T1B

3
2
1

...SPIN...

I can see some of it. They've opened up quite a few new fast food joints near me. Part time positions galore perhaps?

Wolfman wrote:I can see some of it. They've opened up quite a few new fast food joints near me. Part time positions galore perhaps?

Actually the number of part time jobs has decreased over the past few years.



The big winner right now is healthcare.

Nothing like a little Obama fellatio to close the week out.

- Food stamps?

If job creation is going as well as advertised, why has food stamp usage increased strongly on Barry's watch?
It's not only increased strongly, but it's actually increased at a rate almost inverse to the employment numbers they trot out.
lol

Things that make you go "Hmmmm..."


- The labor force participation rate is at it's lowest point since 1978.

Some of this could be attributed to demographics (aging baby boomers), however the rate has dropped very sharply since Barry took office in '09.


- Median household income is down (2015) from what it was (2009) when Soetoro took office.

Ouch


- Let's assume things are as wonderful and Mikey wants us to believe.

Wonderful has come at what cost?

2009: 1.4 trillion dollar federal deficit
2010: 1.3 trillion dollar federal deficit
2011: 1.3 trillion dollar federal deficit
2012: 1 trillion dollar federal deficit
2013: 700 billion dollar federal deficit
2014: 500 billion dollar federal deficit
2015 (estimate): 600 billion dollar federal deficit

Future projections show no sign of the madness ending...



Deep doo doo

Lots of part time and very low paying yobs. work force participation is at nearly 40 year low. as for the number of consecutive months of growth, mediocre growth will give you that.

next I suppose you are gonna tell us about how he cut the deficit 60%. How the fukk he can say that with a strait face is beyond me.

Raygun/Bush drive the economy into a ditch. No problem there is a D in the mix that will drive it out. Hand the wheel over to Bush2 and HE runs it into a ditch. No problem another D is there to drive it out, but that is still not good enough for the mouth breathing trogs on the right. Good gawd.

That's right, I forgot -- it was W's policy that everyone should own a house, whether they could afford it or not.

Oh, wait...


That guy had a D by his name (and got plenty of Rs to buy into that bullshit).

We've been through this before, Revisionist Historian -- would you like a link to the SOTU Address where W screamed for Fannie/Freddie reform, and the Ds laughed at him?

Don't get me wrong, W was a train wreck -- but the Crash was all on Clinton.

That link is not needed. I watched it live. A link to how the economy is a function of one thing and not thousands of things would be nice though, you ditch digging moron.

And of those 1,000s of things the debt is good place to start.
1980-73b
1992-290b

1993-250b
2000- +236b

2001- +128b
2009-1,412b

2010-1,299b
2015-582b (should be down to around 470 by 2016)

What a bunch of clowns. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Dinsdale wrote:That's right, I forgot -- it was W's policy that everyone should own a house, whether they could afford it or not.

Oh, wait...


That guy had a D by his name (and got plenty of Rs to buy into that bullshit).

We've been through this before, Revisionist Historian -- would you like a link to the SOTU Address where W screamed for Fannie/Freddie reform, and the Ds laughed at him?

Don't get me wrong, W was a train wreck -- but the Crash was all on Clinton.

A huge tax cut at the same time you're starting a war that cost a couple of trillion will never be a good way to decrease the deficit.

smackaholic wrote:Lots of part time and very low paying yobs. work force participation is at nearly 40 year low. as for the number of consecutive months of growth, mediocre growth will give you that.

next I suppose you are gonna tell us about how he cut the deficit 60%. How the fukk he can say that with a strait face is beyond me.

Work force participation, while low, went up in January. Also, not mediocre growth the past few months, but the highest rate in years. The number of people employed in the US is at an all time high.

It is how the government Ponzi scheme operates nowadays.

Spot on 88

How could you not have job growth when you force feed a trillion dollars a year into an economy?

Unfortunately it's all debt and someone's gonna pay the piper one of these days.

So every R since Truman has had at least one year of negative private sector job growth and only one D has. Yea those stats are really working out for you.
By almost every measure I can think of Republican POTUS have fucked shit up and Dems have had to fix it.

Jim Clifton, Gallup CEO, on job numbers: It’s all a ‘big lie’ by the White House

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -all-a-bi/

If you call that spin, well, ok, but I'd trust this guy's word over yours, Mikey.

Rooster wrote:Jim Clifton, Gallup CEO, on job numbers: It’s all a ‘big lie’ by the White House

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -all-a-bi/

If you call that spin, well, ok, but I'd trust this guy's word over yours, Mikey.

You mean the guy who called the election for Romney in 2012?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ng-debacle

You don't suppose he's trying to sell his book do you?

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/coming- ... 1595620552



"My guy" is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Your guy is a proven hack.

Moving Bowel wrote:1993-250b
2000- +236b

Republicans controlled both the House and Senate for the last 6 years of Bubba's Presidency.
And if you look at the numbers from '93-'00, you see that a Bubba deficit shrank (and then turned into a surplus) after (and then during) the time the R's took over both Senate and House control.


