Democracy4Sale wrote: Yep, given the Bush recession, and the loss of 750,000 to 800,000 jobs/month that was going on, the slide went from 7.8% up to 10%. Wow, you can hear the surprise in *MY* voice. Turning around an aircraft carrier, (much less an economy), doesn't happen overnight, does it? It took Bush 8 years to go from a surplus to a $10 TRILLION deficit addition ... Who knew?
The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale. You're a dinosaur of talking points. Update you message. Oh wiat... you don't have anything new to say. Blame Obama's failures for that... not Bush.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Yep, given the Bush recession, and the loss of 750,000 to 800,000 jobs/month that was going on, the slide went from 7.8% up to 10%. Wow, you can hear the surprise in *MY* voice. Turning around an aircraft carrier, (much less an economy), doesn't happen overnight, does it? It took Bush 8 years to go from a surplus to a $10 TRILLION deficit addition ... Who knew?
The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale. You're a dinosaur of talking points. Update you message. Oh wiat... you don't have anything new to say. Blame Obama's failures for that... not Bush.
twinny, be fair or at least try, all administrations do this ( blame the previous party). Nothing gets done quickly in or new world. A big continuum. If it was easy they all would have been successful.
How about a one term 6 year presidency? Politics would be less influential.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Yep, given the Bush recession, and the loss of 750,000 to 800,000 jobs/month that was going on, the slide went from 7.8% up to 10%. Wow, you can hear the surprise in *MY* voice. Turning around an aircraft carrier, (much less an economy), doesn't happen overnight, does it? It took Bush 8 years to go from a surplus to a $10 TRILLION deficit addition ... Who knew?
The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale. You're a dinosaur of talking points. Update you message. Oh wiat... you don't have anything new to say. Blame Obama's failures for that... not Bush.
twinny, be fair or at least try, all administrations do this ( blame the previous party). Nothing gets done quickly in or new world. A big continuum. If it was easy they all would have been successful.
How about a one term 6 year presidency? Politics would be less influential.
I don't have to be fair... just truthful. I'm addressing Lady Jazzer/Democracy4Sale... not the GOP.
Republicanism Works wrote: The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale.
Yeah, I can see that it's "not working on a national scale":
Gallup Poll: Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama For Economic Woes by Andrew Kirell | 9:28 am, June 14th, 2012
A new Gallup poll released Thursday morning claims that, despite his leaving office three years ago, Americans place more blame for the nation’s economic woes on former President George W. Bush than on current President Barack Obama.
In a nationally-conducted telephone survey (random 1,004 adults), Gallup asked, “Thinking about the economic problems currently facing the United States, how much do you blame — [George W. Bush/Barack Obama] for these — a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?”
68% of respondents blame Bush a great deal/moderate amount, compared to 52% of respondents placing similar levels of blame on Obama. (The total adds up to more than 100% because individual respondents can place levels of blame on both presidents.)
For Obama's job creation, you add up every positive month, but ignore the negative months. That comes to just over 4 million by my math (ignoring all the jobs lost). And of course you give Obama full credit for every private sector job created.
For Bush, you add every month whether it's postive or negative. Never mind that he also started with a weak economy. Sounds fair?
If you apply the same standard for Bush as you did for Obama, then he created over 8 million jobs by my math.
Looks like more deception and cooking of the books by LJ to me, but I'll look at her link once provided, not that I feel like searching for it.
I've provide WSJ and Dept of Labor sources before...and you're a liar.
I said you didn't provide a source in this thread and I invited you to provide one since I didn't have time to search for it. So if you want to provide it, I'll read it. At this point I'm just making assumptions about where the numbers come from, but my numbers seem to be close.
If you aren't counting the job loss at the beginning of Obama's term, then you shouldn't count the job loss at the beginning of Bush's either since the economy was already going down when he took office. When Reagan got over 10% unemployment the Dems sure didn't give him the courtesy of ignoring the bad econonmy he inherited either.
Normally when looking at a politician's jobs record, you look at all data from the date he took office.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Yep, given the Bush recession, and the loss of 750,000 to 800,000 jobs/month that was going on, the slide went from 7.8% up to 10%. Wow, you can hear the surprise in *MY* voice. Turning around an aircraft carrier, (much less an economy), doesn't happen overnight, does it? It took Bush 8 years to go from a surplus to a $10 TRILLION deficit addition ... Who knew?
The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale. You're a dinosaur of talking points. Update you message. Oh wiat... you don't have anything new to say. Blame Obama's failures for that... not Bush.
twinny, be fair or at least try, all administrations do this ( blame the previous party). Nothing gets done quickly in or new world. A big continuum. If it was easy they all would have been successful.
