(04-30-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:16 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  .1% Growth

I guess gaming the unemployment figures is really paying off now.

Everything's a conspiracy once the D gets in there huh?

Asshat.

Nobody argued the growth under Clinton. It's not a conspiracy, it's just using falsified numbers to make everyone think the economy isn't in the dump anymore.

Except for the fact that there are countless other measures...as well as comments from the administration...that continually tell you that the economy still needs to get better.

But hey...keep throwing that idiotic meme out there.

Settle down, Tom. I'm not throwing memes out there. I'm just saying that the numbers they're using include people who "aren't looking for work anymore," if they used those people, the numbers wouldn't look like such a growth. Look man, I'd do anything besides give a limb, murder, hump a dude, or suck a dick for lower gas prices and a good economy, I would LOVE to see something, anything happen to bring our economy back to what it used to be.

Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.
And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

BS.
Obama's opponents would not rather see the economy fail than see Obama do well.
It's a different argument that you seem incapable of comprehending.
Obama's opponents believe that Obama HAS TO fail in order for the economy do well.

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:16 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Everything's a conspiracy once the D gets in there huh?

Asshat.

Nobody argued the growth under Clinton. It's not a conspiracy, it's just using falsified numbers to make everyone think the economy isn't in the dump anymore.

Except for the fact that there are countless other measures...as well as comments from the administration...that continually tell you that the economy still needs to get better.

But hey...keep throwing that idiotic meme out there.

Settle down, Tom. I'm not throwing memes out there. I'm just saying that the numbers they're using include people who "aren't looking for work anymore," if they used those people, the numbers wouldn't look like such a growth. Look man, I'd do anything besides give a limb, murder, hump a dude, or suck a dick for lower gas prices and a good economy, I would LOVE to see something, anything happen to bring our economy back to what it used to be.

Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

(05-02-2014 08:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  800K QUIT LABOR FORCE IN APRIL

I'm not a math major but if 220,00 jobs were added but 800,000 quit the labor force that equals a net loss of 580,000 jobs right?

Obamanomics at work.
All of those shovel ready jobs are really panning out.

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:16 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Nobody argued the growth under Clinton. It's not a conspiracy, it's just using falsified numbers to make everyone think the economy isn't in the dump anymore.

Except for the fact that there are countless other measures...as well as comments from the administration...that continually tell you that the economy still needs to get better.

But hey...keep throwing that idiotic meme out there.

Settle down, Tom. I'm not throwing memes out there. I'm just saying that the numbers they're using include people who "aren't looking for work anymore," if they used those people, the numbers wouldn't look like such a growth. Look man, I'd do anything besides give a limb, murder, hump a dude, or suck a dick for lower gas prices and a good economy, I would LOVE to see something, anything happen to bring our economy back to what it used to be.

Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Except for the fact that there are countless other measures...as well as comments from the administration...that continually tell you that the economy still needs to get better.

But hey...keep throwing that idiotic meme out there.

Settle down, Tom. I'm not throwing memes out there. I'm just saying that the numbers they're using include people who "aren't looking for work anymore," if they used those people, the numbers wouldn't look like such a growth. Look man, I'd do anything besides give a limb, murder, hump a dude, or suck a dick for lower gas prices and a good economy, I would LOVE to see something, anything happen to bring our economy back to what it used to be.

Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Settle down, Tom. I'm not throwing memes out there. I'm just saying that the numbers they're using include people who "aren't looking for work anymore," if they used those people, the numbers wouldn't look like such a growth. Look man, I'd do anything besides give a limb, murder, hump a dude, or suck a dick for lower gas prices and a good economy, I would LOVE to see something, anything happen to bring our economy back to what it used to be.

Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

HAHA. Just as expected - WAY more jobs lost than gained - yet the "unemployment rate" drops to 6.3%.

Keep using those U3 numbers...paint that rosy picture. .1% growth in the economy and 800,000 jobs lost. Real great.

I thought we had to _average_ 315000 every month for the rest of Obama's term to get back to an "equilibrium"? If 220,000 is the high, we're running .. . Well, REALLY SHORT on numbers.

