Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Obama the booming naakual.
I'd photoshop his face on Hurkan but too lazy you'll have to imagine it.
I'd photoshop his face on Hurkan but too lazy you'll have to imagine it.
.png)
DO IT!!!!
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » inb4 they're not pie charts or Forbes and the WSJ aren't liberal media outlets Looks like there were some bumps but all in all it is booming after a bust. But hey, Boom and Bust is the American Way. So get over it. Well, now the burden is on you to prove that they are mutually exclusive. Much like when one proclaims something like "the ACA is a failed policy"; the burden is upon the person making the proclamation to prove it's failure. Wouldn't be pretty obvious? What policies directly attribute to said job growth or any of the rising indicators in the first two graphs?
The third graph is growth %. But fails to show the amount of spending made by those presidents. When you go from 1.00 to 1.10, the growth is 10%, but when you go from 1.10 to 1.20, that growth is only ~9%, ever heard of diminishing returns?  Notice how total spending attributed to Bush's last 4 years is $11.945 trillion, but the total spending on Obama's first 4 years is $14.515 trillion? That's much different than what your third graph portrayed. I'm sure you will exclude my chart because it doesn't fit your agenda. Edit: Fixed numbers a bit, I used the wrong amounts. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » DO IT!!!! 
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Wouldn't be pretty obvious? What policies directly attribute to said job growth or any of the rising indicators in the first two graphs? The third graph is growth %. But fails to show the amount of spending made by those presidents. When you go from 1.00 to 1.10, the growth is 10%, but when you go from 1.10 to 1.20, that growth is only ~9%, ever heard of diminishing returns? Notice how total spending attributed to Bush's last 4 years is $11.945 trillion, but the total spending on Obama's first 4 years is $14.515 trillion? That's much different than what your third graph portrayed. I'm sure you will exclude my chart because it doesn't fit your agenda. Edit: Fixed numbers a bit, I used the wrong amounts. oh hey its 2015. Where is that 2013-2014 data everyone is talking about? Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Wouldn't be pretty obvious? What policies directly attribute to said job growth or any of the rising indicators in the first two graphs? The third graph is growth %. But fails to show the amount of spending made by those presidents. When you go from 1.00 to 1.10, the growth is 10%, but when you go from 1.10 to 1.20, that growth is only ~9%, ever heard of diminishing returns? Notice how total spending attributed to Bush's last 4 years is $11.945 trillion, but the total spending on Obama's first 4 years is $14.515 trillion? That's much different than what your third graph portrayed. I'm sure you will exclude my chart because it doesn't fit your agenda. Edit: Fixed numbers a bit, I used the wrong amounts. oh hey its 2015. Where is that 2013-2014 data everyone is talking about? Altimaomega said: » Now that everyone has arrived, how about helping Vic out and show some evidence of the economy booming from obamas wonderful leadership. You can't, it does not exist. Whole lot attacking from the left side of the forum yet again while having absolutely nothing to back up their arguments yet again. It must be nice to be able to say anything you want without having to back it up and still act like you're the non-delusional ones.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Notice how total spending attributed to Bush's last 4 years is $11.945 trillion, but the total spending on Obama's first 4 years is $14.515 trillion? That's much different than what your third graph portrayed. I'm sure you will exclude my chart because it doesn't fit your agenda. Edit: Fixed numbers a bit, I used the wrong amounts. Both your and Zero's graphs say the same thing, you are just reading them incorrectly, as usual. I don't understand why conservatives have such a hard time with this, but 2009 is Bush's year. Just like 2001 is Clinton's year, 1993 is H.W's year, 1989 is Reagan's year. This is permanent, its always going to be true, 50 years from now, 2009 will be listed under Bush, and Obama will be listed 2010-2017. Zero's graph clearly states that, but you just ignore it because it fits your agenda (wow I feel like KN now saying that). Your graph only lists Obama's first 3 budgets, so yes, you did use the wrong amounts, and post edit, you are still stating incorrect numbers. But yes, the economy grew a whopping 5 percent in the 3rd quarter, unemployment is the lowest its been in a decade, production is way up, costs are down, the deficit has been reduced by almost 70 percent, but keep denying the boom.
[+]
Well into obamas term In February 2010, there were about 138,641,000 employed people in the United States. This is according to the Employment Situation Summary published by the U.S. Department of Labor on March 5, 2010. There were 140,347,000 jobs in the US in December 2014..
Yup, unemployment is taken care of. . . . . . Since the GDP was down -2.1% the first quarter, 5% for the third quarter isn't even close to booming or even that impressive... Nice try.. .. The nations Debt is eighteen trillion one hundred billion.. but the deficit is supposedly reduced by 70%.. /laugh Production is way up? I am unfamiliar with the measurement "way up" Could you give some more info on this because it seems you are currently living in a wonderland where numbers do not make sense. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Supposed 70% reduction and that baby is still ticking pretty damn fast huh. I'm not denying a possible better economy due to cheaper gas, but a boom... not even close.
[+]
So 2 million new jobs, an aggressive push towards the promotion of fracking by the EPA with a mandate from the Obama Administration leading to a decrease in gas prices. Stock markets at a high, housing prices climbing and in your eyes things aren't booming.