If we exclude fiscal '09 from Barry's resume and lay it on Bush, we still see that from '10 to '14, almost 5 trillion dollars in new debt has been added.
Almost 600 billion will be added this year -- and another 500 billion next year, give or take a bit.


The dims have no claim on controlling debt, numbnuts.

Is there anything funnier.. than republicans having to move to Korea and Nebraska because they can't keep up ?


Yeah, I didn't think so.



Too funny













?

poptart wrote:
If we exclude fiscal '09 from Barry's resume and lay it on Bush, we still see that from '10 to '14, almost 5 trillion dollars in new debt has been added.
Almost 600 billion will be added this year -- and another 500 billion next year, give or take a bit.


The dims have no claim on controlling debt, numbnuts.

I get that you are an idiot. I know the most important thing in your life has no factual backing as is, instead, a book of fairy tales, but even you should be smart enough to understand what it takes to drive a country this big out of a ditch you dense deserting dolt.

Mikey wrote:
The big winner right now is healthcare.

That should scare the crap out of anyone who pays taxes. Many of the funding methods for Barrycare have been delayed, rolled back or eliminated completely.

Obsmacare is a disaster. I agree with Rush that's it's just a ploy to get single payer. I disagree with him that single payer is a bad idea however. Nobody should ever make a penny off healthcare, above and beyond their salary for working in the industry.

Moving Sale wrote:Nobody should ever make a penny off healthcare, above and beyond their salary for working in the industry.

While that sounds good on the surface, without profit who develops the new drugs and new treatment methods?

What do you mean without profits? The scientists get paid. The lab workers, the office staff and the Boss of the operation all get paid, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you are talking about stockholders, there shouldn't be any stockholders in this area so that's a non starter to me. If you are saying nobody would invest in a plan to just help people without shareholders making money, I would reject that premise.

Amen Brother 88. Imagine if there was one single (payer) brewery and all you could buy was BEER, and it was horrible (which it probably would be). Free markets (as free as possible) rule. End of parable.

88 wrote: The single payer gets to decide the rate that will be paid for such services. That point is not debatable.

I'm not debating that.

I think many will choose to do the latter, and those who end up providing health care services will be similar in quality and service to those who presently provide public social services.

Many PSS are great, so I'm not too swayed by your prerogative. That being said, I don't think we need Doctors who are in it for the money, nor do I think the doctors we have now that are in it for the money are 'good' doctors, nor will there be any reason why those doctors can't still practice. Cops are single payer, but you can still hire security if you want to.

You are also confused about how drug companies function.

I know exactly how they operate. They bribe government officials to block competition, outlaw alternative drugs and generally gum up the works. As for your question, they will sell drugs to the single payer and anybody else who is willing to give them money for their drug. You really think their drug dealing is going to be so devoid of profit that they will pack up and go away? Not a chance.

Why would anyone invest in a company that does not intend to profit from its research? You are confused.

Actually I'm not. I did however mis-state my position some in the previous post. I don't have a problem with for profit companies providing goods to the single payer, nor do I have a problem with people straight up paying a doctor for their services. I have a problem with for profit insurance companies being the main conduit between the payor and payee in a medical services contract.

In a market-driven economy, if a for-profit company's quality drops or its premiums are too high, its policy holders will leave to go to another competitor in the market.

Hogwash, now if 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 was actually being followed I might agree. Today most people either put up with it or it's too late and they are dead or close to it.

They tend to just copy other insurance companies (but to a less successful degree).

You have link that they are less successful?

They rarely lead or provide innovation, as there is no motivation for them to do so.

There is also no motivation to screw some old lady out of a needed test or procedure.

A single payer system is even worse because the person receiving the services has no other provider/competitor to go to, and thus there is no pressure on the provider to maintain or improve quality, or to hold premium costs down (especially considering that many of the people receiving the services are not paying for it).

It's called voting.

Wolfman wrote: Free markets (as free as possible) rule.

Bullshit, free markets crash and burn or turn their customers into subjects. Regulated markets work much better.

poptart wrote:If we exclude fiscal '09 from Barry's resume and lay it on Bush, we still see that from '10 to '14, almost 5 trillion dollars in new debt has been added.
Almost 600 billion will be added this year -- and another 500 billion next year, give or take a bit.

The dims have no claim on controlling debt, numbnuts.

Moving Bowel wrote:I get that you are an idiot. I know the most important thing in your life has no factual backing as is, instead, a book of fairy tales, but even you should be smart enough to understand what it takes to drive a country this big out of a ditch you dense deserting dolt.

Piling up 6 trillion dollars in new debt, with continued massive deficit spending projected far into the future, is the way to "drive this big country out of the ditch?"

It's one way, but you don't care about facts now do fairytaletart?

You were selling that it's the R's who pile up debt.

Now when Barry's MASSIVE debt is put in front of your face, you pass it off as... one way out of a mess.