Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

44,000 posts is not effort?

 

DC Tom has spent ~36 hours posting "you're an idiot." That's more than the average Dem voter has worked in their life.

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/22/Biden-Businesses-are-Hiring-at-Historic-Rates

 

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden declared that America's jobs picture is brighter than ever.

"Businesses are hiring at historic rates, with 52 consecutive months of net private sector job growth," said Biden in the newly released report supporting the reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 1998, which President Obama signed on Tuesday.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorization will use a $1.4 billion "job-driven checklist" tool to "ensure that the $17 billion in federal training funds are used more effectively," said a senior White House official. The program will also feature a $25 million Department of Labor award to develop a web-based "skills academy" for adult learners.

Obama and Biden's efforts to cast a positive light on America's jobs outlook, however, may face headwinds with voters. As the New York Times noted, "In fact, part-time jobs accounted for two-thirds of all new jobs in June." What's more, economist Ben Casselman of Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight states, "For the 49th time in 50 months, more jobseekers gave up looking than found work."

Obama and Biden's upbeat economic outlook stands in contrast to the views of voters. According to Gallup, 56% of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, versus just 39% who say it is improving.

Obama departed from the signing of the jobs-training reauthorization for a Democratic fundraising trip in California. The price to attend the reception and take a picture with Obama is $10,000, and it cost $32,400 to be a co-host of the event.

Posted

Well, this is good news we can all be happy about, whatever your political perspective:

 

 

 

The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in nearly 8-1/2 years last week, suggesting the labor market recovery was gaining traction.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 284,000 for the week ended July 19, the Labor Department said on Thursday....

Employment has grown by more than 200,000 jobs in each of the last five months, a stretch not seen since the late 1990s.

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101863463

Posted

Well, this is good news we can all be happy about, whatever your political perspective:

 

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101863463

 

Without looking into the numbers in depth it's hard to tell how good this news is. However (drum roll please) I have a question for you. Why did you post this news in this thread?

Posted

Without looking into the numbers in depth it's hard to tell how good this news is. However (drum roll please) I have a question for you. Why did you post this news in this thread?

 

Because Presidents are always--fairly or unfairly--judged by the economy they administrate over. So good news for Obama and America

Posted

Because Presidents are always--fairly or unfairly--judged by the economy they administrate over. So good news for Obama and America

 

Sure, comrade. You really have no clue.

Posted

Because Presidents are always--fairly or unfairly--judged by the economy they administrate over. So good news for Obama and America

 

You make a good point. So why not start a thread called "Good News for the Obama Administration" and post these updates there then putting them in a thread titled Obamanomics? Why are you posting those updates here?

Posted

 

 

You make a good point. So why not start a thread called "Good News for the Obama Administration" and post these updates there then putting them in a thread titled Obamanomics? Why are you posting those updates here?

Previous response in post 627 covers this
Posted

Previous response in post 627 covers this

 

No it does not. You are posting this here because you attribute this news to "Obamanomics". Be honest here.

Posted

Do you attribute this news to "Obamanomics"?

Following along with 627 post I would say of course. But only within the limits of the 627 paradigm I outlined.

 

What do you think? Do you think Obama's early policies of bailouts, stimulus, cash for clunkers, tax cuts and stopping a default on federal debt helped or hurt the economy?

Posted

Following along with 627 post I would say of course. But only within the limits of the 627 paradigm I outlined.

 

What do you think? Do you think Obama's early policies of bailouts, stimulus, cash for clunkers, tax cuts and stopping a default on federal debt helped or hurt the economy?

 

Now we're talking. You say of course which we all knew was the answer. Your second sentence is nothing but a bunch of blathering BS. You said judged by the economy not responsible for.

 

All those above you mention obviously didn't help the economy. How long ago were all those policies put in place?

 

These are the reasons why we consider you a major lefty.

Posted

Now we're talking. You say of course which we all knew was the answer. Your second sentence is nothing but a bunch of blathering BS. You said judged by the economy not responsible for.

 

All those above you mention obviously didn't help the economy. How long ago were all those policies put in place?

 

These are the reasons why we consider you a major lefty.

Obviously? How is it obvious? Through your partisan lenses everything is obvious simply because

 

Oh, you consider the stimulus et. all "far left"? :unsure:

Posted

Obviously? How is it obvious? Through your partisan lenses everything is obvious simply because

 

Oh, you consider the stimulus et. all "far left"? :unsure:

 

You're an idiot.

 

(36 hours, 3 seconds).

Posted

Obviously? How is it obvious? Through your partisan lenses everything is obvious simply because

 

Oh, you consider the stimulus et. all "far left"? :unsure:

 

Obvious? I'll tell you how it's obvious. Those are all policies done years ago and the economy is still very slow to recover. And if you give me "well it's because we were in such a deep hole (read: I blame Bush) it takes a long time to recover" **** I'll kick you in the nuts. That is if you had any.

 

And to your last statement? Oh never mind. I see Tom already said it.

Posted

Obvious? I'll tell you how it's obvious. Those are all policies done years ago and the economy is still very slow to recover. And if you give me "well it's because we were in such a deep hole (read: I blame Bush) it takes a long time to recover" **** I'll kick you in the nuts. That is if you had any.

 

And to your last statement? Oh never mind. I see Tom already said it.

That's funny. Your argument for failure is the world global economy did not recover fast enough with Obama's policies? Can't you be a little more precise? I mean how fast, in YOUR OPINION, should the economy of recovered? I just think you don't know enough about economics to really have anything except a politically derived opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...