Democrats SUCK!!

[Palehorse]

Did I really say that? 

"Better living through chemistry". 

[me]

If you say so.....

[me]

This is funny and not intended to be a political statement in any way.

https://www.youtube.com/v/mCYB5FnRa-0&feature=youtu.be

[me]

And Obama's letting more and more Muslims into our country. This is what they want and they aren't the radicals.
https://www.youtube.com/v/KaVXXQsAOjM

[me]

Barack Obama Will Be The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Jul 30, 2016 2:25 PM
18.2K
SHARES
TwitterFacebookReddit
Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

We just got another extremely disappointing GDP number.  It was being projected that U.S. GDP would grow by 2.5 percent during the second quarter of 2016, but instead it only grew by just 1.2 percent.  In addition, the Census Bureau announced that GDP growth for the first quarter of 2016 had been revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.  What this means is that the U.S. economy is just barely hanging on by its fingernails from falling into a recession.   As Zero Hedge has pointed out, the "average annual growth rate during the current business cycle remains the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949″.  This is not what a recovery looks like.

In addition, Barack Obama remains solidly on track to be the only president in all of U.S. history to never have a single year when the economy grew by at least 3 percent.  Every other president in American history, even the really bad ones, had at least one year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent.  But this has not happened under Obama even though he has had two terms in the White House.



The following are the yearly GDP growth numbers under Obama.  They come directly from the official website of the World Bank...

2009: -2.8 percent

2010: 2.5 percent

2011: 1.6 percent

2012: 2.2 percent

2013: 1.5 percent

2014: 2.4 percent

2015: 2.4 percent

Does that look like a "recovery" to you?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/barack-obama-will-be-only-president-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth

[AbbyTC]

http://politicsthatwork.com/economic-record-president/obama

Me, make sure you read all of it, and don't look only at the graphs.  Gives a bit of a different story.  Here's part of it:  "t is also important to put the economic performance in global context. During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth has beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries by the widest margin of any president since World War II."

I'm curious.  Do you actually look things up, or read one source and if it fits what you want it to say, accept it?  And do you check the sources?  Like are the sources that agree to what you are looking at all whacked out conservative without any neutral sources reporting the same thing?  I see this kind of shit all over FB from my friends' postings.  They post something from a whacked out conservative or liberal site, and the only other sites posting the same thing are more whacked out conservative or liberal. 

[me]

http://politicsthatwork.com/economic-record-president/obama

Me, make sure you read all of it, and don't look only at the graphs.  Gives a bit of a different story.  Here's part of it:  "t is also important to put the economic performance in global context. During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth has beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries by the widest margin of any president since World War II."

I'm curious.  Do you actually look things up, or read one source and if it fits what you want it to say, accept it?  And do you check the sources?  Like are the sources that agree to what you are looking at all whacked out conservative without any neutral sources reporting the same thing?  I see this kind of shit all over FB from my friends' postings.  They post something from a whacked out conservative or liberal site, and the only other sites posting the same thing are more whacked out conservative or liberal.

They are talking about here only not other NATO countries which have nothing to do with us, we have no control over that.  Spinning it doesn't change the facts here. Yes, our GDP growth may be better than some other countries but that doesn't make it good and still means our economy hasn't grown.

[Exterminator]

I'm curious.  Do you actually look things up, or read one source and if it fits what you want it to say, accept it?  And do you check the sources?  Like are the sources that agree to what you are looking at all whacked out conservative without any neutral sources reporting the same thing?  I see this kind of shit all over FB from my friends' postings.  They post something from a whacked out conservative or liberal site, and the only other sites posting the same thing are more whacked out conservative or liberal.

Is this a rhetorical question?   

[Exterminator]

They are talking about here only not other NATO countries which have nothing to do with us, we have no control over that.  Spinning it doesn't change the facts here. Yes, our GDP growth may be better than some other countries but that doesn't make it good and still means our economy hasn't grown.

And this is why I refused to enter this discussion.  As expected, you are completely out of your depth.   

[me]

And this is why I refused to enter this discussion.  As expected, you are completely out of your depth.   

No, you are looking for ways to ignore the truth.

[Exterminator]

No, you are looking for ways to ignore the truth.

Here we go with your delusions of profound insight again.   

[me]

http://politicsthatwork for Obama's sheeples.com/economic-record-president/obama

Me, make sure you read all of it, and don't look only at the graphs.  Gives a bit of a different story.  Here's part of it:  "t is also important to put the economic performance in global context. During President Obama's presidency, the United States' GDP growth has beat the GDP growth of the other original NATO member countries by the widest margin of any president since World War II."

I'm curious.  Do you actually look things up, or read one source and if it fits what you want it to say, accept it?  And do you check the sources?  Like are the sources that agree to what you are looking at all whacked out conservative without any neutral sources reporting the same thing?  I see this kind of shit all over FB from my friends' postings.  They post something from a whacked out conservative or liberal site, and the only other sites posting the same thing are more whacked out conservative or liberal.

[AbbyTC]

Is this a rhetorical question?   

I guess it was!     

[AbbyTC]

They are talking about here only not other NATO countries which have nothing to do with us, we have no control over that.  Spinning it doesn't change the facts here. Yes, our GDP growth may be better than some other countries but that doesn't make it good and still means our economy hasn't grown.

Obviously you didn't read anything beside the graphs.  Too many words for you?   

From the site:  "The other original NATO member countries are used as a benchmark because they have had relatively similar economic status to the United States during the entire period examined.

The U.S. economy has grown faster than the other original NATO members by a wider margin under President Obama than any other president in modern history."

[me]

Obviously you didn't read anything beside the graphs.  Too many words for you?   

From the site:  "The other original NATO member countries are used as a benchmark because they have had relatively similar economic status to the United States during the entire period examined.

The U.S. economy has grown faster than the other original NATO members by a wider margin under President Obama than any other president in modern history."

I don't give a rats ass about the other NATO members that has nothing to do with us period. That may make him more succesful than other NATO members but has nothing to do with his handling of our economy.