Four years ago I heard Donald Trump make the statement that "the economy always does better under a Democratic admin"
We often see discussed here which political philosophy works better for our country.
Is it the Progressive/Liberal or Conservative/Do Nothing that works best.
Well this chart tends to show the answer, at least from an economic point of view :
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The only thing dimocrats know how to do is tax and spend. And when they over spend as they always do, they tax more. Dims have never created a job. This chart from a far left wing liberal is a sham.
Lefties can't deal with the truth.
wow! rt. wingnuts get mad when you show them facts... how funny!
If these "facts" mean something why is the economy in the crapper? Why was last quarters growth 1.3%? Why has personal income fallen under Obama? Why have the number of people on food stamps nearly doubled in the last 4 years? Why do we have the highest unemployment in 30 years? I can pick 5 or 6 metrics and make it look like the economy is tied to the decline of the Spirograph This is a bunch of crap..
Oh well, found out about an hour ago one more of our customer's business closing today after 17 years. There will be five employees and one owner unemployed. But hey-things are getting better!!!!
Recken this could be part of the problem , or better yet, the entire problem ?
Well, the business closing today, and I, think THIS is the problem.
Well, the business closing today, and I, think THIS is the problem.
Like the Republicans always say, there are plenty of jobs flippin burgers, and pickin veggies. Those friends of yours have plenty of job opportunities.
No, republicans never said that. That's another lie from you dems. What I have always said was flipping burgers is in no way shameful employment, but it is not a job you take expecting to make it your life long ambition with the intent to get paid $50.00 an hour. And yes, there are jobs picking veggies, but you dems had rather go down to the welfare office than do that. That attitude of yours is exactly what's wrong with this country and why I want to puke every time I hear one of you say you're the party that "cares". All you care about is your own pocketbook.
Recken this could be part of the problem , or better yet, the entire problem ?
Right on seeweed!
No, republicans never said that. That's another lie from you dems. What I have always said was flipping burgers is in no way shameful employment, but it is not a job you take expecting to make it your life long ambition with the intent to get paid $50.00 an hour. And yes, there are jobs picking veggies, but you dems had rather go down to the welfare office than do that. That attitude of yours is exactly what's wrong with this country and why I want to puke every time I hear one of you say you're the party that "cares". All you care about is your own pocketbook.
=============================
I've never set foot in a welfare office in my entire life. You are bad screwed up on that, and yea, when I work, I get about $50/hr. , but my life long ambition is to make a helluva lot more , I can tall you that.
If these "facts" mean something why is the economy in the crapper? Why was last quarters growth 1.3%? Why has personal income fallen under Obama? Why have the number of people on food stamps nearly doubled in the last 4 years? Why do we have the highest unemployment in 30 years? I can pick 5 or 6 metrics and make it look like the economy is tied to the decline of the Spirograph This is a bunch of crap..
1) Because its still recovering from the greatest economic collapse since the great depression.
2)How can any growth be termed as a "bad" thing. Especially compared to the decline we were in before Obama took office.
3)I don't understand how it would be possible for personal income to not fall given the whole millions of people losing their jobs thing. When you take away millions of numbers from an average, of course that average is going to be lower.
4)What exactly do you want these millions of people that lost their jobs to do? Starve? Of course there is going to be a lot more people on food stamps, a lot of people lost their jobs!
5)The highest unemployment in 30 years.....could that perhaps be related to the fact that 2008 was the worst economic situation since the great depression? .....Might make sense.
All of these questions seem tied to the economic collapse. Which happened before Obama took office mind you, and since then it is no longer in free fall. No longer shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, we are actually gaining jobs now! That sounds pretty positive to me. That sounds like growth.
It seems to me that a lot of the contempt for Obama's plan is that it isn't happening fast enough, to which I say that much like a house, it takes time to build it up but a disaster such as a tornado can destroy it in an instant. I don't no understand how people can expect anyone, republican or democrat to just magically make millions of jobs to recoup the ones that were lost at the snap of their fingers.
nice post! 
Read further. Or do you just read the headline and then think you know it all?
The site does, however, clarify that Obama did not start the program and that there's no such thing as an "Obama phone."
"It’s true that government provides free cellphones to the poor and disabled people," the site reads. "But the Obama part is not true as Obama didn’t initiate this program. It’s on the run [sic] since the administration of Reagan."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ogram/#ixzz27nwNlcik
No, republicans never said that. That's another lie from you dems. What I have always said was flipping burgers is in no way shameful employment, but it is not a job you take expecting to make it your life long ambition with the intent to get paid $50.00 an hour. And yes, there are jobs picking veggies, but you dems had rather go down to the welfare office than do that. That attitude of yours is exactly what's wrong with this country and why I want to puke every time I hear one of you say you're the party that "cares". All you care about is your own pocketbook.
Who would rather go down to the welfare office than get a job? Looks like mostly Alabamians who vote Republican.
Republicans claim majority in Alabama House and Senate for 1st time in 136 years
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Then what do those Republicans do once elected and become the lawmakers? Pass an immigration law that leaves vegetables rotting in the fields because the unemployed Republican voters who elected those lawmakers can't or won't do the work.
Africans Relocate to Alabama to Fill Jobs After Immigration Law
This isn’t what the law’s backers said would happen. Republican state Senator Scott Beason, a sponsor, said at a news conference last year that the restrictions on undocumented workers would “put thousands of native Alabamians back in the work force.”
Instead, it caused a labor shortage that resulted in the importation of hundreds of legal African and Haitian refugees, and Puerto Ricans, according to interviews with workers, advocacy organizations and businesses. Most were recruited by the poultry industry, in a segment of the economy that has been a heavy employer of undocumented workers, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington research group.
Alabama is one of five states that last year passed immigration laws modeled on a 2010 Arizona measure largely invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
Beason, the senator, said that while he welcomes legal immigrants, he isn’t pleased by the arrival of the refugees.
“We would prefer they hire native Alabamians,” he said. The reason refugees are being hired is probably because “they’re cheaper,” he said.
"Because they're cheaper? That's the reason you think Alabama has to import Africans to pick our produce?
Great spin on your screwup, Scott. But that isn't what the newspapers were reporting last year!
There’s no shortage of people he could give those jobs to. In Alabama, some 211,000 people are out of work. In rural Perry County, where Harvest Select is located, the unemployment rate is 18.2 percent, twice the national average. One of the big selling points of the immigration law was that it would free up jobs that Republican Governor Robert Bentley said immigrants had stolen from recession-battered Americans. Yet native Alabamians have not come running to fill these newly liberated positions.
At a moment when the country is relentless focused on unemployment, there are still jobs that often go unfilled. These are difficult, dirty, exhausting jobs that, for previous generations, were the first rickety step on the ladder to prosperity. They still are—just not for Americans.
A few miles down the road, Chad Smith and a few other farmers sit on chairs outside J&J Farms, venting about their changed fortunes. Smith, 22, says his 85 acres of tomatoes are only partly picked because 30 of the 35 migrant workers who had been with him for years left when the law went into effect. The state’s efforts to help him and other farmers attract Americans are a joke, as far as he is concerned. “Oh, I tried to hire them,” Smith says. “I put a radio ad out—out of Birmingham.
About 15 to 20 people showed up, and most of them quit. They couldn’t work fast enough to make the money they thought they could make, so they just quit.”
At a moment when the country is relentless focused on unemployment, there are still jobs that often go unfilled. These are difficult, dirty, exhausting jobs that, for previous generations, were the first rickety step on the ladder to prosperity. They still are—just not for Americans.
“If those Alabamians on unemployment continue to not apply for jobs in construction and poultry, then Republican politicians are going to have to help us continue to find immigrant workers,” says Jay Reed, who heads the Alabama Associated Builders & Contractors. “And those immigrant workers are gone.”
Business owners are furious not only that they have lost so many workers but that everyone in the state seemed to see it coming except Bentley, who failed to heed warnings from leaders in neighboring Georgia who said they had experienced a similar flight of immigrants after passing their own immigration law. Bentley declined to be interviewed for this story.
Even Scott Beason himself
is too lazy to do the work.
GOP Sponsor Of Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Law Refuses Challenge To Try Immigrants’ Intensive Farm Labor
As in many other states, undocumented workers are the backbone of Alabama’s agriculture industry.
But farmers’ pleas fell on deaf ears when they spoke recently to the bill’s sponsor, Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason (R). Beason stood firmly behind the law, arguing that it would help free up jobs for Alabamians in a state suffering from high unemployment. The farmers were quick to tell him that immigrants are the only ones willing to do this kind of back-breaking field labor. One farmer even challenged Beason to try the work himself if he was so confident immigrants could be easily replaced:
Tomato farmer Brian Cash said the migrant workers who would normally be on Chandler Mountain have gone to other states with less restrictive laws.
After talking with farmers at the tomato shed, Beason visited the Smith family’s farm. Leroy Smith, Chad Smith’s father, challenged the senator to pick a bucket full of tomatoes and experience the labor-intensive work.
Beason declined but promised to see what could be done to help farmers while still trying to keep illegal immigrants out of Alabama.
Smith threw down the bucket he offered Beason and said, “There, I figured it would be like that.”
Well, the business closing today, and I, think THIS is the problem.
These people blame Obama, too.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregla...shame-racism-and-th/
And this person.
Maybe We Should Have Elected a White President After All
There is no doubt that this country is not ready for a Black President.
Nor would this country ever be ready for any non-white or non-male president until we actually went ahead and elected one–ready or not–and then made the necessary adjustments. And that could have been what would have happened with the historic election of Barack Obama.
Except it didn’t.
The problem is not that the crazy right wing is upset and screaming at us from the back of the room telling us to shut up. The problem is that the rest of the country, or at least a significant number of individuals, especially in elected office and in the media, are not calling this what it is. Yes, there have been hints, here and there, of racist undertones and overtones, but the spade is not being called a spade. As it were.
And the reason is disgusting. The reason that the mainstream press and numerous elected officials are not identifying the town hall teabaggers and the anti-health care Republicans as racists is because the ground has been prepared to make sure that when someone does call someone else out on racism in the mainstream public square, that act…the act of identifying racism…is considered just as bad as the racism itself. It is called “playing the race card.” The whole “Oh, now you’re going to play the race card, aren’t you!” gambit was developed, prepared, and inculcated into society over the last 15 years (really, 14 years…since the OJ Simpson trial), so now racism has a place at the table. Where it does not belong.
So we go back to: If you are a Republican, you are racist.
Thanks, got that the first 1000 times it was said.
Glad to see the democratic platform is being consistent. Who cares if Obama can't do anything right, he's black, he DESERVES to be elected.
Which brings up the question, does any one deserve to have something handed to them?
But, I'll just let the racist insults against me continue for a while, after dinner, I'll see what kind of a sorry ass human I am according to liberals.
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
...........
Which brings up the question, does any one deserve to have something handed to them?
..........
don't you think you should ask romney this question?
What, pick pockets?
Originally Posted by yoda:
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:...........
Which brings up the question, does any one deserve to have something handed to them?
..........
don't you think you should ask romney this question?
No, I think I should ask the liberals, which I did, and you have proven they have no answer,
Fact-Checking Ann and Mitt Romney's Hardknock Early Years
If you didn't know much about Mitt and Ann Romney's biography, you might have gotten the impression from Ann's speech at the Republican National Convention Tuesday night that they were once two crazy kids in love just scraping by in a sad little slum. There's no doubt the Romneys were very much in love, but their youthful real estate experience wasn't typical of impoverished college students, or even middle class ones. They lived off stock options.
Ann Romney in 1994:
"They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income... Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time."
"We had our first child in that tiny apartment. We couldn't afford a desk, so we used a door propped on sawhorses in our bedroom. It was a big door, so we could study on it together.... The funny thing is that I never expected help." [Most college students would consider investment income help, right?]
"Another son came along 18 months later, although we waited four years to have the third, because Mitt was still in school and we had no income except the stock we were chipping away at. We were living on the edge, not entertaining. No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted."
The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman: At Bain & Company, founder Bill Bain treated Romney "as a kind of prince regent at the firm, a favored son." He selected Romney to start and run Bain Capital. "It would be Romney’s first chance to run his own firm and, potentially, to make a killing," they write. "It was an offer few young men in a hurry could refuse. Yet Romney stunned his boss by doing just that." They continue:
He explained to Bain that he didn’t want to risk his position, earnings, and re****tion on an experiment. He found the offer appealing but didn’t want to make the decision in a “light or flippant manner.” So Bain sweetened the pot. He guaranteed that if the experiment failed Romney would get his old job and salary back, plus any raises he would have earned during his absence. Still, Romney worried about the impact on his re****tion if he proved unable to do the job. Again the pot was sweetened. Bain promised that, if necessary, he would craft a cover story saying that Romney’s return to Bain & Company was needed due to his value as a consultant. “So,” Bain explained, “there was no professional or financial risk.” This time Romney said yes.
Let's interrupt this tale of woe for just a minute to reflect on the value of $96-a-share stock back in 1969, when this great triumph over poverty occurred. Andrew Sabl, who dug up this old Boston Globe interview, did some quick calculations to figure out just how "not easy" it was to live off Mitt's stock portfolio:
By Ann’s own account, the stock amounted to “a few thousand” dollars when bought, but it had gone up by a factor of sixteen. So let’s conservatively say that they got through five years as students—neither one of them working—only by “chipping away at” assets of $60,000 in 1969 dollars (about $377,000 today).
Amazing they didn't starve to death, isn't it?
Originally Posted by yoda:
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:...........
Which brings up the question, does any one deserve to have something handed to them?
..........
don't you think you should ask romney this question?
No, I think I should ask the liberals, which I did, and you have proven they have no answer,
______________________________
ok, YES! i believe some people deserve to have something handed to them. now what?
Based on what criteria? Race, religion, gender, national origin?
Who decides what 'needs' to be given? Who picks the winners and the losers?
See, I don't think winners or losers should be picked ahead of time. That's called a 'fixed' race. Do that for a horse race and you go to jail. Do it for an election, and you get the booby prize of another 4 years of stupidity.
You want something handed to you? Fine, I'll give you a shovel. Get to work cleaning up the manure being spread around by the liberals.
so, a disabled veteran doesn't deserve to have a check handed to him?
a child, born disabled, doesn't deserve it?
someone, who paid into the system, shouldn't get a check when they grow old?
see, i think everyone should to be allowed to have a way to take care of themself.
you rt. wingnuts equate getting by with the bare minimum, with the worst case of fraud you can imagine. as with every system, sure, there's fraud. only an idiot could argue against that...
however, in the big picture, as i said numerous times, one case of "corporate welfare" wouldn't equal ALL the fraud in the system. so, i guess it's a matter of priorities... someone one person, getting something they don't deserve, or our economy suffering, because some company got a massive tax break and a big fat refund check.
So we go back to: If you are a Republican, you are racist.
But, I'll just let the racist insults against me continue for a while, after dinner, I'll see what kind of a sorry ass human I am according to liberals.
You have company:
