You got your posts mixed up, dopey. Go back and see where you are claiming I get mad at "facts". It's the chart post of yours, which I answered with facts. You have yet to dispute them. Pirates wasn't even in the post. And if I sound like I'm getting pissed, it's because I've explained the unemployment thing to you about a half dozen times thus far and you've yet to offer a counter (because you can't). Like Ricter, you just keep spewing the false data and it's flawed implications.
Fact-We were losing 500,000+ jobs a month when Obama came into office,today we are not Fact-When the Obama took office the stock market was in free fall,today it is not and has been on the rise under Obama Fact -The people of Massachusetts love Obamacare .When it fully kicks in I'm sure the rest of the country will as well.Fact-All of our citizens having healthcare is a good thing
Fact-We've spent trillions to postpone the day of reckoning. The fact that we've gone thru 3 years of ZIRP and a promise for two more years of it and we've literally been "bouncing along the bottom" doesn't say much for your much heralded "recovery". Fact-U6 is upwards of 16 percent. Fact-Obama and his handlers have done nothing to actually "reform" the shadow banking system and reduce systemic risk. The concentration of risk is more acute now than it was in 2008.
Close to 20% according to this writer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html
While your statistic is accurate, it is so only in the spirit that statistics can lie, because you are using flawed statistics. Fact: Unemployment data published is not accurate because it uses a flawed model that is designed to under report unemployment. Hence, using that as a measure of success by the Obama administration (or ANY administration) is pure horseshit. Instead, use the labor utilization chart I provided which shows the number of people in the workforce (which you continue to ignore) as it is statistically sound, and consistent throughout time (never been altered in methodology). Again, there's no way that can be technically disputed. The market is indeed higher today than it was when Obama was elected. The misleading part comes in when you try to say that was Obama's doing - it was (is) not. You can no more thank the President for a stock market surge based on flooding the system with liquidity than you can thank someone betting on a horse to win when the jokey injects pure adrenaline into the horse right before the race. Additionally, the after effects of this poor management are equally neither the President's fault (when the economy crashes from it) or the bystander's fault (when the horse crashes after the race). Is it Obama's fault the S+P is currently down 25 points today? All of our citizens having $1,000,000 in their pocket is also a good thing. But that doesn't mean it should be the government who gives it to them, as the costs in doing so outweigh the benefits of having it happen. Your "facts" are nothing more than statistical lies, trumped up garbage and misleading statements. Fact.
let me ask you a question and your answer will denote whether you care about honesty, integrity and the truth... or not. ____________>>>> Is the stock market up significantly since Obama came into office??!! (not saying it's 'because' of him, but if you are going to"blame" him for the bad you gotta then have the integrity to "credit" him for the good)
Tsing Tao just answered this question. It's not "because of him", it's largely due to ZIRP and Bernanke's desire to get anyone and everyone into "risk assets". I've talked about my contempt for ZIRP is numerous other threads as it's contributed greatly to further instability in the banking sector and shadow banking system. And FWIW, if you are unable to see that this is a completely NON-PARTISAN problem, then you are the one with the problems here. After all, what good does a stock market rally do when our federal deficits have grown exponentially in the process, when the future of our currency is at stake and when we need the Federal Reserve to continue to monetize the debt and institute "quant easing" for years to come just to "keep the lights on"? I've said it before and I'll say it again. "How the stock market does" is a measurement designed for suckers. If one isn't concerned with the actual purchasing power of the currency that said stock market is denominated with, then it's fool's gold. Now, back to you. Instead of your "hit and run" approach to this debate, why don't you contribute something to the defense of Obama and his ties to Cook County corruption, his ties to the failures of Solyndra and his role in Operation Fast and Furious. Let's see how much "IQ" you have in your right hand.
Tsing let me ask you a question. What would you do if you had problems getting or could not get health care? What are your views on health care. How would they be different if you were not underwritten because of some B.S. exclusion(s) by the health care industry. Just curious