It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HumansBeing
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
So, according to your line of thinking the President should have been able to bring the entire US economy back to early 2000's standards in only 3 years. Because there was a clear path for that to happen? Please... he was handed a country that was recently raped by George W Bush and has done the best he could with what he was given. Not to mention one of the worst do-nothing congresses we have ever seen. The Right lead house has admitted to blocking anything and everything they can that would have given him any kind of victory.
Its just a game, being played at our expense...
No... Obama couldn't bring us back to the days of Clinton's roaring economy in just 3 years. No way. Given the mess Obama did, by rights, inherit....I'd have called him a success if he could have simply kept things from getting WORSE..and perhaps a slow but steady curve upward in more than JUST the Stock Market.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by xuenchen
The fake Dept of Labor numbers are tainted and controlled.
The real time numbers are never published.
So I guess you just make up your own numbers....huh???
I can't have a conversation with someone who openly admits they deny facts.
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate—which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed—receive wide coverage in the media.
Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities....
There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)
Okay... for some reason I always seem to get into the BEST debates with the clock mocking my time left to run out the door for night school. I offered you facts..and the numbers I gave are literal and direct from a U.S. Federal Agency under the direct authority of the Man we're all talking about. If the numbers showing Unemployment to be *WORSE* under Obama in pure, literal numbers can't be trusted then I say..Look to the Source. The President runs the Dept of Labor. The facts are his and the baby, after the 3yrs, is 100% his. It's far past where blaming Bush was even cute.
Taxes and Oil are areas I feel are so incredibly self-evident to the problems with it's just leaving me truly baffled that you're on the side of saying Obama has been a GOOD President, as these things go, on THOSE issues.
Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Extremely weak retort.
But heck, at least we both agree it is hypocrisy at its best.