4.2% growth in 2nd quarter - thank you Mr. Obama

jman1 wrote:

Joe Doakes wrote:

One area of growth!

When Obama entered office in Jan. 2009, 31.9 million individuals received food stamp benefits.

As of Mar. 2014 (the latest available data reported by the Department of Agriculture), 46,097,719 people received food stamps.

That's arguably a sign of a healthy national economy.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement. How does an increase in the amount of people who are so poor that they have to take government assistance in order to even feed themselves a sign of a healthy national economy?

Okay then, how about an America where 86 million full-time private sector workers sustain 148 million benefit takers?

Check out the figures in the Census Bureau.

We will be like the old USSR soon at this rate.

This is a great post and spot on.

Many presidents have big ideas of how they will do things when they get into office, but in the end end up governing more or less the same from political pressure and a million other things outside of their control. Sure, Obama probably doesn't support such rampant military spending (I certainly don't either, I support cutting the military budget anywhere possible), but there are a lot of things that come into play in politics.

If your party holds both the senate and the house, there is no question that's better than holding the presidency. The president can't do anything he wants if that's the case (assuming the president is a different party of course.) holding the office of president is, in some ways, overblown and made to look more important than it is.

And to respond to a post earlier in this thread where someone was claiming that people "smiled more" and were more welcoming to Americans abroad under Obama than under bush....if that's the case, then whoever those people are were bust bigoted to start with. If someone can't see the difference between a government and its actions compared to its lay people and citizen, and punishes it's citizens for the bad ideas of its government, those aren't the kind of people you want as your friend anyways.

marcar19 wrote:

jman1 wrote:

That's arguably a sign of a healthy national economy.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement. How does an increase in the amount of people who are so poor that they have to take government assistance in order to even feed themselves a sign of a healthy national economy?

I don't know what jman1 meant either but I have some points. Just because people take food stamps doesn't mean they NEED them. Plenty get food stamps just because they can. I think the big rise in food stamps is because it's become more socially acceptable. There's less of a stigma.

ouoiunj wrote:

The U.S. is significantly better off than it was when Obama took office, but few people care. Since 2010, the company I work at, has posted record profits each year. Still, everyone bitches about the economic path the country is currently on.

The deficit is down and, economically, I think Obama had done as good a job as can be expected considering what he walked into and the opposition he's encountered during his presidency.

I agree the country is better off now than it was in 2008 or 2010. Perhaps I'm naive, but I have not been affected by the recession at all. I've easily found jobs every time I needed one since 2008. But I also actually have a triple digit IQ and am skilled beyond scrubbing toilets, so maybe that's it?

agreed wrote:

what do you expect with the GOP poised to take congress and Obama almost gone.

He's ~19 months into a 48-month term. Using what version of arithmetic is ~40% "almost gone"?

Umm...which one's?

Umm...never mind.

Most people know that, but the poster you were responding to was clearly countering the oft-referred to "Obama reduced the deficit" BS from the Left.You couldn't figure that out?

Hellooooo? wrote:

whoamanwhoa wrote:

Wow. So uninformed. You do know that Obama's BEST deficit year is still slated to be worse than Bush's 2nd-worst deficit year, right? That's not something to be proud of.

You do know that Congress controls the purse strings, right?

Did the Fed pump over $1T into the economy while Bush was in office? No. Would that have helped him- or any president- at any time in history? Of course. But that's a ridiculous idea, right?The unemployment rate under Bush was very low for Most of his presidency.Obama has significantly higher averages than Bush in the following stats:1) unemployment rate2) people on food stamps3) gas pricesWhat were we talking about again?

jman1 wrote:

Joe Doakes wrote:

One area of growth!

When Obama entered office in Jan. 2009, 31.9 million individuals received food stamp benefits.

As of Mar. 2014 (the latest available data reported by the Department of Agriculture), 46,097,719 people received food stamps.

That's arguably a sign of a healthy national economy.

In what fantasy world do live in? Higher foodstamp usage is a sign of a healthy national economy. Lol. Stupid libtard

libtard! YES! u win!!!!

I'm not an Obama fan, but the president has little to no control over gas prices. It's unfortunate the left only recognized this now and not in 2006 though. In any event, high gas prices are not Obama's fault. Gas prices are controlled mostly by much larger forces at play, as well as political stability in the Middle East, and other global supply/demand factors.

anapaix -

how about an explanation of why you are an anarchist. You are a smart guy - I'm curious about why and how you chose that to be your ethos.