CIC contrast from armed forces

[B_starinvestor]

Actually, up until late 2007 things were perceived as pretty good.

Not by me. Not by plenty of other people.

He set a record for jobs growth from '01 to '07.

Something else you pulled out of your ass and flung against the wall hoping it would stick. Actually, from Truman forward, Bush II has the worst job creation record, 3 million in eight years. Clinton has the best, 23 million+ in eight years, 7.7 times as many as Bush. Clinton also holds the record for payroll expansion, 21.1%. Here's the proof in some charts, from the Wall Street Journal, which I would think is your Bible. Oh no, I forgot, you have Christopher Chantrill #188 #192 .

I know you have trouble with charts and graphs, but please try:

Job Creation From Truman to Bush

Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index

Please stop trying to discuss economics with me. Everytime you try, I kick your ass and you end up looking like the fool you are. I have more than a dozen links I can post to prove it. Is that what you want? When will you stop drinking the Kool-Aid that Repubs are the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth? You're an idiot and you are completely full of sh*t. This is absolutely the last time I'm going to waste myself on this useless exercise.

Your attitude is becoming aggrevating. Bush's record was that of 52 consecutive months of positive job growth - the longest period of positive job growth in U.S. history.

" America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months"

U.S. Budget and Economy: Are the 52 Months of Job Growth Under Bush Significant?

You assumed that I meant total number of new jobs. Admittedly, I didn't specify that it wasn't total number of jobs - it was 'consecutive months of positive job growth.'

So no - I didn't pull it out of my ass. But a cynic - which is exactly what you are - would automatically assume that your opponent is making something up.

No one was bitching about Bush in '01 and '02, so lets not go about portraying ourselves as visionary and patient.

I was, I was, and I was. But I wouldn't call it visionary, I would call it realistic.

Oh really? Do you remember this post that you made in this very thread: (in your very own annoying font)

I knew Shrub was a puppet president and an idiot from the get go. Still I was willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance to prove himself
I knew Shrub was a puppet president and an idiot from the get go. Still I was willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance to prove himself.
I knew Shrub was a puppet president and an idiot from the get go. Still I was willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance to prove himself.

So - were you bitching about him as you suggested first; or were you 'willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance?'

Doublespeaking hypocrite.

Its funny that you use the term 'neocon' like a swear word. It seems that the true neocon ideology would be fairly in line with your beliefs. It is one that hopes to spread democracy, believes in free markets - but with controls, and the existence of gov't assistance/welfare programs.

What the fuck? Is this Orwellian Newspeak? You are crazy. Please get help.

You don't even know what a neocon is. Here:

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Gotta love that distorted rhetoric.
52 solid months of growth? Kinda easy to do that when you're recovering from a recession.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^No Neocon really is an epiteph. It actually polls worse with Americans than the word 'liberal' does. After the shit the Neocons pulled under Bush's watch, the whole planet pretty much hates every last one of them, and will until the day they die.

 

[maxcok]

Your attitude is becoming aggrevating.

Not a fraction as aggravating as yours. Do you have spell check, or ever consult a dictionary?

Bush's record was that of 52 consecutive months of positive job growth - the longest period of positive job growth in U.S. history.

Now you're now back to defending Bush? I'm confused.

You assumed that I meant total number of new jobs.

As any passably intelligent person would, since you said:

"He set a record for jobs growth from '01 to '07."

Admittedly, I didn't specify that it wasn't total number of jobs - it was 'consecutive months of positive job growth.'

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Then you should have said that. Big difference, but apparently you don't know that. Or you're being purposely deceptive again. At any rate, it's a meaningless statistic. Nobody cares.[/FONT]

So no - I didn't pull it out of my ass. But a cynic - which is exactly what you are - would automatically assume that your opponent is making something up.

As you frequently do. Like this new 'clarification'. Let's skip past your revision of history though, and examine your new premise:

Title of your piece: U.S. Budget and Economy: Are the 52 Months of Job Growth Under Bush Significant?

No. Not to any legitimate economist or any passably intelligent person. Especially when you compare Clinton's all-time record of creating 23+ million jobs in eight years vs. Bush's 3 million in the same period. To further illustrate this point:

"As can be seen, there were 52 consecutive months of job growth under Bush, from September 2003 to December 2007. However, Clinton missed having 86 months of consecutive job growth (from April 1993 to May 2000) by just three slight monthly declines of 16, 18, and 19 thousand jobs. And Reagan (combined with H.W. Bush) missed having 82 months of consecutive job growth (from September 1983 to June 1990) by just one monthly decline of 93 thousand jobs."

