Faux News will probably be showing Ann Coulter p*rn. You can watch her adam's apple go up and down...and up and down....:grin:
I'm curious... is that net or gross private sector jobs? I'd hope it's net, but have a sneaking suspicion it's gross. Their source is too long for me to be interested enough and read.
LOL, the classic "my team is better than your team" approach. I understand you're going to have allegiances based on alignment w/ fiscal/social policy or family tradition, but this isn't Yankees-Red Sox where you're looking at a box score at the end of the day & dumping a beer on the opposing fan's head. Bush was an utter failure, but Obama's term has been soaked w/ an abundance of false promises/lies, an inability to overcome widespread unemployment & a stagnant economy while spending more than all presidents from Washington thru Clinton combined (essentially enslaving America's youth), and just like W, his hand is deep in the pockets of corporate America. The hypocrisy is disgusting... <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DyLmru6no4U" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
Trying to have an honest and rational debate with people who have repeatedly proven themselves incapable of rational honest debates = this thread, again.
Those are the numbers... classic or not. Would we prefer a lower unemployment rate? Of course. Are we ready to jump back on the trickle down train that ran this country into a bridge? Certainly not.
Was it a NATIONAL DISGRACE that unemployment rose to 10.8% under Reagan? And that unemployment was virtually the exact same at this point in Reagan's 1st term as it is with Obama?
YES and Obama has proven zero capability of reducing unemployment pretty much what I expected -- they guy had zero leadership experience coming into the job, and has underperformed my admittedly low bar for him. time for America to flush this turd
January 1981- Reagan inherits a 7.5% unemployment rate. January 2009- Obama inherits a 7.8% unemployment rate. January 1982- Unemployment goes to 8.6% January 2010- Unemployment goes to 9.7% January 1983- Unemployment goes to 10.4% January 2011- Unemployment goes to 9.0% January 1984- Unemployment goes to 8.3% January 2012- Unemployment goes to 8.5% Conclusion: Unemployment goes up .8% under Reagan by the beginning of his 4th year. Unemployment goes up .7% under Obama by the beginning of his 4th year. Reagan = Obama Obama = Reagan
Calling the President of the U.S. a turd? You're a bigger piece of s**t and you don't even know it. And if you're honestly saying that about Reagan, you're really full of s**t and you know it, too. Reagan is your patron saint, moron, and on unemployment, he is parallel with Obama. So choke on that, a-hole. The Marines should have been pissing on you.
faux anger from dandy. lolz I was referring to his performance being a turd You gotta admit we're in a horrible place regarding unemployment. Obama can't fix it
Nope Mr Obama is fixing it champ. It's time your party either helps or get out of the way. We'll see what America thinks in November
Well, if you knew anything about economics, you'd realize that the effect of the President on the economy is way, way overstated. The economy runs in cycles. Do you really think Bush Sr. single-handedly caused a recession in 1992, which led him from being the President with the highest rating in all of history to losing the election less than a year later (and no, it wasn't only due to Perot)? The President's job during an economic downturn period is to implement strategies for improvement, understanding that there's only so much you can do. Again, most economists- non-partisan, BTW- will tell you that the government can and should try stimulus measures, within reason, to jumpstart the economy. This whole blaming-Obama-for-everything really reveals the ignorance of those who believe it. I mean, do they really have that limited of an understanding of how the world works? It's shocking the number of people who cling to that- and it's just as bad when liberals lay everything at Bush's feet, as well, as if Congress didn't exist, etc., etc. Just shocking.
No, you're not backtracking, fool. You said, "time to flush this turd." That's using turd as a adjective for Obama, not his performance. I've been coming on this site for quite some time, and the level of ignorance you display regarding Obama is quite stunning. It's as if you really don't have a clue, so if that's the case, then I just feel bad for you.
You know, there is a **** ton of horrible stuff that Obama has done. I'm not anywhere near happy with him or with the actions of his administration. ...but the people arguing against Obama are doing such a ****ty job of it that sometimes I feel as if I should defend him. Whatever though - he's going to win just because the Republican party has gone to such extremes that there's no way they're going to beat a moderate. ...and anyone who claims Obama isn't a moderate has not only been drinking the Kool-Aid, but has also been bathing, swimming, and gargling with it. That's pretty gross, really.