Wow, that entire post is nonsense, well done altima. Unemployment remains the lowest its been in a decade, the economy grew a whopping 5% in the 3rd quarter (do you even know what that means altima? I'm guessing not), the deficit is factually (not "supposedly" its public record, idiot) reduced by almost 70% since 2009, and the US is producing at a high level. But keep trying to play it down, its entertaining.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » But...it's not 2010 anymore. Wow.. can you manage to read the whole thing lmao.. Ill BOLD it for you since you're simple.. Altimaomega said: » Well into obamas term In February 2010, there were about 138,641,000 employed people in the United States. This is according to the Employment Situation Summary published by the U.S. Department of Labor on March 5, 2010. There were 140,347,000 jobs in the US in December 2014.. Yup, unemployment is taken care of. . . . . . Since the GDP was down -2.1% the first quarter, 5% for the third quarter isn't even close to booming or even that impressive... Nice try.. .. The nations Debt is eighteen trillion one hundred billion.. but the deficit is supposedly reduced by 70%.. /laugh Production is way up? I am unfamiliar with the measurement "way up" Could you give some more info on this because it seems you are currently living in a wonderland where numbers do not make sense. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Supposed 70% reduction and that baby is still ticking pretty damn fast huh. I'm not denying a possible better economy due to cheaper gas, but a boom... not even close. Oh hey look you're out of your element and it still stands its not 2010.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Wow, that entire post is nonsense, well done altima. Unemployment remains the lowest its been in a decade, the economy grew a whopping 5% in the 3rd quarter (do you even know what that means altima? I'm guessing not), the deficit is factually (not "supposedly" its public record, idiot) reduced by almost 70% since 2009, and the US is producing at a high level. But keep trying to play it down, its entertaining. Says the guy who has given zero sources to any of his claims. Keep living in your liberal wonderland vic. Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless. Oh the hypocrisy.
[+]
Nice edits to make yourself not look like a complete and total idiot zero.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » So 2 million new jobs, an aggressive push towards fracking by EPA with a mandate from the Obama Administration leading to an decrease in gas prices. Stock markets at a high, housing prices climbing and in your eyes things aren't booming. Less Than 2 million jobs in four yrs, does this really need to be broke down for you to understand how horrible it is? hahahaha Obama admin leading to a decrease in gas prices, would love to see the evidence for that. Are you really inept enough to not understand why the stock market is high? House prices had nowhere else to go but up, so yea prices are climbing.. Amazing!
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Well into obamas term In February 2010, there were about 138,641,000 employed people in the United States. This is according to the Employment Situation Summary published by the U.S. Department of Labor on March 5, 2010. There were 140,347,000 jobs in the US in December 2014.. Yup, unemployment is taken care of. . . . . . Since the GDP was down -2.1% the first quarter, 5% for the third quarter isn't even close to booming or even that impressive... Nice try.. .. The nations Debt is eighteen trillion one hundred billion.. but the deficit is supposedly reduced by 70%.. /laugh Production is way up? I am unfamiliar with the measurement "way up" Could you give some more info on this because it seems you are currently living in a wonderland where numbers do not make sense. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Supposed 70% reduction and that baby is still ticking pretty damn fast huh. I'm not denying a possible better economy due to cheaper gas, but a boom... not even close. But no more taxes, or cuts to military, or government officials. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless. Oh the hypocrisy. Presidents always gets blame and praise for things they had little to no responsibility for. It's pretty stupid, for sure.
[+]
Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless. Oh the hypocrisy. Wanna show how Obama has created this magical boom or you just gonna keep trolling as usual? I know contributing is hard when you got nothing.. Remember when Obama single-handedly killed Osama bin Laden and later waved his gas price wand?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Remember when Obama single-handedly killed Osama bin Laden and later waved his gas price wand? Remember when Obama helped the economy by.... sorry nothing comes to mind... I'm sure one of his Liberal defenders will be by to make something up though, without a source of coarse.
[+]
I don't. I do remember endless praise for seal team 6 though, and conservatives try to take credit because Bush something something.
Bismarck.Ihina said: » I don't. I do remember endless praise for seal team 6 though, and conservatives try to take credit because Bush something something. Yup, Bush's fault. And sooooo off topic lol
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless. Oh the hypocrisy. Wanna show how Obama has created this magical boom or you just gonna keep trolling as usual? I know contributing is hard when you got nothing..
[+]
Bloodrose said: » Altimaomega said: » Bloodrose said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Doesn't matter if it's booming or not, Obama doesn't get the credit regardless. Oh the hypocrisy. Wanna show how Obama has created this magical boom or you just gonna keep trolling as usual? I know contributing is hard when you got nothing.. (we all know what you have been doing, but just to play along) The recession started before Obama took office.. Wait.. You mean we can blame him for that now? I was just blaming him for doing nothing while the USA claws itself out of the hole he keeps trying to dig deeper. Quote: All I've done is point out the hypocrisy
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Says the guy who has given zero sources to any of his claims. Keep living in your liberal wonderland vic. Says the guy that has never given any sources to anything and only serves to entertain us. Factual unemployment data Factual Deficit Number Factual economy growth |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.