Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

The ACA has increased the amount many Americans are paying for Health care , which means less money in their pocket.

But let me turn it around to you.
The GDP growth has been dismal under Obama compared to the nearly 3 .5 % average over other president's tenure.

With nearly record low interest rates, low energy prices, a ,low ( if you believe the Gov't ) unemployment rate , why is the economy so sluggish under Obama ?
Despite a trillion dollars in stimulus which apparently didn't stimulate, QE and an increase in the national debt , why ?

Why hasn't the economy " recovered" , and why is it dangerously close to a recession ?

Obama does not control economic growth. It is in the hands of CEO's who are hoarding records amounts of capital and cash reserves. A good portion of which is being used to line their pockets while off-shoring and exporting jobs and cutting head count. It is also in the hands of consumers who are debt shy because of a lack of confidence in the economy.

[Unregistered]

Obama does not control economic growth. It is in the hands of CEO's who are hoarding records amounts of capital and cash reserves. A good portion of which is being used to line their pockets while off-shoring and exporting jobs and cutting head count. It is also in the hands of consumers who are debt shy because of a lack of confidence in the economy.

Is this new? I mean, how is that different during prosperous times vs. now?

Seems like a deflection to me.

[Unregistered]

Is this new? I mean, how is that different during prosperous times vs. now?

Seems like a deflection to me.

It is a deflection, and a denial.

The difference today is that it is Obama's policies that are contributing to a sluggish economy.

The mere fact that Bernie and Trump are doing what they are doing is the proof that many Americans have been beaten down by Obama and his Progressive ideology.

" Hope and Change "

Remember that ?

How about " Forward "

The only thing that has changed is the amount of misery. the only Hope for many is the chance that Democrats will be put in the dustbin. Forward ? We have gone backwards in so many ways, including racial issues.

[Unregistered]

Anyone read stuff from Mike Rowe? Interesting, well-articulated, 'salt of the earth' kinda' guy.

He rails against the 'free college' movement often. His points being:

* Why are we forgiving debts for students who go into a field that has little/no chance of hiring?
* There are many programs built to learn a trade, and they cannot get enough people to take those jobs.
* Why are students trying to enter fields that won't make them any money? If they want to, fine, but why should they do it for free/limited cost? Wouldn't the better option to be go into a field where you are needed? With lest up front costs?

As I thought about that, I can't shake Warren's $200k for one lecture course. Reading about the $17K table at UNH. Who do you think pays for that? Would cutting costs be a better, if not equal, option toward the escalating cost of education vs. getting someone else to cover it?

After the typical name calling, nutter chants, mocking of ideas, and insults get out of the way, I'd like to hear from someone directly affected by this.

I couldn't agree more. You never seem to hear about nurses, engineers, accountants or other in-demand professions railing against college costs. If you decide to major in cinema because it interests you, go for it. But to expect a pass because you made a stupid investment is absurd.

People make stupid financial decision on a daily basis. Choice of major and quite honestly where to go to school is no different. If you insist on going to a 50-60K per year school, you need to realize that you will likely be upside down unless you get significant aid or have pretty well off parents who are footing the bill.

[Unregistered]

Is this new? I mean, how is that different during prosperous times vs. now?

Seems like a deflection to me.

So what you are saying then is that Bush was not responsible for the recession but Obama is responsible for the sluggish recovery. Did something change? Or are nutters holding liberals more accountable than their binkies. It can't be both ways.

I don't think I have ever heard a nutter in here assign even partial blame to Bush or the banks for the recession, it is always the fault of minorities who took out loans and not the fault of the idiots who packaged the derivatives or the bigger idiots who bought into credit default swaps. I am pretty all the people writing and benefitting from those mortgages cashed their bonus checks.

[Unregistered]

So what you are saying then is that Bush was not responsible for the recession but Obama is responsible for the sluggish recovery. Did something change? Or are nutters holding liberals more accountable than their binkies. It can't be both ways.

No, actually, you are reading just the opposite. A libby blamed CEOs and said the President has nothing to do with economic policy. We hear all day long about how Bush's unjust war put us in a hole, but when spending today continues to increase...we blame corporations instead.

I don't think I have ever heard a nutter in here assign even partial blame to Bush or the banks for the recession, it is always the fault of minorities who took out loans and not the fault of the idiots who packaged the derivatives or the bigger idiots who bought into credit default swaps. I am pretty all the people writing and benefitting from those mortgages cashed their bonus checks.

You will from me, and not for the first time. There was a lot I liked about President Bush, but his economic policies are not one of them.


Good try, but off the mark as usual.

[Unregistered]

No, actually, you are reading just the opposite. A libby blamed CEOs and said the President has nothing to do with economic policy. We hear all day long about how Bush's unjust war put us in a hole, but when spending today continues to increase...we blame corporations instead.



You will from me, and not for the first time. There was a lot I liked about President Bush, but his economic policies are not one of them.


Good try, but off the mark as usual.

Actually federal spending as % of GDP is near historical lows. But once again nutters are reluctant to use facts - aimless disjointed rhetoric is much more fun and catch-phrasey.

[Unregistered]

Historical lows? I'm looking at it right now, and it's consistently high over the last few years, after spiking to historical HIGHS in 2009. Overall, not compared to the GDP, it's remained consistently high for the past 8 years.

I understand alot of the spike in 2009 was stimulus related and an attempt to kick-start things, so I won't blame Obama for trying. I'm not pointing to the high as a measurement, more of an outlier. It has been going down some, but pretty much level since.

[Unregistered]

Actually federal spending as % of GDP is near historical lows. But once again nutters are reluctant to use facts - aimless disjointed rhetoric is much more fun and catch-phrasey.

Tee Hee BAA HAA!

What's funny about your post is you were reluctant to use facts, and instead resorted to aimless disjointed rhetoric and catch phrases.

Hypocrite.

[Unregistered]

Historical lows? I'm looking at it right now, and it's consistently high over the last few years, after spiking to historical HIGHS in 2009. Overall, not compared to the GDP, it's remained consistently high for the past 8 years.

I understand alot of the spike in 2009 was stimulus related and an attempt to kick-start things, so I won't blame Obama for trying. I'm not pointing to the high as a measurement, more of an outlier. It has been going down some, but pretty much level since.

That's what I see. I also see opinions that the debt % of GDP doesn't tell the entire story, as the Government debt is owned by the Government, while the GDP is the total of all commerce in America, not just the Government's part. It's actually worse that we think.

Regardless, Obama has run up the debt, with QE has given money away , spent at least a trillion in stimulus, tens of billions on green energy that has gone belly up , and has signed numerous Executive orders that have cost American's jobs.

And the economy is close to being on life support. That's what we got with a " Social Justice " President.

[Unregistered]

That's what I see. I also see opinions that the debt % of GDP doesn't tell the entire story, as the Government debt is owned by the Government, while the GDP is the total of all commerce in America, not just the Government's part. It's actually worse that we think.

Regardless, Obama has run up the debt, with QE has given money away , spent at least a trillion in stimulus, tens of billions on green energy that has gone belly up , and has signed numerous Executive orders that have cost American's jobs.

And the economy is close to being on life support. That's what we got with a " Social Justice " President.

Debt as a % of GDP is fairly low. Certainly much lower than what Bush left us and if you knew your facts you would realize that the highest ever %s were right after WW2. The problem is that people who don't take time to analyze data can't get them arms around the idea that looking at debt totals in 1946 is much different in 2016 dollars.

[Unregistered]

Debt as a % of GDP is fairly low. Certainly much lower than what Bush left us and if you knew your facts you would realize that the highest ever %s were right after WW2. The problem is that people who don't take time to analyze data can't get them arms around the idea that looking at debt totals in 1946 is much different in 2016 dollars.

Graphic that I saw showed the spike in 2009, then levelling for a few years and then remaining stagnant. All are more than the Bush years. Charts I see only go back 10 years, so no, not sure why you think 1946 was mentioned?

[Unregistered]

CENK UYGUR: If you've got a dozen people investigating you, odds are they will indict you. I guess the last possible scenario is they indict her, and they say they are charging you with all these criminal actions, but then the pundits tell you it is no big deal...Let's say there were a dozen FBI investigators looking into Bernie Sanders and they were going to indict him any day now...If it was Donald Trump -- I mean look... They would have blown up over it...But with Hillary Clinton: Shhh, not relevant, not relevant, not relevant. The establishment likes her.

[Unregistered]

Democratic strategist Dave “Mudcat” Saunders believes Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton like a “baby seal,” and that working class whites who haven’t already left the Democratic Party for cultural reasons will due so now for economic ones.

“I know a ton of Democrats — male, female, black and white — here [in southern Virginia] who are going to vote for Trump. It’s all because of economic reasons. It’s because of his populist message,” Mudcat told The Daily Caller Wednesday.


Ha ha a fat baby seal

[Unregistered]

Democratic strategist Dave “Mudcat” Saunders believes Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton like a “baby seal,” and that working class whites who haven’t already left the Democratic Party for cultural reasons will due so now for economic ones.

“I know a ton of Democrats — male, female, black and white — here [in southern Virginia] who are going to vote for Trump. It’s all because of economic reasons. It’s because of his populist message,” Mudcat told The Daily Caller Wednesday.


Ha ha a fat baby seal

Tell you what con you hold onto that fever swamp fantasy.....

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trum...women-problems

Gallup vs Mudcat

Look at numbers there con and weep.

Hahahhahah