On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:57:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:37 -0700, wrote:

http://www.truth-out.org/three-chart...law/1314626142

Federal spending dramatically increased under former president, George
W. Bush and it has not increased much under President Obama.


How about this graphic from MSNBC

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/msnbc%20on%20jobs.jpg

Nice. I like it.

Clinton more than Reagan.. same number of years in office, including
an impeachment.

Bush (I and II) a whopping 3M each in the same time period.

Obama neg. for 1/2 of one term.

On 9/7/2011 1:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:57:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:37 -0700, wrote:

http://www.truth-out.org/three-chart...law/1314626142

Federal spending dramatically increased under former president, George
W. Bush and it has not increased much under President Obama.


How about this graphic from MSNBC

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/msnbc%20on%20jobs.jpg

Nice. I like it.

Clinton more than Reagan.. same number of years in office, including
an impeachment.

Bush (I and II) a whopping 3M each in the same time period.

Obama neg. for 1/2 of one term.

DePlume Pats O on the back for killing jobs. She is a strange duck.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:37:45 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:55:31 -0700, wrote:

No that is only to indicate why we somehow think we are invincible and
nothing bad could ever happen to us.
We have 3 generations of people who have never actually had anything
bad happen to them.

Really? Nothing? You can't think of a single thing, say in the last 10
years? Try to come out of your hole once every decade. The air is
fine! :-)

You don't really understand bad things yourself evidently.

What has happened that even compares to the depression or the national
sacrifices we had during WWII? ... Nothing

Depends on your definition of bad things. When millions lose there
homes and their jobs, that's pretty bad. Was the Depression a bad
thing? What about the VN or Korean wars? Were they bad? If so,
compared to what?

Those were still just minor blips compared to the bad things that can
happen. You assume that just because things have been great for the
two or three dozen years you have been on the planet that it will
always be great. You must not have taken much history in school.

Two or three dozen? I'll take that as a compliment.

Would I have had to fight and be injured or killing in any of the
previous wars? No. Did people die in Iraq/Afg.? Yes.

You still keep saying we don't have to do anything yet. When are we
going to start?

Legitimate question. Answer: After we get people working and the
economy moving again.

People like you want us to crush our economy right now because of
global warming that won't have any significant effect for 100 years
but you are not willing to do anything about the debt and entitlement
problem that will crush us in 20.

Huh? I didn't say anything about global warming. And, since you
mention it, it's a short- to long-term problem. Of course, if you deny
it's happening and human caused, then there's not much I can say. If
you don't deny it, then we need to do something NOW about it. That can
be done and help the economy both in the short-, medium-, and
long-term.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:38:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:57:55 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:57:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:37 -0700, wrote:

http://www.truth-out.org/three-chart...law/1314626142

Federal spending dramatically increased under former president, George
W. Bush and it has not increased much under President Obama.


How about this graphic from MSNBC

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/msnbc%20on%20jobs.jpg

Nice. I like it.

Clinton more than Reagan.. same number of years in office, including
an impeachment.

Bush (I and II) a whopping 3M each in the same time period.

Obama neg. for 1/2 of one term.


It sure demonstrates your chart is bull****.

How is that? It shows that more jobs were created during Clinton's
presidency than Reagan and both Bush's combined. It also shows how
damaging Bush II was to the economy. Digging into the numbers reveals
that we could have been much worse off (Obama's "job" numbers) if we
hadn't done TARP (starting under Bush) and the Stim.

So, basically, they're two different things, and neither is
"bull****."

North Star wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:02 pm, X ` wrote:
On 9/5/11 6:34 PM, BeachBum wrote:





On 9/5/2011 5:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:59:39 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:54:42 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:56:01 -0400, BeachBum"not a
wrote:
On 9/5/2011 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:18:25 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:42:21 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:33:39 -0700, wrote:
The fact is, unemployment was 7.3% on 1/1/09 and it is 9.1% now.
BLS says there was no net job creation last month.
I am not sure what data they cherry picked to create those
charts.
They're called facts. Those are the things that were "cherry
picked."
You have a chart showing job growth and unemployment went up
13.14%
(For the math challenged, 9.1 - 7.3 = 1.8 7.3/1.8 = 13.14%)
You have to be very careful to reject a lot of facts and only
use the
ones that result in your agenda, AKA "cherry picking", to
produce that
chart.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but the chart in
question clearly shows that job growth has been pretty steadily
climbing since Jan. 09. No "unemployment" numbers chart was
included,
so you're getting that from somewhere else. That's fine, but
there is
likely only a correlation between job growth and unemployment not a
causation effect.
As I said, these three charts are hard to dispute. So far, you
haven't
been very successful in doing so.
Job growth is not keeping up with population growth but if you
actually did "tons of research"(or any research at all) you would
know that. Instead you just post things you get in an Email and call
them facts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709
If you look at Labor force participation rate you will see some
surprising statistics.
Yup that is scary. Look at the crash since the end of the housing
bubble. There isn't even a significant bump since the end of 2008. All
the housing boom did was flatten the curve a little. It has really
been falling since the end of the tech bubble.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Look at this. It shows that Latinos employment ratio is the highest.
Even with the lack of new housing starts.
http://metricmash.com/unemployment.a...de=LNS13327709
That is because they will go for those "Green Jobs". The houses may
get foreclosed on but that grass keeps on growing and the county makes
the bank mow it.
The Mexicans are in competition with a lot of anglos tho, including
more than a few college grads.
Sure. Blame Mexicans. I'm sure that fits in your xenophobia quite
nicely.
Well they did put you out of work at the car wash.
A mop and a bucket retired you from the navy.


.... and none too soon, from what I hear.

Where do you hear these things, silly? In your little head?

-HB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_831278.html

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 02:18:02 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:44:48 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:38:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:57:55 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:57:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:37 -0700, wrote:

http://www.truth-out.org/three-chart...law/1314626142

Federal spending dramatically increased under former president, George
W. Bush and it has not increased much under President Obama.


How about this graphic from MSNBC

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/msnbc%20on%20jobs.jpg

Nice. I like it.

Clinton more than Reagan.. same number of years in office, including
an impeachment.

Bush (I and II) a whopping 3M each in the same time period.

Obama neg. for 1/2 of one term.


It sure demonstrates your chart is bull****.

How is that? It shows that more jobs were created during Clinton's
presidency than Reagan and both Bush's combined. It also shows how
damaging Bush II was to the economy. Digging into the numbers reveals
that we could have been much worse off (Obama's "job" numbers) if we
hadn't done TARP (starting under Bush) and the Stim.

So, basically, they're two different things, and neither is
"bull****."

You were trying to show the great success of Obama's "recovery" and
the abject failure of Bush but Bush netted 3 million jobs created and
Obama lost 3 million. Clinton and Reagan were not on that chart

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/

No, I wasn't. I was showing the facts. Are you going to claim that the
job growth listed is untrue? If so, show some facts. Feel free to
continue to defend the worst president in history.

Here are some other facts:

He got the memo about bin laden's plan, and his only comment was "now
you've covered your ass." He was frozen like a deer in the headlights
when he learned about the attacks, and he couldn't even figure out
that maybe it was time to figure out what exactly was going on. He
attacked a country under false pretenses, approved torture, and told
everyone to go shopping. He was away from the White House 1/3 of both
terms in office. He ruined the US economy, and damaged our standing in
the world.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:29:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:26:44 -0700, wrote:


You were trying to show the great success of Obama's "recovery" and
the abject failure of Bush but Bush netted 3 million jobs created and
Obama lost 3 million. Clinton and Reagan were not on that chart

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/

No, I wasn't. I was showing the facts. Are you going to claim that the
job growth listed is untrue?


MINUS 2.9 million jobs.
You really have to cherry pick the data to come up with a chart that
shows job growth. Growth compared to what?

As I said, up until the chart ends, those are the facts.

Here are some more for you.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...67&emailView=1