Total US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

You have to begin by the fact that he entered office with a surplus.

So then he was the start of the decline of America. Thanks for the info. There's nothing like a conservative spending like a nutjob when he was voted in to not do that. I guess he lied.
 
Nah . . . you're not a ''meanie'' at all , you are a loud mouth tho. What i said was i'd like to see someone write something meaningfull about Loyek's post. You got touched when your post was classed as'' kitchen table economics''.(not by me) So get over that will you.

As for Lucrum, he was one of the dumbest mofo to ever surf this website even being reduced to posting cartoons, and you resorting to juvenile ''dbgarland'' tactics says a lot about how you really think.

Yes, could you never referred to Lucrum as anything other than "Lucrum", right? So you can take your tactics being juvenile horseshit and shove it where the sun don't shine, boy.

I wasn't "touched" when you say my post was "classed" as kitchen table economics. What I asked you to do was show the fault in the post, and just like the last time on the inflation thread, you were unable to do so and opted out of the discussion, instead trying to turn the topic to me being "a loud mouth". Loud mouth on an internet forum - oook.

Don't step in it if you don't want to deal with it. Lesson learned for you, hopefully. But I doubt it.
 
So then he was the start of the decline of America. Thanks for the info. There's nothing like a conservative spending like a nutjob when he was voted in to not do that. I guess he lied.

Ah, it's Bush's fault. It's actually been a while since I've heard that. Thanks for the refresher.

Bush was horrible, no doubt. Obama continued the slide and was an even bigger disaster. The difference is that conservatives will admit Bush was a disaster (most, anyway), while liberals like yourself will continue to try to shift blame.
 
Yes, could you never referred to Lucrum as anything other than "Lucrum", right? So you can take your tactics being juvenile horseshit and shove it where the sun don't shine, boy.

I wasn't "touched" when you say my post was "classed" as kitchen table economics. What I asked you to do was show the fault in the post, and just like the last time on the inflation thread, you were unable to do so and opted out of the discussion, instead trying to turn the topic to me being "a loud mouth". Loud mouth on an internet forum - oook.

Don't step in it if you don't want to deal with it. Lesson learned for you, hopefully. But I doubt it.
You still don't get it , do you!
as in the inflation thread i asked you to show me where did i say you were wrong, you couldn't,
and for the third time(hopefully last) i'm not saying you're wrong. You go on a whah whah whah about all Obama's promises and no one is disputing that, but

The most important question in Loyek's post was ''Where was Congress during all of this and why didn't they reign him in''
which you didn't address.
 
You still don't get it , do you!
as in the inflation thread i asked you to show me where did i say you were wrong, you couldn't,
and for the third time(hopefully last) i'm not saying you're wrong. You go on a whah whah whah about all Obama's promises and no one is disputing that, but

The most important question in Loyek's post was ''Where was Congress during all of this and why didn't they reign him in''
which you didn't address.

I get it fine, dopey. You call people out and then scurry away when they try to engage you. It's really quite simple. You called my post out for being "kitchen table economics". I ask you to tell me why, and the back peddling proceeds from there. You hide behind semantics. "This is what you said , which i considered a stupid statement. show me where i said you were ''wrong''".

That's from the inflation thread, dude. You never did show me what was "stupid" about it.

You then say "promise you won't get angry?". But then run off and never tell me what was stupid, or where I "went off the tracks" (your words, again).
 
Ah, it's Bush's fault. It's actually been a while since I've heard that. Thanks for the refresher.

Bush was horrible, no doubt. Obama continued the slide and was an even bigger disaster. The difference is that conservatives will admit Bush was a disaster (most, anyway), while liberals like yourself will continue to try to shift blame.

Ha ha. Got ya. I'm not a liberal. Have a nice day. :eek:
 
Good Job Mr President:

U.S. Adds 321,000 Jobs In November; Unemployment Rate Remains At 5.8%



WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. employers added a whopping 321,000 jobs in November, the biggest burst of hiring in nearly three years and the latest sign that the United States is outperforming other economies throughout the developed world.

The Labor Department also said Friday that 44,000 more jobs were added in September and October combined than the government had previously estimated. Job gains have averaged 241,000 a month this year, putting 2014 on track to be the strongest year for hiring since 1999.

The unemployment rate remained at a six-year low of 5.8 percent last month.

The robust job gains come after the economy expanded from April through September at its fastest pace in 11 years. The additional jobs should support steady growth in coming months.

Average hourly wages rose 9 cents to $24.66 last month, the biggest gain in 17 months. Yet in the past 12 months, hourly pay is up just 2.1 percent, barely ahead of the 1.7 percent inflation rate.

The U.S. economy added 321,000 jobs in November, as the unemployment rate remained at 5.8 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/november-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_6271366.html
 
In a shout out to Spike, who gave Obama kudos for adding 321k jobs in November of 2014 with an Unemployment Rate of 5.8%, I'm sure that he just forgot to give Trump kudos for having an unemployment rate of 4.3%. Good job, Mr. President! Right Spike? I'm sure it was just an omission on your part.
 
Back
Top