How about a one term 6 year presidency? Politics would be less influential.
I don't have to be fair... just truthful. I'm addressing Lady Jazzer/Democracy4Sale... not the GOP.
Wonder why you are irrelevant? You are just another vindictive asshole with an agenda. Not even close to truthful, just another hack and that said you have no moral right to criticize anybody.
Try listening to your own self righteous BS and learn.I tried giving you the benefit of being an intelligent poster but you are just an asshole. Nothing left to say about you.
Asshole is as asshole does, hypocrite and loser.. I am done with you.You are way dumber than i thought, and i thought you were pretty stupid. Twinny, you signed up to only attack LJ, you have nothing constructive to say other than troll her. I don't agree with all her posts but you live to harass, must be a sad life.
For Obama's job creation, you add up every positive month, but ignore the negative months. That comes to just over 4 million by my math (ignoring all the jobs lost). And of course you give Obama full credit for every private sector job created.
For Bush, you add every month whether it's postive or negative. Never mind that he also started with a weak economy. Sounds fair?
If you apply the same standard for Bush as you did for Obama, then he created over 8 million jobs by my math.
Looks like more deception and cooking of the books by LJ to me, but I'll look at her link once provided, not that I feel like searching for it.
I've provide WSJ and Dept of Labor sources before...and you're a liar.
I said you didn't provide a source in this thread and I invited you to provide one since I didn't have time to search for it. So if you want to provide it, I'll read it. At this point I'm just making assumptions about where the numbers come from, but my numbers seem to be close.
If you aren't counting the job loss at the beginning of Obama's term, then you shouldn't count the job loss at the beginning of Bush's either since the economy was already going down when he took office. When Reagan got over 10% unemployment the Dems sure didn't give him the courtesy of ignoring the bad econonmy he inherited either.
Normally when looking at a politician's jobs record, you look at all data from the date he took office.
Let me invite you to kiss my backside. If you're too lazy to look it up, I'm tired of providing the same sources over and over.
Republicanism Works wrote: The Bush rants aren't working anymore LJ... not here and not on the national scale.
Yeah, I can see that it's "not working on a national scale":
Gallup Poll: Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama For Economic Woes by Andrew Kirell | 9:28 am, June 14th, 2012
A new Gallup poll released Thursday morning claims that, despite his leaving office three years ago, Americans place more blame for the nation’s economic woes on former President George W. Bush than on current President Barack Obama.
In a nationally-conducted telephone survey (random 1,004 adults), Gallup asked, “Thinking about the economic problems currently facing the United States, how much do you blame — [George W. Bush/Barack Obama] for these — a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?”
68% of respondents blame Bush a great deal/moderate amount, compared to 52% of respondents placing similar levels of blame on Obama. (The total adds up to more than 100% because individual respondents can place levels of blame on both presidents.)
Dang... I hate being right... Hmmmm, 68%... Why, that's OVER 2-to-1, isn't it?
Dang... Obama is catching up with Bush... 52% is half of 68%... is your backside where you pull your math out of... where did you go to school... North High School?
For Obama's job creation, you add up every positive month, but ignore the negative months. That comes to just over 4 million by my math (ignoring all the jobs lost). And of course you give Obama full credit for every private sector job created.
For Bush, you add every month whether it's postive or negative. Never mind that he also started with a weak economy. Sounds fair?
If you apply the same standard for Bush as you did for Obama, then he created over 8 million jobs by my math.
Looks like more deception and cooking of the books by LJ to me, but I'll look at her link once provided, not that I feel like searching for it.
I've provide WSJ and Dept of Labor sources before...and you're a liar.
I said you didn't provide a source in this thread and I invited you to provide one since I didn't have time to search for it. So if you want to provide it, I'll read it. At this point I'm just making assumptions about where the numbers come from, but my numbers seem to be close.
If you aren't counting the job loss at the beginning of Obama's term, then you shouldn't count the job loss at the beginning of Bush's either since the economy was already going down when he took office. When Reagan got over 10% unemployment the Dems sure didn't give him the courtesy of ignoring the bad econonmy he inherited either.
Normally when looking at a politician's jobs record, you look at all data from the date he took office.
Let me invite you to kiss my backside. If you're too lazy to look it up, I'm tired of providing the same sources over and over.
You are difficult to do a search on because you are too inconsistent. You have different user names. If I search for 4.2 million jobs I find in the past you've said Obama created 4.3 and even 4.8 million jobs. Sometimes you spell PRIVATE-SECTOR, sometimes PRIVATE SECTOR. Tough to figure what to search for, and at this point I haven't found it and see no purpose in wasting more time on it.
And rather than just give me a link I'm sure you can easily find which I politely requested, you call me a liar because you couldn't even read my post correctly.