(05-02-2014 08:38 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

It's not a case of wanting it to tank. The economy is already in the tank.
Nothing this administration has done has improved it and they have spent a ton of money attempting to do it.

I could've told them when they started that artificially pumping/propping up the system with government money wouldn't work to create long term sustained growth. Their Keynesian principled economic policy has, once again, failed. It has never worked no matter who applied it.

So it's not a case of wanting them to fail.
It's knowing that they would fail.

(05-02-2014 08:38 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:27 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Not under Obama. You would much rather see Obama fail than see him bring the economy up.

And if you deny it, you're completely lying.

Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

Not voting = no complaining. Suck it up and eat your peas.

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:38 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Would you be happy if the used car salesman who sold you a lemon gets salesman of the year?
Why would anyone cheer for Obama? No one wants to see someone who lies and obfuscates get ahead.

Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

Not voting = no complaining. Suck it up and eat your peas.

Not Voting = Candidates were ****.

Why vote when neither candidate represents me?

(05-02-2014 08:50 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:38 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:36 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Because I want the economy to improve, period. I don't give a **** who does it.

If a Conservative came into office and improved the economy, I'd like and support him, or at the very least, his fiscal policies.

But I'm glad to see that at least one conservative wants the economy to tank for another two years.

If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

Not voting = no complaining. Suck it up and eat your peas.

Not Voting = Candidates were ****.

Why vote when neither candidate represents me?

You have a point; however, can't really complain if you don't vote. Heck, write in "superman" if you need to.

(05-02-2014 08:52 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:50 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:48 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:38 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  If the economy was your primary concern you would've voted for Romney, know?

I didn't vote in 2012 because both candidates were steaming piles of ****.

Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama.

You still haven't addressed my post. I'm glad you want the economy to tank. Pettiness at its finest.

Not voting = no complaining. Suck it up and eat your peas.

Not Voting = Candidates were ****.

Why vote when neither candidate represents me?

You have a point; however, can't really complain if you don't vote. Heck, write in "superman" if you need to.

Yep. No vote = No complaining
Or better yet… run for office…
the US needs people of good will and intelligence to run at all levels.

Imagine how vibrant the economy would be, and how low unemployment would be, had the stimulus not put a drag on the recovery.

Quote: "These were recoveries from the (financial crisis caused) recessions that started in 1882, 1893, 1907, 1913, 1929, 1973, 1981, and 1990. The average growth rate in the 8 quarters starting with the trough of the previous recession averaged about 6 percent per year in these recoveries. The growth rate over a comparable period in the current recovery is about 2 percent per year. So the weak recovery from the deep recession of 2007-2009 is a clear exception from U.S. experience. "


http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/2014_p...y-2014.pdf

we will arrive at the edge of the abyss being assured that all is well, and having misleading numbers waved in our faces.

Quote: . . . the labor force shrank by more the 800,000 in April . . . participation rate decreased to 62.8 percent . . . the lowest level since 1978 . . .

(05-02-2014 09:33 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Imagine how vibrant the economy would be, and how low unemployment would be, had the stimulus not put a drag on the recovery.

Quote: "These were recoveries from the (financial crisis caused) recessions that started in 1882, 1893, 1907, 1913, 1929, 1973, 1981, and 1990. The average growth rate in the 8 quarters starting with the trough of the previous recession averaged about 6 percent per year in these recoveries. The growth rate over a comparable period in the current recovery is about 2 percent per year. So the weak recovery from the deep recession of 2007-2009 is a clear exception from U.S. experience. "


http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/2014_p...y-2014.pdf

Imagine how vibrant the economy might be if this weren't the case.
http://csnbbs.com/thread-687872.html

This is Obama's economy, .1%.

Huh....no response from our resident lefty friends...not really any way to spin news like this, might as well just ignore it. Lets talk about old racists some more!

(05-02-2014 11:52 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  Huh....no response from our resident lefty friends...not really any way to spin news like this, might as well just ignore it. Lets talk about old racists some more!

Response to what? You guys' complete inability to understand how the unemployment rate was and has been calculated?

Just saying it doesn't look right doesn't make it so. You need to understand the concepts at play to know what they're telling you. And clearly those posting on this thread don't.