Jesus Christ, why the hell not? This is a thousand times more frustrating than even your original claim. You don't even need a library card as some other poster suggested; just go to audible.com and get some digital audio books, or got Netflix and check out all the Ken Burns and American Experience stuff.
You're being ridiculous - you know that almost all of these job losses occurred during his first year in office, when the country was still reeling from the downturn that occurred during Bush's Presidency (and was largely caused by Republican deregulation). Once Obama was able to institute his own measures, this trend reversed. Context matters.
Of course they want to hang the job losses from Obama's first 6 months (you know, before he had effectively been able to pass any legislation) around his neck and call him a failure. I believe this is what CaseyH calls "lying with numbers".
Not entirely accurate from what I've found http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-graphics-presidents-debt-gx,0,245447.graphic
Given one of the four current Repubs, Obama's likely running for Congress more than he is the Presidency. Santorum? Romney? Paul? Gingrich? They will all run a stroke their ego campaign just like McCain and especially Palin did last time... Mostly appearing in front of bitter white real Americans in traditional red enclaves and using extreme rhetoric and dog whistles to get them fired up. After they lose, we'll once again be faced with a temper-tantrum throwing minority that will perceive slights everywhere and do everything possible to make it impossible to govern. They are more concerned with Dems than they are their own country.
Obama will run on the improving economy... folks know how large a cluster f&^k Bush left for Obama to clean up.
That's a great point and, via the same stunning logic which boils a multi-variable problem down to one variable, the main reason I've always thought we should go ahead and melt the FDR memorial.
it was a sarcastic response to the stupidly simplistic graph mc mark posted it thought I have always made it clear I don't think the president really has much to do with employment
The graph you put up isn't a contradiction of the first one, they are graphs for two different things. Read people, read.
Sooo you look at a chart that shows growth from the beginning of his presidency to the point where we are in a surplus of job growth and mock it? "LoL, we went from -850,000 to +150,000 employees in the private sector, Congratz dood! (slow clap)" Because from the first day he took office he was supposed to create a million jobs.