Kinda speaks for itself, don't it? And that's a direct quote from your own source! Are you completely retarded?

Here's what matters:

click for interactive graphic:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/payroll-expansion-by-presdient.png

Source:
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record
WSJ Real Time Economics, January 9, 2009, 12:04 pm

Job Creation From Truman to Bush

Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index

So what else did you want to talk about? Oh yeah:

Do you remember this post that you made in this very thread: (in your very own annoying font)

Yes, of course. I remember virtually everything I post. I also remember much of what you post as well. It must be annoying as heck that I can pull up old quotes of yours that prove you to be a liar, a hypocrite and a fool. And really, let the font thing go. It's completely irrelevant and just plain childish.

The quote, as I remember it, without your childish repetition:

"I knew Shrub was a puppet president and an idiot from the get go. Still, I was willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance to prove himself."

So - were you bitching about him as you suggested first; or were you 'willing to suspend disbelief and give him a chance?

Both. That's precisely what 'willing suspension of disbelief' means. As someone incapable of thinking with an open mind, I'm sure this a concept completely beyond your comprehension.

Doublespeaking hypocrite.

I'm just gonna let that lie. It plainly speaks for itself, don't you?

You don't even know what a neocon is.

Oh, I certainly do. As you should every time you look in a mirror.

The difference between someone like me and someone like you is this, starpoop: I seek out a variety of reliable, sometimes conflicting information sources in order to arrive at an educated understanding and opinion. You on the other hand, have a predetermined opinion and try to dig up whatever 'evidence' you can - however flimsy, biased or absurd it is - to support your inflexible position. It is a fool's game, you are therefore an utter fool. You are also a liar and a hypocrite. We differ on that too.

In conclusion:

Please stop trying to discuss economics with me. Everytime you try, I kick your ass and you end up looking like the fool you are. I have more than a dozen links I can post to prove it. Is that what you want? When will you stop drinking the Kool-Aid that Repubs are the party of fiscal responsibility and economic growth? You're an idiot and you are completely full of sh*t. This is absolutely the last time I'm going to waste myself on this useless exercise.

Once again I have kicked your ass to the curb. No doubt you will continue to deny this, proving once again that you are also a baldfaced liar. But the evidence speaks for itself, and really, I am done. Though I will be happy to provide a boatload of links if you want to push the subject again.

You are utterly ridiculous.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Gotta love that distorted rhetoric.
52 solid months of growth? Kinda easy to do that when you're recovering from a recession.

Was that the first recession in U.S. history?

If it is so easy to string together 52 months of positive job growth after a recession, praytell why it hasn't happened after any of the other
46 recessions in U.S. history?

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B_starinvestor]

Not a fraction as aggravating as yours. Do you have spell check, or ever consult a dictionary?

Aggravating. I am not able to download the spellcheck function on my laptop. I type for efficiency and speed; if you can't bear to see a typo in one out of every thousand words or so you shouldn't even participate in the site.

As any passably intelligent person would, since you said:

"He set a record for jobs growth from '01 to '07."

Admittedly, I didn't specify that it wasn't total number of jobs - it was 'consecutive months of positive job growth.'

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Then you should have said that. Big difference, but apparently you don't know that. Or you're being purposely deceptive again. At any rate, it's a meaningless statistic. Nobody cares.[/FONT]

I did not say that he set all records for all measures of job growth. I agree that Clinton added more total jobs. But he had the benefit/tailwind of the information/technology age behind him.

Not to any legitimate economist or any passably intelligent person. Especially when you compare Clinton's all-time record of creating 23+ million jobs in eight years vs. Bush's 3 million in the same period. To further illustrate this point:

"As can be seen, there were 52 consecutive months of job growth under Bush, from September 2003 to December 2007. However, Clinton missed having 86 months of consecutive job growth (from April 1993 to May 2000) by just three slight monthly declines of 16, 18, and 19 thousand jobs. And Reagan (combined with H.W. Bush) missed having 82 months of consecutive job growth (from September 1983 to June 1990) by just one monthly decline of 93 thousand jobs."

Let's see. Joe Dimaggio has the record for consecutive game hitting streak of 56. Now, is there an asterisk by his record that says *this really doesn't count because Pete Rose had a 44 game hitting streak, then when hitless for one game, and then had another 12 game hitting streak so it really would have been 57 games and would have broken the record if not for that one game.

A record is a record is a record.

Secondly - any legitimate economist or passably intelligent person - as you say - knows that Clinton didn't have a Goddamn thing to do with the New Economy and the explosive growth in the internet/technology age. So stop giving him absolute credit for 23 million jobs.:wink:

You can't use one set of principles on posting statistics for me - and excuse yourself from the same Goddamn principles.

Lastly, your font type is turning every thread that you participate in into a fucked up, jumbled, vomitfest of broken quotes and mutated fonts.

 

[Big Irish]

wow! 3 on 1 its like prison sex around this post. IMO every pres since Reagan has been a worthless pile. Between the fillandering, the corruption, the wars, and now a massive spender, who has no problem with the idea of firing up the mint's, and printing more cash which any econ101 student will tell you, causes the devaluation of our currency.

As far as healthcare goes, the dems had a super majority for 10 months, they could have pushed the nuclear option, and had healthcare. They, are afraid of what will happen when socialized medicine flops and they are held solely accountable. Now, with the election of Scott Brown, they have real resistance, but, they couls have done it.

I grew up in Holliston. MA. I was amazed he got elected, since they have healthcare, and he ran as the 41st vote against healthcare. But, given what my friends that still live there say, i'm not THAT surprised. They say its been awful, now this IS heresay. I haven't been back in ten years. However, my own current physician says he will be quitting if gov't healthcare (esp a single payer system), comes to be. My cousin Jacob is in his residency right now and being told to get a fall back plan together, by the MD-in-charge of his residency.

I would love someone to show me a country where socialized medicine works, actually prolongs life, and is financially sustainable. I have yet to see the gov't do much of anything correctly, because the people are no longer involved. We now elect over-educated idiots, many of whom have never had a job outside of gov't. How in fucking hell, can someone represent the people, if they have never been a part of them?! Are Harvard and Princeton educations really representative of the people? I don't begrudge anyones educational aspirations, but i have been re-educating degreed individuals for about the last decade. They have come to me through work and friendships. Many, thinking they were democrats and republicans when in reality they were mostly libertarian.

I bid u all good day, with this:"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Was that the first recession in U.S. history?

No, but it does fill in some of the gaps to your faulty logic.
Of course, when your only goal is to make it seem that Bush is better than Obama (or that conservatives are better than liberals), you'll throw a fuzzy figure like "52 months of job growth" without making one reference to some of the conditions our country was experiencing.

If it is so easy to string together 52 months of positive job growth after a recession, praytell why it hasn't happened after any of the other
46 recessions in U.S. history?

These are the kinds of comments that show just how really unintelligent you are.

Unlike many recessions of the past, we have now have a more sophisticated financial system that prevents our nation from not only collapsing entirely, but allows us to rebound quicker. We can also notice potential problems early and prevent others from happening, which also can explain how less frequent we've experienced recessions since the beginning. The link you listed supports all of these theories. Also, the Wikipedia article you linked to clearly states that the 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. That would be Clinton and not Bush. But I digress...

Since you want to bring Wiki to the table how about you look an an actual chart that monitors job growth by President? Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the sake of this argument, I'll give you your statement regarding Bush's 52 month streak of job growth.. Now please, explain why that growth (between two terms) was well below 1%?

Lastly, Obama inherited a recession and hasn't even been in office for more than 14 months. Keep that in mind when you try to spell out the fuzzy math about job growth under Obama being in the negative because I know that's coming next.

 

[houtx48]

"I know/acknowledge that Bush was a poor president also.".............roflaooooooooooooo

 

[B_starinvestor]

For the sake of this argument, I'll give you your statement regarding Bush's 52 month streak of job growth.. Now please, explain why that growth (between two terms) was well below 1%?

Because there were huge job losses in 2008, which brings the average way down.

Again, the context of my posting that statistic was because Maxcok/Crackpot suggested that all 8 years of Bush's administration were terrible.

If you are adding jobs for 52 straight months, things are not terrible. In fact, they are 'good.' Granted, everything collapsed in 2008. But it is ignorant and and grossly uninformed to suggest that all eight years were poor. I have some suspicions that Maxpot only moved here recently, perhaps within the last 2/3 years from likely a 3rd-world country with a fragmented or disassembled education system.

Lastly, Obama inherited a recession and hasn't even been in office for more than 14 months. Keep that in mind when you try to spell out the fuzzy math about job growth under Obama being in the negative because I know that's coming next.

You are correct - Obama inherited a terrible mess.

I agree with you on that.

 

[maxcok]

Aggravating. I am not able to download the spellcheck function on my laptop.

Neither have I, yet somehow I manage.

I did not say that he set all records for all measures of job growth.

No you didn't, nor was that the statement I was responding to. This latest revision of what you did or didn't say is entirely new - yet another transparent specious and dishonest attempt to confuse and recast the debate. Typical.

Here's what you said. Here's what I was responding to:

"He set a record for jobs growth from '01 to '07."

Then you said:

A record is a record is a record.

If you want to say so. However, as explained, some are just meaningless. To follow your irrelevant and distractive baseball analogy (which I have graciously deleted here) I suppose someone holds a record for the most tobaccy chawed. But really, who cares?

You can't use one set of principles on posting statistics for me - and excuse yourself from the same Goddamn principles.

I don't. However, you do this all the time. Again, as illustrated above. I wish you would follow your own advice. Truly. (And what's with the giant letters? Are you that frustrated? Please stop shouting.)

Because there were huge job losses in 2008, which brings the average way down.

If you look at the year to year job gains, Bush is not even in the same universe as Clinton, or most other modern presidents. Guess who comes closest in worst job creation and overall economic expansion? Daddy Bush, followed by Gerald Ford. Per year: Bush 375 thousand vs. Clinton 2.9 million! And who is ultimately responsible for the sudden if predictable collapse of the economy in 2008, and the loss of all those jobs, which you allege 'skews' his average, hmm?

"The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records."

The above statement comes from before he left office and the total collapse of the economy in 2008!

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Again, the context of my posting that statistic was because Maxcok/Crackpot suggested that all 8 years of Bush's administration were terrible.

Well I didn't, but since you brought it up, they were IMO, and in the opinion of many others. Clearly a blind NeoCon like you would think you were living in a utopia.

If you are adding jobs for 52 straight months, things are not terrible. In fact, they are 'good.'

Following your twisted logic, you could add 1O jobs a month for 52 months, which of course wouldn't begin to keep up with population growth and the number of new job seekers entering the workforce. However, you would still set a meaningless 'record', which is exactly what Bush did. By any measure worth anything, there is no comparison between a Bush economy and a Clinton economy. Here are a whole bunch of useful yardsticks, try to learn something:

[URL="http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg"]http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg[/URL]

Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index

Granted, everything collapsed in 2008. But it is ignorant and and grossly uninformed to suggest that all eight years were poor. I have some suspicions that Maxpot only moved here recently, perhaps within the last 2/3 years from likely a 3rd-world country with a fragmented or disassembled education system.

It's these sorts of comments that completely discredit you and show how utterly childish and ridiculous you are. Are you so threatened by reality intruding on your stubbornly maintained world of ignorance that you have to lash out like that?

You are correct - Obama inherited a terrible mess.

I agree with you on that.

I'm glad you're at least able to recognize that. How about you give him some time and support to clean it up. Let's not forget that without his initiatives and leadership we would all be a hell of a lot worse off at the moment.

If you can't support him, how about you and your friends stop griping and sniping and opposing every positive thing he attempts? How about you stop trying to pull him and the rest of the country down, before we end up in really deep shit.

The difference between someone like me and someone like you is this, starpoop: I seek out a variety of reliable, sometimes conflicting information sources in order to arrive at an educated understanding and opinion. You on the other hand, have a predetermined opinion and try to dig up whatever 'evidence' you can - however flimsy, biased or absurd it is - to support your inflexible position. It is a fool's game, you are therefore an utter fool. You are also a liar and a hypocrite. We differ on that too.

p.s. Lastly, your font type is turning every thread that you participate in into a fucked up, jumbled, vomitfest of broken quotes and mutated fonts.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we have exactly the same font - Verdana, the default font. Whereas yours is sometimes bolded, sometimes not, mine is always bolded, which makes it easier for me to read. I've taken the liberty here of bolding all your text to make it easier to follow the debate, and for consistency. I imagine you are a big fan of consistency. My font is also more colorful, as befits me. It is unfortunate you find it such a challenge to work with. I don't, and as everyone here knows, I am cyber challenged. Now please, give it a rest, oh 'Arbiter of Graphic Presentation'.

 

[midlifebear]

Aggravating. I am not able to download the spellcheck function on my laptop.

If you had paid attention in school, you wouldn't have to depend upon a spell-checker. But that would have required a personal commitment to the integrity of studying beyond what was presented in the Cliff Notes you used to keep up in class.

Again, two words: Community College. :smile: