Tiberius Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hey, if you guys think a Republican president would have been better for the economy I'm willing to listen but I've heard nothing about how this would happen and frankly thinks its a bunch of bull crude, but Go For It, I'm all ears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hey, if you guys think a Republican president would have been better for the economy I'm willing to listen but I've heard nothing about how this would happen and frankly thinks its a bunch of bull crude, but Go For It, I'm all ears! I think anyone who didn't create an air of uncertainty in the job market with unbelievably ignorant and unrealistic "job creation" policies and a train wreck of a "health care reform" bill would have been better for the economy. 40 times WORSE that Bush. With the benefit of a one-time creation of 650k temporary jobs. That's pretty much all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 I think anyone who didn't create an air of uncertainty in the job market with unbelievably ignorant and unrealistic "job creation" policies and a train wreck of a "health care reform" bill would have been better for the economy. 40 times WORSE that Bush. With the benefit of a one-time creation of 650k temporary jobs. That's pretty much all you need to know. Oh come on, you are just being blindingly partisan. Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hey, if you guys think a Republican president would have been better for the economy I'm willing to listen but I've heard nothing about how this would happen and frankly thinks its a bunch of bull crude, but Go For It, I'm all ears! For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Oh come on, you are just being blindingly partisan. Sad What is partisan about "anyone"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 Yes, that's a rational argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Oh come on, you are just being blindingly partisan. Sad Paging Mr Pot Paging Mr Pot You have a call on line 3 from a Mr Kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I haven't been around much lately so forgive me if I'm validating a troll, but I can't help but chuckle at these stooges. After 5 years we get a modestly positive indicator and they're claiming vindication? With a straight face? I'm going to start using this tactic on my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Oh come on, you are just being blindingly partisan. Sad Bush had the worst job creation record of any president since World War 2. Until now. 40 times WORSE than BUSH. That's not partisan. That's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hey, if you guys think a Republican president would have been better for the economy I'm willing to listen but I've heard nothing about how this would happen and frankly thinks its a bunch of bull crude, but Go For It, I'm all ears! The political parties aren't the issue. It's the snowball effect of the ever increasing reach of the government that has been happening the past 50 plus years regardless of which party is in power. That's scary. They're no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I'm curious to how the shift to a part time work force (two 20 hr/week employees to replace one 40 hr/week employee), and the removal of individuals from the eligible work force, combined with a swelling glut of individuals on the public dole can be seen as a positive step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I'm curious to how the shift to a part time work force (two 20 hr/week employees to replace one 40 hr/week employee), and the removal of individuals from the eligible work force, combined with a swelling glut of individuals on the public dole can be seen as a positive step. Because the rate of unemployment ticked down marginally. What don't you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Because the rate of unemployment ticked down marginally. What don't you get? I apologize. Long Live the King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Because the rate of unemployment ticked down marginally. What don't you get? Technically, the jobless claims were lower than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 Someone brought up Bush and jobs, lol. I wonder who was a bigger spender of government money, Bush with his wars or Obama with his one time stimulus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 One need not wonder. The information is public. The government has spent more under Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Someone brought up Bush and jobs, lol. I wonder who was a bigger spender of government money, Bush with his wars or Obama with his one time stimulus? So deficit spending of a trillion dollars +/- per year for 5 years (going on 8) is considered 'one time'? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/labor-force-participation-rate_n_3028135.html This is more towards the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Hey, if you guys think a Republican president would have been better for the economy I'm willing to listen but I've heard nothing about how this would happen and frankly thinks its a bunch of bull crude, but Go For It, I'm all ears! the US needs an asset boom of some kind, much like Tech or Housing.... that is when we are doing well, even though we know the eventually collapse is pretty ugly. So what is the next boom? Green Energy, doesn't look like it. Domestic Tradtional Energy Production? Perhaps, its happening in North Dakota and the pay is excellent, but that is restricted to certain area of the country. Stock Market? Its already high but that is Fed driven. Maybe the jobs will never come back? Someone brought up Bush and jobs, lol. I wonder who was a bigger spender of government money, Bush with his wars or Obama with his one time stimulus? As the Government gobbles up more of GDP through continous adminstrations, does it really matter who is worse? It kind of like comaring the stench of vomit to diarrhea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 the US needs an asset boom of some kind, much like Tech or Housing.... that is when we are doing well, even though we know the eventually collapse is pretty ugly. So what is the next boom? Green Energy, doesn't look like it. Domestic Tradtional Energy Production? Perhaps, its happening in North Dakota and the pay is excellent, but that is restricted to certain area of the country. Stock Market? Its already high but that is Fed driven. Water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts