People are waking up. The Obama Economy is ruining America.

Even the mainstream media is having trouble carrying Obama's water now.
The failed policies of this empty suit puppet child in charge are making America grind to a halt.
Now that the "heavy hitters" in the mainstream media are reporting the truth instead of what the Obama Regime is telling them to report, the mainstream media is no longer carrying the Child-In-Chief's water for him. That leaves the hopie changie lapdogs to try and prop up the worst president in history.

Jobs barely rise, dousing hopes of revival
Jobs growth slows in June
8:53am EDT
Snap analysis: Dismal jobs numbers give off recession whiff
Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson
By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:19am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.

"The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. "Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7662I420...

QUICK BARAK! BETTER GO PLAY MORE GOLF!

No votes yet

Get back under your rock you insignificant piece of shit. Quit combing the internet looking for worthless shit to post that was written by other brain dead yuppie want a be's like yourself.

I didn't believe it before now but here is the proof.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

It appears to be Tourettes for the anal curious and those with homosexual tendencies as proven by the little daddy's boy toy and Union bitch RightWingersRQueer.

The symptoms include uncontrolled outbursts of anal innuendo including references to spelunking and fecal exploration compounded with poor spelling and an urge to have sex with his own drunken father.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

You're the only one bringing this up over and over. Kinda leads everyone to believe you got molested by your dad, probably while he was intoxicated.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

The angry little troll obviously has emotional problems. Anger of that sort looks like post traumatic stress disorder. And, since Democraps don't believe in war, I have to assume the spinless little dirtbag was not in the military. Also, since he is a Democrat, I can also assume he is pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro gay sex, and pro socialism. The only thing left that can leave that sort of emotional damage is incestual rape.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (also known as post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD) is a severe anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to any event that results in psychological trauma.[1][2][3] This event may involve the threat of death to oneself or to someone else, or to one's own or someone else's physical, sexual, or psychological integrity,[1] overwhelming the individual's ability to cope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

And I can tell by your generic short answers that you obviously suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
See how the symptoms fit you?

A person with narcissistic personality disorder:

Reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
Has feelings of self-importance
Exaggerates achievements and talents
Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
Requires constant attention and admiration
Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
Has obsessive self-interest
Pursues mainly selfish goals
http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/narcissistic-personality...

On the other hand, since you are also a Democrat, you also suffer from the emotional trauma of knowing that your mommy was NOT pro-choice. If your mommy WERE pro-choice, you would be a rotting little blob of flesh in a dumpster somewhere while your mommy practiced her "choice".
That kind of emotional dichotomy must leave it's mark on a Democrat. To know that you are a failed abortion. To support the choice that would have ended your own life before you turned into a sniviling little Obama lapdog and apologist.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

You should be placed under protective custody.

Although it is easy to see why I forgot about you because you make no impression on anyone.

Based on your past mindless "points" you have attempted to make I can deduce that you suffer from Autophobia.

Based on past posts, you just love Unions and want to be a Union lacky just like your partners HandBanana, RightWingersRQueer and Wolfman.

The problem is, you are management and therefore are to be ridiculed, shunned and hated by the mentally superior Union low-lifes that work for you.

That kind of self'loathing must wreak havoc on a person's mental stability. How can you live with yourself knowing you want to be one of the people who hate you and would rather piss on your shoes than listen to what you have to say?

I feel sorry for you. It must be difficult to live with yourself knowing that you must hate yourself in order to fit into that little clique of Union brothers you so desperately want to be? Don't you realize how pathetic you are? Probably you don't realize how pathetic you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be a Democrat.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

What you don't know could fill a book.

If the "message on the economy is ongoing stagnation", then why is it the government (largely controlled by Congressional Democrats) has gone on a borrowing spree for 3 years running such that the already gargantuan national debt (over $9 trillion) increased by 50% (over $4 trillion)?

The only logical conclusion is that having a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President is the fastest way to destroy the nation's economy.

"The only logical conclusion is that having a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President is the fastest way to destroy the nation's economy."

That's got to be the stupidest thing you've said all week. At what percent of the GDP do you think spending has a detrimental effect on the economy?

Pink Slip

When your government spending depends so heavily on borrowing, then all government spending becomes detrimental.

The federal government is now borrowing 40% of its budget each year. It's time for you to wake up from this demented dream of yours that Obama and the Democrats represented anything for the nation except fiscal destruction.

Even if Obama wins in the 2012 election, the Senate will become Republican. So we'll have some sort of stop to this ruinous borrowing binge.

"When your government spending depends so heavily on borrowing, then all government spending becomes detrimental."

So, at what point in your mind do they become detrimental? You can't say the spending is crowding out private investment, because interest rates are historically low.

"The federal government is now borrowing 40% of its budget each year."

The US has averaged spending 35% of its budget for the last 30 years. Now we're a little higher DUE TO THE RECESSION. Suddenly some blogger in Toledo has deemed the 40% is the new magic number for economic ruin. Bravo! There's NO economic principle to back that up. What about 37%? 38%?? What makes 40% the magic number????

And you can take your Obama/Democrat taunts elsewhere. I don't give a shit about either.

Pink Slip

You can't keep borrowing hugely and expect nothing bad to happen. It's logically true that bad things will happen. You're claiming that huge debt levels don't mean anything. You're not prepared to even deal with the topic.

Obama is now threatening to not send out the SS checks, come August. Consequences much?

And "a little higher" is disingenuous. We've used the last 3 years to run up 1/3 of the federal debt ($4.5 trillion out of $14 trillion). That's an increase in 50% of the overall debt. Before the Democrat Borrowing Binge, such debts took about 80 years to develop. Now we're set to perform that sort of debt load in only 6 years. If blowing through debt at 13 times the "normal" rate doesn't give you any pause, then you have to seriously question your education level.

"You can't keep borrowing hugely and expect nothing bad to happen."

No one is suggesting that. Do me a favor, and don't assign a belief to me that I don't hold nor never claimed. When a Democratic administration balanced the budget in the 90's, we were on our way to paying off the debt for good in 10 years time. That's a fact. But we have to get the economy going first. You don't do that by taking money out of the economy.

Again on the higher deficit:

Notice the big gap at the end. It's because of the recession. Notice the loss of revenue? And as I pointed out previously, the spending is also due to the recession (automatic stabilizers, stimulus, etc). This spending would have happened under a Democratic or Republican administration.

"Obama is now threatening to not send out the SS checks, come August. Consequences much?"

This has nothing to do with the deficit/debt, and everything to do with tea-party backed GOP dimwits, who apparently hold the same lack of economic understanding as yourself.

(note: the graph above might get cut off due to space, but here's the link: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/misleading-mantra-tax-and-spend-version/)

Pink Slip

You are saying that, if you are not making as much money as you used to either through changing jobs, getting a paycut or due to inflation, the best way for you to handle the cut in your household revenue is to put yourself further into debt by borrowing more money so that you can pay off the bills you already have?

Since you have a cut in revenue and are having trouble paying your previously established bills, you contend that you should borrow more money, take on more bills and more debt and higher monthly payments in order for everything to work out? Because the Tea Party does not want you to lose the flat-screen HD TV you purchased, the Tea Party wants you to borrow more money so you can make the payments on the money you borrowed to purchase your HDTV?

That is what I understand you are saying and that is the most obviously stupid load of crap anyone has ever said.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"When a Democratic administration balanced the budget in the 90's, we were on our way to paying off the debt for good in 10 years time."

You mean when Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget in the 90's, right?

Also, Clinton's over reaching tax increase, passed by one vote thanks to Al Gore, helped produce a surplus but did so on the backs of Middle America- the combination of that and the passage of NAFTA, signed by President Clinton and trumpeted by Mr. Gore, is the reason the middle class has been stuck in stagnant wages for over 20 years.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Actually AH this week he said the Balanced Budget Amendment was dumb.

So apparently it's only good when a Democrat can score political points on it. Which again shows that Dems aren't really serious about the budget or the debt. They will only discuss it when they can score political points.

That's why I do not support the plan Mitch McConnell put out. Eric Cantor's plan is the way to go. The Tea Party has strengthened the GOP because the Tea Party has forced the GOP to operate on principles and not politics. The GOP old guard would be wise to heed the Tea Party and not raise taxes. I believe Boehner knows this and the President stormed out of a meeting yesterday because he now knows it and is faced with backing down to the GOP or fight on the wrong side of an issue right before his election.

MikeyA

"So apparently it's only good when a Democrat can score political points on it"

Mikey, please try to understand. I never said balancing budgets was bad, in and of itself. But a law that would require us to do so, is unwise because it ties our hands during recessions. Again, I would point to the states having to do so and the negative impact of this type of legislation.

Pink Slip

"You mean when Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the budget in the 90's, right?"

How many of those Republicans voted to restore the taxes rates, which increased revenue? ZERO. NAFTA is a separate issue, although I would tend to agree with you on that.

Pink Slip

Most, if not all of the recent debt increase is due to the recession. A huge decrease in revenue and the increase in automatic stabilizers. When unemployment goes up, social safety net spending automatically goes up. THAT"S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. Here are the spending increases since 2007:

Notice that the "everything else" category has gone down?

Pink Slip

In your haste to apologize for Barak Odumbo and to try and explain why Dimocraps are spending like drunken sailors in a whore house on "important" stuff like Harry Reids Taxpayer funded "Cowboy Poetry Festival, you forgot one important fact.
http://bcove.me/mjb0op5f

The recession officially started the year before your socialist hero, the bastard child in chief, took office. The year of the election, business was busy hiding it's money from the blood-sucking leaches of the Dimocrap party. And until the Dimocrap party and it's socialist leader are booted out of office, the recession will go on.

Why are we spending more money on "Income Security" which is unemployment, food stamps and welfare? BECAUSE DIMOCRAPS HAVE RUINED THE ECONOMY. Get the Dimocrap Socialist profit hating dirtbags out of office, get out of the way of private enterprise, quit forcing business to pay for the lazy and providing free job benefits to those who aren't even looking out for themselves, and THEN the economy will take off again.

It's official: Recession since Dec. '07
The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm

Here, by month, is how badly Dimocraps ruined the economy.

GDP was flat during the election year, but notice what happened in the 3rd quarter of 2008, when business knew Barak Odumbo was going to be the Dimocrap candidate, and also what happened in November when business knew that Barak Obama was elected and the Dimocrap controlled Congress was coming to steal their money.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Get the Dimocrap Socialist profit hating dirtbags out of office, get out of the way of private enterprise, quit forcing business to pay for the lazy and providing free job benefits to those who aren't even looking out for themselves, and THEN the economy will take off again.

Er, no. Pinky is wrong since he can't admit Obama and the Democrats are the worst government, ever. But you are wrong since you subscribe to the Cult of Growth.

The growth that you so laud was 20th Century growth, which was only fueled by cheap petroleum, then cheap credit. Both are over, forever. No other fuel can replace oil. Nothing ever has. Nothing ever will. The 20th Century was a peak of human civilization, never to return. It's all downhill from here, and unless we admit that and manage it, it's going to lead to resource wars, atrocities and crash-poverty.

The major individual vehicle in the USA by the year 2100 will be the bicycle. Oil by then will be many 100s of dollars a barrel and few will be able to afford to just burn it inside a piston engine.

GZ

GZ I agree with much of what you said however I disagree with your take on oil. Over 100 years ago we didn't use oil, we used whale oil. So much so that no one thought we'd ever find a replacement. Then came the light bulb and suddenly oil was a good substitute.

Not only do we have the means to get off of our oil binge we also have the reserves. The government had previously in the Bill Clinton administration made all government vehicles dual fuel meaning they had to run on both gas and CNG. It actually wasn't terribly expensive or hard to convert them into a dual fuel vehicle. Then in the late 90's barrel for oil prices tanked hard (I still remember filling up .89 cent gas at Heatherdowns and Byrne) while at the same time CNG went way up and the dual fuel vehicle program was scrapped.

Now through tax credits the government could very easily spurn enough US gas stations to add CNG pumps. Scientist believe Wyoming alone has enough CNG to supply the nation for the next 50 years. That alone would reduce prices and greenhouse emissions. Unfortunately it doesn't fit with the alarmists plans of regulating the rest of us to the point of green servitude and international reliance.

MikeyA

100 years ago, you're talking energy sources like whale oil, coal and wood.

Talking about whale oil is totally avoiding the point. We didn't run a huge, energy-intensive civilization on whale oil. That's what we created with petroleum. And so nothing replaces it. I'm not going to even bother googling up whales to figure out how much oil can possibly be harvested from them. It sure as shit isn't going to be 85 million barrels a day, which is the current world consumption of petroleum.

CNG is more distraction. We do have quite a bit of it, that's true. But it doesn't store or transfer like petroleum. Putting any sort of huge pressurized canister into a common individual vehicle is going to produce either enormous risks in road accidents, or will require so much bracing and armor that the vehicle will be too overweight to realize efficiency. That's why it's appearing in buses. In addition, CNG has only 1/4 of the energy density of diesel fuel.

CNG is for the Third World, were life is cheap, and CNG is sourced. The wiki on it says
"led by Pakistan with 2.5 million, Argentina (1.8 million), Iran (1.7 million), Brazil (1.6 million), and India (725 thousand)". Notice something important about that list? Human live means little in any of those locations.

Again, nothing whatsoever replaces petroleum and its child gasoline. The fact remains that American driving and consumption habits will have to change, and by "change" I mean downsize. And they will downsize; either the supply of gasoline will contract, or the price of gasoline will become large, but largely some combination of both (which we've seen in each Oil Shock). As prices rise, alternatives do come on board, but obviously that's far too late to control the Price Shock. Americans will be progressively priced out of their own driving culture.

"Most, if not all of the recent debt increase is due to the recession."

Here's another clue for you: When your income is threatened, you're not supposed to compensate by running up huge debts. You're supposed to cut spending. Governments are not immune to the laws of economics.

Problems in the U.S. economy should have been greeted with wholesale tax cuts aimed at the consumer class, and concomitant spending cuts in the federal and state governments to match those. We didn't need to cut taxes for the rich or poor, since they are essentially get a free ride off the backs of the schlubs in the middle. But the opposite occurred. The middle class is getting hit as hard as ever. And that makes perfect sense, from a predatory standpoint, since they are fat targets with few defenses.

"You're supposed to cut spending."

In a recession??? You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Q. Where are the job losses coming?
A. In the public sector.

Why? Because states have to balance their budgets, and the loss of revenue had to be matched by spending cuts. These job losses make the recession worse. Do you understand that? The cuts that you are calling for are making things worse. You pay down your debt in good economic times, like the 90's. And we should have done it in the 2000's as well. But it's darn-right stupid to do it now.

Pink Slip

Yes you do cut spending in a recession.

The job losses came because the stimulus unnaturally kept state budgets inflated. It really didn't hire that many people and came at a huge per job cost. Now as states finally try to realign their budgets people are being laid off. Those lay offs would have come either back then or now. Doing it now has just added more uncertainty to the economy.

In fact, having worked in gov't I've seen the effects of the stimulus. The "saved or created jobs" were neither. What happened is divisions received more money. They gave their people raises and more duties (inflating the payrolls for future years). No one new was hired because no new responsibilities were created. It took jobs we already had payroll for and made their expenses bigger. Now that the stimulus is gone and we have to make budget cuts we're actually cutting those "saved or created jobs" that weren't saved or created and those workers are now experiencing a BIGGER economic loss than they would have prior to the stimulus. I still laugh at the signs up on the road near me. They say "This work brought to you by the American Investment and Recovery Act" but the only work that was ever done was signs and cones were put up. Two years later the road still sucks, the signs are sunwashed, and most of the cones have been stolen. Government at work!

MikeyA

"Now as states finally try to realign their budgets people are being laid off. "

This is what I said. But your stimulus explanation is wrong. If my brother loses his job, and I float him a loan he may get by for a couple of weeks. But that doesn't mean the act of loaning him the money caused him to lose his job.

I shudder to think that someone with your negative view of government actually works in it. It reminds me of PJ O'Rourke's saying:

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Pink Slip

Ok let's use your example. So your brother loses his job. You lend him money. Now we'd hope that he'd use that money to pay bills/debts but instead he maintains his lifestyle. Now suddenly he's out of money. He has no job to pay you back. You are now out of money. He can't pay his bills, you now live paycheck to paycheck.

Sure you delayed his problem for a couple of weeks but his problem was still there. Also you've exacerbated the problem because you now have significantly less money with no assets to show from it. Just a promisary note from someone who cannot pay which means it's worthless.

MikeyA

"but instead he maintains his lifestyle"

As I said, states cannot "maintain their lifestyles" under these circumstances. They have to cut spending to match revenues losses. So some jobs were saved, but many others were lost.

Pink Slip

Exactly which means he buys less which means productivity is decreased as inventories increase, other workers are laid off, and consumer confidence bottoms out.

This is exactly what is happening. So the cuts will be made regardless what the stimulus does. The stimulus just delayed the cuts as just as your brother would eventually run out of money. You're gambling that he will find a job. Not when everyone else is losing their jobs.

So the stimulus has extended our recession and as we're seeing now with the sluggish jobs has put us on a course of a double dip recession. That is why Geithner is saying it's going to get worse before it gets better. The weak job growth and growing unemployment is hurting the economy. The debt and tax uncertainty has businesses witholding investments. Until they feel confident in the economic climate they won't grow. Doubling down on spending is a huge mistake that only puts us in more uncertainty which as noted before is not good. Keysian economics both here and abroad is proving to be a huge failure.

MikeyA

No no no....as I said some jobs were SAVED. Without the aid to the states, those jobs would also be lost. That's a bad thing. The stimulus helped, but it was far too small. The economy basically had $1.4 trillion taken out of the economy due to the housing bubble bursting. We tried to fill that with what amounted to about $300 billion in 2009 and $300 billion in 2010. Now the stimulus is winding down. We're in a liquidity trap--consumers are not spending, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and not investing because demand is low. In these situations, it's perfectly acceptable--and necessary--for government to spend and create demand. As far as what is happening abroad, you need to check your facts. Austerity measures, which you seem to support, have made things WORSE in Greece, Ireland, Britain, etc....

Pink Slip

Yeah, especially when you can just pass it on to the next generations to pay off.

*sarcasm alert*

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.