Here's your Obama Economy, moonbats

Started by RichClem

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
56 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Regina
  4 10 Dec 2013, 10:55 am

Regina User avatar
   
   

Posts: 385
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Gender: Female
Money: 3.99

Log in or register to remove this ad..
Close to 5 years, without the help of Congress for nearly 4 of those years, President Obama managed to turn the economy around, and has presided over 44 straight months of private sector job growth through October. This translates to nearly 8 million jobs. What was that about the government not creating jobs?

The job numbers released today for the month of November continued the trend, marking 45 straight months of private sector job growth. Beating economist predictions of 165,000 jobs, in November 215,000 were created. A majority of the jobs created were by true small businesses. The breakdown is as follows: 102,000 jobs created by small businesses, 48,000 jobs by medium sized businesses, and 65,000 by large companies.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/president-obama-continues-move-forward-despite-republican-obstructionism/
0
Log in or register to remove this ad..

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 10 Dec 2013, 11:19 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

cookie » 22 minutes ago wrote:
Close to 5 years, without the help of Congress for nearly 4 of those years, President Obama managed to turn the economy around, and has presided over 44 straight months of private sector job growth through October. This translates to nearly 8 million jobs. What was that about the government not creating jobs?

The job numbers released today for the month of November continued the trend, marking 45 straight months of private sector job growth. Beating economist predictions of 165,000 jobs, in November 215,000 were created. A majority of the jobs created were by true small businesses. The breakdown is as follows: 102,000 jobs created by small businesses, 48,000 jobs by medium sized businesses, and 65,000 by large companies.


215,000 jobs is barely enough to keep up with population growth, moonbat. And nice try at putting lipstick on the Obama pig of an economy. :rofl:

Worst recovery in 80 years.

Plummeting income.

12% real unemployment.

$1 trillion annual deficits.

2 million jobs behind pre-recession levels.

8 million jobs behind the average recovery.

A collapsing "train wreck" of a health care plan.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 10 Dec 2013, 11:20 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35



From your source:

Economy and Obamacare Surging Despite Republican Obstruction


"Surging?" Are you really so stupid as to believe that? :clap:

Or are you just a mindless Obama Spambot?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 13 Dec 2013, 1:11 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

cookie » 10 Dec 2013 9:55 am wrote:
Close to 5 years, without the help of Congress for nearly 4 of those years, President Obama managed to turn the economy around, and has presided over 44 straight months of private sector job growth through October. This translates to nearly 8 million jobs. What was that about the government not creating jobs?


Wow, liberal Disinformation sounds so impressive, if you're ignorant and stupid. :loco:

A ‘New Normal’ November jobs report: The long emergency for US workers continues
.

Image
.

..There are still 1.1 million fewer employed Americans today than right before the recession started, despite a potential labor force that’s 14 million larger. And there are 3.6 million fewer full-time workers than back in 2007.

2. The employment rate, the share of Americans with a job, is 58.6% — exactly where it was in November 2009.

3. If the labor force participation rate were where it was a year ago, the jobless rate would be 7.9%, not 7% (and 11.3% if the LFPR were at prerecession levels, though closer to 9% if demographics-adjusted).

4. More than 4 million Americans remain out of work for 27 weeks or longer.

5. Overall, according to the Hamilton Project Jobs Gap calculator, it will take another five years to return to 2007 employment levels even at the improved job creation pace of the past four months.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-new- ... continues/
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Dec 2013, 3:06 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

RichClem » 29 Nov 2013 9:18 am wrote:
Here's your Obama Economy, moonbats.

Well heck, next year Dems can run on his wonderful health care plan! :wave:


Onward Socialism, moonbats. :rofl:

Do you trust the November jobs report?
The employment picture is much worse than it seems
Do you believe the headlines from the November jobs report showing unemployment dropped to the lowest level in five years?

At first blush, those numbers played into the narrative from the Obama Administration that the economy is improving, and the jobs picture is rosy.

Unfortunately, it’s only part of the story.

Even if we assume the 7% November unemployment number is accurate, why is everyone ignoring the government’s own 13.2% rate of unemployment combined with underemployment” It’s a statistic that most experts agree is the more accurate picture of true unemployment .

And even if more than 200,000 new jobs were created in November, why aren’t we talking about what kind of jobs those are?

Economist and author John Lott reported recently that 96% of the jobs created since January are crummy part-time jobs.

Billionaire businessman and publisher Mort Zuckerman disagrees . He says 88% of the jobs created this year under Obama are crummy part-time jobs. No matter which figure you believe, the “recovery” is a mirage. This economy is only doing well if you want a job at McDonald’s.

Even worse for taxpayers, of the few full-time jobs created, almost half are government jobs .

You know why there were so many government jobs in November? Because they were counting furloughed government employees returning from the government shutdown. But lots of government employees are being hired. The unemployment rate for government employees is only 4.3%.

Why is this bad? Because your typical federal government employee is paid 74% more than private sector workers. State and local government employees are often paid even more lavishly. In many cases , a government employee collects more money in retirement than they made while working.

We desperately need private sector jobs, not more government jobs.

How bad is the private sector economy? A new study shows 41 of 50 states have lost private sector jobs under Obama.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-you ... beforebell
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 3:14 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 16 Dec 2013 2:06 pm wrote:

Onward Socialism, moonbats. :rofl:




We certainly couldn't put any blame on the Republicans because we all know:

--what a healthy economy Bush handed to Obama
--what massive electoral losses the GOP suffered in 2010
--how quickly and completely the GOP cooperated with Obama
--how willing the GOP (along with its Wall Street Masters) has been to abandon the failed policies that created the mess in the first place.

Image
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Dec 2013, 3:20 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Skeptic » 16 Dec 2013 2:14 pm wrote:
RichClem » 16 Dec 2013 2:06 pm wrote:

Onward Socialism, moonbats. :rofl:




We certainly couldn't put any blame on the Republicans because we all know:

--what a healthy economy Bush handed to Obama
--what massive electoral losses the GOP suffered in 2010
--how quickly and completely the GOP cooperated with Obama
--how willing the GOP (along with its Wall Street Masters) has been to abandon the failed policies that created the mess in the first place.
\

Let's welcome perhaps the most dishonest troll in previous board history back to spew his endless bulls*** and lies. :loco:

Not to annoy you with the facts again, but Obama got his entire economic package and promised that unemployment would be 5% a year or two ago.
Instead, real unemployment is roughly 12% with little improvement in sight.

But who do trolls blame? Repubs. :rofl:

And what was the only institution not covered by finance bill Dodd-Frank?

Fannie Mae, which played a huge role in the Financial Freeze.

And which party took the most contributions not only from Fannie Mae, but from Wall St?

The Democrats, in particular Obama of the $1 billion campaign.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 3:23 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 16 Dec 2013 2:20 pm wrote:
\

Let's welcome perhaps the most dishonest troll in previous board history back to spew his endless bulls*** and lies. :loco:

Not to annoy you with the facts again, but Obama got his entire economic package and promised that unemployment would be 5% a year or two ago.
Instead, real unemployment is roughly 12% with little improvement in sight.

But who do trolls blame? Repubs. :rofl:

And what was the only institution not covered by finance bill Dodd-Frank?

Fannie Mae, which played a huge role in the Financial Freeze.

And which party took the most contributions not only from Fannie Mae, but from Wall St?

The Democrats, in particular Obama of the $1 billion campaign.



Welcome, clemydia!


You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Dec 2013, 3:27 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Skeptic » 16 Dec 2013 2:23 pm wrote:
You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?


Yes, your complete lack of integrity. :loco:
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 3:35 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22


RichClem » 16 Dec 2013 2:27 pm wrote:

Yes, your complete lack of integrity. :loco:


No way to resolve this little contradiction??
-----
You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?
-----
Then, it is clearly YOUR integrity that suffers, clem.
0

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 16 Dec 2013, 4:10 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,295
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.97



Skeptic » 16 Dec 2013 2:35 pm wrote:
No way to resolve this little contradiction??
-----
You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?
-----
Then, it is clearly YOUR integrity that suffers, clem.

What contradiction?
Sorry, but economies are failing around the world are BECAUSE of their socialist policies, and that they are turning to free market capitalism to correct the problems they created. Like Greece, Spain and others.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 4:25 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

golfboy » 16 Dec 2013 3:10 pm wrote:
What contradiction?
Sorry, but economies are failing around the world are BECAUSE of their socialist policies, and that they are turning to free market capitalism to correct the problems they created. Like Greece, Spain and others.


This contradiction:

----

You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?

-----

Obviously, you have trouble grasping the dynamics that RC asserts BOTH ae happening at the same time.
0

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 16 Dec 2013, 4:27 pm

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,295
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.97



Skeptic » 16 Dec 2013 3:25 pm wrote:

This contradiction:

----

You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?

-----

Obviously, you have trouble grasping the dynamics that RC asserts BOTH ae happening at the same time.

They are happening at the same time because the failure of these liberal economies is forcing these countries to turn to the free market.
Did you really not understand that when I pointed out Greece and Spain?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Dec 2013, 4:36 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Skeptic » 16 Dec 2013 3:25 pm wrote:
golfboy » 16 Dec 2013 3:10 pm wrote:
What contradiction?
Sorry, but economies are failing around the world are BECAUSE of their socialist policies, and that they are turning to free market capitalism to correct the problems they created. Like Greece, Spain and others.


This contradiction:

----

You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?

-----

Obviously, you have trouble grasping the dynamics that RC asserts BOTH ae happening at the same time.


\He has so many trolls tricks to waste other's time, it's simply not worth it.


It's like trying to nail rotten jello to the wall. :loco:
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 4:49 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

golfboy » 16 Dec 2013 3:27 pm wrote:
They are happening at the same time because the failure of these liberal economies is forcing these countries to turn to the free market.
Did you really not understand that when I pointed out Greece and Spain?


Greece and Spain are failing precisely BECAUSE of Austerity.


From a purely logical perspective, BOTH of clem's propositions cannot be happening simultaneously without holding Free Market Capitalism culpable.

Take a few years... reason it out.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Dec 2013, 4:50 pm

Skeptic      
     

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 16 Dec 2013 3:36 pm wrote:

\He has so many trolls tricks to waste other's time, it's simply not worth it.


It's like trying to nail rotten jello to the wall. :loco:


My impression of you (and many, many others), exactly.

Try again:

You're always telling us two things:

--Free Market Capitalism is ascending, world-wide.
--The ever-increasing failing economies - worldwide - is not caused by Free Market Capitalism.

Any problem here, genius?
0

User avatar
Posted by Misty
  26,476 16 Dec 2013, 4:55 pm

Misty Nevertheless, she persisted.
User avatar
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 24,979
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 26,476.36



TheAmerican » 29 Nov 2013 9:40 am wrote:
Lostphoenix wrote:
RichClem » 29 Nov 2013 9:18 am wrote:
Here's your Obama Economy, moonbats.
you wouldn't be happy if you were fucked to death with a gold prick!

...well, I guess you don't have have much more to say on the OP??

Do you really think that when a title and an OP start out by calling people moonbats, it deserves a serious response?
It's a troll thread and it got the response it deserved.
0

User avatar
Posted by Misty
  26,476 16 Dec 2013, 4:59 pm

Misty Nevertheless, she persisted.
User avatar
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 24,979
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 26,476.36



Endoscopy » 29 Nov 2013 4:39 pm wrote:
Lostphoenix wrote:
you wouldn't be happy if you were fucked to death with a gold prick!

What a pointed refutation of the point. Such great rhetoric in showing the problems with the statements of OP.

Ad hominem attacks are great debating techniques.


Both the thread title and the OP contain an ad hominem attack, but I don't see you calling out Clem for that.
As a matter of fact his posts are laced with ad hominem attacks, like 'moonbat' and 'troll'.
Have you ever taken him to task for that?
0

User avatar
Posted by Misty
  26,476 16 Dec 2013, 5:05 pm

Misty Nevertheless, she persisted.
User avatar
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 24,979
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 26,476.36



RichClem » 05 Dec 2013 2:41 pm wrote:
Amazing how liberals flee reality, in favor of their false liberal "reality."

They don't flee reality Kitten, they flee you.
There's no purpose in reading your posts anymore, as they all contain the same couple of words repeated ad nauseam.
0

User avatar
Posted by Misty
  26,476 16 Dec 2013, 5:16 pm

Misty Nevertheless, she persisted.
User avatar
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 24,979
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 26,476.36



RichClem » 01 Dec 2013 10:40 am wrote:
Lostphoenix wrote:
you cant debate clem...its like debating a 6 year old.

Funny how stupid people bleat the same stupid falsehood, but never try.

You're such a hypocrite.
You have no desire to debate anyone.
If you did, you would stop calling people who disagree with you childish names, and stop posting with all the italics, underlining, bold print, and large screaming red font.

Your posts look like the rantings of a fucking maniac.

RichClem » 10 Dec 2013 7:44 pm wrote:

Oh, sure, you're shocked and horrified that when a 30-something woman tried to have an affair with Fund, he went along.

Save your bulls*** for the moonbats, psycho, especially given your long, long, LONG history of defending felons and rapists.

You tried to smear him as a child molester. You're a truly disgusting person for trying that.

F*** off. Your immediate instinct is to lie and smear, regardless of facts.

Only a psychopath would smear someone as a child molester without knowing the evidence.
Just as only a psychopath would tell years of lies in defense of a serial rapist/ serial felon without knowing the evidence.

You still imply he's a pervert, refusing to note that the affair was many years later and that the "daughter" was in her early 30's by that time.
So obviously, you still lack the most basic sense of decency.

You're a literal psychopath.

Nor did you say it was "wrong." Had that been all you'd done, I wouldn't care in the slightest. Instead, your smeared him as a child molester, and f*** your usual "gosh-I-was-only-asking" bulls***.
0


PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic