Has Obama Just Insured A 2nd Term?

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Do your own digging and present proof why these charts are flawed....you just sit back a criticize. Do the work FDX!

Someone else did the work for you. The unemployment chart is the main issue because it (the rate) has fluctuated up and down continuously. March of 2007 is undoubtedly the month that makes Bush look better by comparison. Same with the Unemployment to Population ratio. Gas prices have also fluctuated widely. The National Debt is fine. Ever take Stats?
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Someone else did the work for you. The unemployment chart is the main issue because it (the rate) has fluctuated up and down continuously. March of 2007 is undoubtedly the month that makes Bush look better by comparison. Same with the Unemployment to Population ratio. Gas prices have also fluctuated widely. The National Debt is fine. Ever take Stats?
Since you seem to object to the 2007 numbers and not to to the 2011 numbers, then you must agree that they are true .
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Since you seem to object to the 2007 numbers and not to to the 2011 numbers, then you must agree that they are true .

All I'm saying is that the graphs are a statistical misrepresentation. Why don't you show the entire time period, which would reflect the ups and downs? You chose the zenith of the Bush Presidency and then compared them to 2011 numbers. It doesn't fly.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
So, show us the right graphs.....

That's your job, because you presented them. Here, I'll go real s-l-o-w, so you get it, OK? Whoever produced these graphs did it with the intention of making Obama look as bad as possible. They don't show the whole picture, only a highly selective portion. That's called bad statistics.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
lol , you thunk O looks bad.
Welcome to reality , O is failing and those charts prove it.
And today the might O played his 64th game of golf, which again no cameras were allowed to film. Is he doing something on the back 9 he does not want anyone to see ?
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
lol , you thunk O looks bad.
Welcome to reality , O is failing and those charts prove it.
And today the might O played his 64th game of golf, which again no cameras were allowed to film. Is he doing something on the back 9 he does not want anyone to see ?

"Proof" with faulty data is nothing.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
I don't assume that driver is any less skilled than the owner of this:

http://image.internetautoguide.com/friend/auto-news/hybrid-car-driver-stereotypes-and-berkeley-hybrid-capital-of-california/17124652+w527+st0/hippy-liberal-bumper-stickers-on-hybrid.jpg
Add a Kerry Edwards bumper sticker , this car and many like it are seen daily in Cambridge, Mass.
 
That's your job, because you presented them. Here, I'll go real s-l-o-w, so you get it, OK? Whoever produced these graphs did it with the intention of making Obama look as bad as possible. They don't show the whole picture, only a highly selective portion. That's called bad statistics.

Wrong....they provided stats....you challenge those stats...it is your turn to provide alternative resources. That's how debates work.
 

klein

Für Meno :)

Wrong....they provided stats....you challenge those stats...it is your turn to provide alternative resources. That's how debates work.

What about this alternative ?
If it costs $800 billion per year just for the tax cuts for the rich, it must cost about 2 Trillion alltogether for those tax cuts to everyone. (2 yr period)
Add the medicaid part B to it, probably another Trillion or 2 in cost, and there ya go , it addes up to $6 Trillion.
Exactly the amount Obama overspent in 2 years
 

Nimnim

The Nim
What about this alternative ?
If it costs $800 billion per year just for the tax cuts for the rich, it must cost about 2 Trillion alltogether for those tax cuts to everyone. (2 yr period)
Add the medicaid part B to it, probably another Trillion or 2 in cost, and there ya go , it addes up to $6 Trillion.
Exactly the amount Obama overspent in 2 years

You know, I'm just ever going to understand how the government not taking money from people is an expenditure. It's not like the government is giving people this money, they're just taking less.
 
What about this alternative ?
If it costs $800 billion per year just for the tax cuts for the rich, it must cost about 2 Trillion alltogether for those tax cuts to everyone. (2 yr period)
Add the medicaid part B to it, probably another Trillion or 2 in cost, and there ya go , it addes up to $6 Trillion.
Exactly the amount Obama overspent in 2 years
How bout this alternative...if you quote me, address my post and not something only remotely related to my my post. My post had nothing to do with the debt, taxes or anything else you typed.
What you just did here is like quoting Moreluck's post
Villanova is in Philly......just so you know !!
and replying, " The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain"

Are you and FedEx communicating your special language in PMs?
 

klein

Für Meno :)
How bout this alternative...if you quote me, address my post and not something only remotely related to my my post. My post had nothing to do with the debt, taxes or anything else you typed.
What you just did here is like quoting Moreluck's post and replying, " The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain"

Are you and FedEx communicating your special language in PMs?

You asked about those stats... so I explained them, is that ok ?
They even have the extra $2 trillion per year in those stats that Bush spent since he implemented those tax cuts and medicaid part B.

Figures why you and Nimnim can't figure it out, why the government falls deeper into debt, when it receives less income (taxes), while expenses for the governemnet keeps going up (more people on medicare and SS, and within 18 years - by 2030, 60% of the current budget will be paid out to medicare/aid and SS alone - higher interest payments on the federal debt - the more you borrow - the more you pay on interest).

Fighting 2 1/4 wars don't help. They are not free !
No one wants to fight Healthcare costs that already take up more then 30% of GDP and let the private sectore continue to raise prices as they wish and desire.
With every raise in healthcare, there is a "cost" to the government, even in your paycheck ! The government gives you automatically deeper non-tax wage amounts with every raise in your healthcare plan.

Every American man, woman and child share of the soon to be $15 Trillion dollar federal debt is $50.000.
Now, that doesn't even include state or municipal debts, which probably double the above amount, esspecially in a state and city like LA, California.

And you still wonder why the government suffers, if they takes in less taxes ?

Simply put: The US Government and citizens lived too long off borrowed and "free" money for too long.
Now, it's time to pay up.
Just like Greece, UK, Ireland, and other parts of Europe are doing.
They don't reley on lowering taxes to pay off their debt.
Republicans still think it works.
Why didn't it work when Bush was Prez, and the unemployment was at record lows (3.9 - 4.5%) ????? And he still kept adding to the federal debt !
 
You asked about those stats... so I explained them, is that ok ?
No, I didn't ask you about those stats and I don't need you to explain anything to me. My post wasn't about those stats per se , it was about your friend showing the evidence to back up his his claim, not your claim but his claim. BTW, all you posted are numbers you've heard/read and then regurgitated, hardly proof of anything.
Sorry, got some mistakes above.... those darn "Flying Porn Monkees" - got to get rid of them soon, I hope !
Yea, you do have many mistakes ....maybe you should just stick to your flying porn monkees...whatever that is.
 
Top