manuscripts and long hours of intense study into the subtleties and variances of nuance in the English language (which is the hardest to master by the way) did it take you to develop such an athletic and vocabularic reportire?
You're such a Rhodes scholar RPJ!
I really am impressed...keep it up!
So countryroads89 why don't you set the record straight on this entire thread. Show us Obama's final GDP compared to his predecors dating back to Eisenhower (that'd be like 50 years or so?) and just point out where the "lies" are in his final numbers...which is all I've posted.
Go ahead....correct us countryroads89...you sooth slayer of Truth!
Last edited:
You are changing the argument. I never said Obama had the best. This is exactly why people ignore you.
This is your previous argument.
I have proven you wrong twice already. The graph has numbers on it. Obama was better than both Bushes.
Apparently Dave.
Maybe they enjoy reading my "stupidity" or I'm actually educating them and they're too embarrassed to admit it?
Either way, they sure enjoy telling me how much they "ignore me" while confidently insisting on how "stupid" and "dumb" I am.
I must really be good if they can figure out how lacking I am in education without even reading me?
Damn.
Nice answer countryroads89. Those stats you've posted here are very informative.
Thank you for that information, now I really know how Obama finished up. That was very nice work.
I must have missed Obama's final numbers you posted countryroads89, can you post them again for me?
I'm just so stupid you know?
You are dumb, no offense. You are so dumb you don't realize how dumb you are.
The graphs I posted do go back to Eisenhower. [laughing]
Says the guy that called me racist the other day....in fact, you called me a lot of names.
It must have crushed your soul when I said that to you way back because everytime you get abused and cannot respond you reuse it.
So countryroads89 I understand you have this unique perspective on assessing one's intelligence.
I've heard you've actually authored the exact mechanisms needed to demonstrate this mental flaw.
Does it come naturally(like were you born with this trait), or did you acquire this fabulous demonstrative ability through years and years of studied practice to the point where you are now the World's recognized authority on mental deprivation?
Give us your chronology countryroads89, because an educated World in need of more stupidity should be following your example.
Don't be selfish, share your banality with the rest of us!
No I didn't countryroads89, I called out your hypocrisy on the issue, and perfectly described the exact characteristics of a racist that you so quickly and willingly proscribe to others.
You'd know a racist obviously, because you've defined the behavior. So much so, I'm thinking of adding your bio to Wikipedia when folks do a google search to learn what one what is!
You do racism good countryroads89...that's not name calling, that's complimenting you!
countryroads89 just needs a little Love Dave. Abuse is too kind a word for such an accommodating Soul.
Where's Obama's final number countryroads89? Surely you can find something...anything...to support your argument on his outstanding performance?
C' mon, work that google search bar Bro!
opcorn:Where's Obama's final number countryroads89? Surely you can find something...anything...to support your argument on his outstanding performance?
C' mon, work that google search bar Bro!
It is on the graph. Good lord, you are a special kind of stupid.
OK countryroads89, once again I want to compliment you both on your nomenclature and for showing me those final numbers from Obama on that graph.
I'm sure those wishing to be educated by your "legitimate" sources will find your information not only informative, but illustrative.
Those numbers you've posted here in this thread should serve as THE definitive collection on Obama's official final record as far as the vast majority of American people are concerned.
ZERO
and I've asked you Op2 to show me the economic model where they have produced sustained, measured, and quantified (meaning the reason for) economic growth?
Your charts and graphs mean nothing to CEO's and CFO's and entrepreneurs of the free market Capitalist economy who use standard statistical data to measure growth, profits, and market share.
Negative externalities is something you found some Socialist Professor arguing to support artificial regulation of free markets to control "Global Warming" which hasn't even been proven let alone a demonstrated economic reality that is powerful enough to alter normal economic decision making.
Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Consumers do not make their economic choices based on "negative externalities". They make their choices based on price vs quality. Just as businesses base their economic decisions on costs vs profits.
This is basic econ 101. Somehow, for some reason, you skipped class during those lectures Op2.
Op2, Obama said during the run up to the election that his economic policies were also up for review, and a vote for Hillary was a vote for his policies and their continued success...did he not?
So you and others have argued throughout this thread that Obama's record was "not all that bad" or actually pretty good when compared historically with Bush's or some of his other predecessors...in fact you all have argued his record was actually better than Bush's at least, especially considering the terrible moribund economy Obama inherited from that reprobate Bush.
Right?
OK then.
So why wasn't there enthusiastic, overwhelming, overpowering affirmation of this stellar Obama record reflected in Hillary's unmistakable choice to continue Obama's economy and policies especially in those traditionally Blue State Democrat strongholds where one would think Obama's record would have won a strong affirmative "yes"..."more please"?
Explain.
Oh you're so smart countryroads89. This not only isn't the information I was asking from Op2 (in your response to this post) it isn't even the information I've asked you to produce for me throughout this thread!
All I've asked you to show me was Obama's final real GDP results. For his 8 year term. It's really easy to find. Everything else you're posting is getting around that simple request, but I know why you either won't or can't show me what I've asked for.
It doesn't support your argument.
Don't worry, I feel you countryroads89. I wouldn't be proud to post Obama's final GDP numbers either.
Last edited:
countryroads89, I was asking Op2 for information on negative externalities. Try and keep up.
countryroads89 (and I'm serious) if Obama averaged over 100,000 jobs created per month according to this graph....why do you suppose the labor participation rate and the number of Americans out of work in the labor force remained at historic highs throughout his Presidency?
The labor participation rate was stuck in double digits, and more than 90 million Americans who needed jobs were out of the work force or simply had given up looking because they could not find jobs. Were they not looking hard enough?
Explain?
So according to that graph countryroads89, Bush should have never had ANY economic growth during his entire 8 year term right?
Well, then explain this? (once again Obama is dead last)
source: Hudson Institute https://hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president
You clearly do not know much about economics. Obama had eight years and had the worst economic GDP growth of any president since World War II. Historically, the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. That is a fact.
Obama was an economic disaster. You can paint this anyway you want but he was pathetic. The economic statistics prove that
And if you think the 2008 collapse was Bush's fault, you are simply a fool and ignorant of the facts.
Op2 simply refuses to believe me whenever I tell him this PAX. He thinks I'm trying to confuse him.
countryroads89 calls me "stupid" for suggesting this PAX. I asked for stats proving otherwise and I think they're posted somewhere in this thread?
Somehow I've missed them even though countryroads89 insists they were posted!
Can you find them PAX?
Well it's obvious to you I'm dumb countryroads89 you have certainly made that quite clear to me on many many occasions. But from my perspective I must be pretty sharp because in nearly 70 posts throughout this thread despite your claims to the contrary, you either cannot or will not answer my very simple request to you.
I simply asked you to show me or link me to your source demonstrating Obama's final real GDP numbers compared to the previous Presidents before him going back to say Eisenhower or since World War II.
Not too hard for such a talented and eager googler such as yourself. Now I'm either too stupid for you to understand my request, or I'm too smart for you to be able to answer it.
Either way, your non response buys me at least one advantage over you.
Your silence.
Obama was the first President since Hoover that did not ever achieve at least 3% GDP growth in any single year. He also average 1.66% GDP growth over his 8 years, the worst since WWII. This of course doesn't take into consideration the fact that he rang up more debt than all prior Presidents combined. Very typical liberal record, imo.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...e-first-president-hoover-not-see-3-gdp-growth
Obama's annual GDP growth, Just awful.
https://hudson.org/research/12714-economic-growth-by-president
Last edited: