Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28174 Dec 6, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many people who say that Clinton's policies, if left in place, would have left the country in terrible financial shape. I say give the man his props because we will never know what would have happened so we can't go "hypothetical". Clinton left the country in much better financial shape than it was handed to him and he deserves credit for it. I'm not sure if I would want the Clinton of today back in office but I would take him any day over Obama.
If you look at the last two years of Clinton's term you will see the tide was turning. We had a bubble economy when he was in office, the stock market grew but the companies weren't producing, much like today. Home values rose for no reason giving people equity that they didn't really have but borrowed against anyway. Clinton was as lucky as Carter was unlucky. I made good money off the markets during the Clinton years, same as I am doing with Obama, it isn't good for the country but I am up over thirty percent this year. If I didn't care about my grandchildren I would want this merry go round to continue.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#28176 Dec 6, 2013
Pondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look at the last two years of Clinton's term you will see the tide was turning. We had a bubble economy when he was in office, the stock market grew but the companies weren't producing, much like today. Home values rose for no reason giving people equity that they didn't really have but borrowed against anyway. Clinton was as lucky as Carter was unlucky. I made good money off the markets during the Clinton years, same as I am doing with Obama, it isn't good for the country but I am up over thirty percent this year. If I didn't care about my grandchildren I would want this merry go round to continue.
Make no mistake, I completely agree with you. I'm just saying that if you take a snapshot of the economy when Clinton left office, it was healthy. Since he left office and didn't have any input on what happened thereafter , a snapshot is all we have and everything else is speculation. Having said that, the same goes for Barack Obama. The economy was what it was when Bush II left office and was and is Obama's pony from that point on. I'm just sorry that Obama is riding that pony into the ground. There may not be a pony to ride when Obama leaves office....IF he leaves office.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#28177 Dec 6, 2013
Looks as though the unemployment numbers are doing the same thing they did the month before the 2012 elections. The unemployment rate stands @ 7.0% today. BUT, the math doesn't add up. 125K people enter the workforce each month. The previous potential workforce was 157 million with an unemployment rate of 7.2% or 11.3 million. For the unemployment to drop to 7% there would have had to been 310K people get jobs. Add the 125K that entered the workforce and the number of unemployed falls to 301K for the unemployment rate to be 7%. That's a far cry from 200K jobs that were claimed to be added. So either this data is a lie or it's true but 101K more people quit looking for work and weren't counted.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28178 Dec 6, 2013
Pondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking to Barney, I am not jealous just trying to stomp out stupidity.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
See, I can cut and paste also
MY, my, would you look at this.

A cut and paste, now where is that originality you are always complaining about.

Is this your idea of "stomping out stupidity", doing the same thing as the one you are ridiculing, and brag about it?

It is hard to follow what I presume you are calling logic.

Your last post along with many of your others, leads me to believe you are obviously not smart enough to know "stupidity". SAD

That is the only plausible conclusion I can reach to explain that sophomoric response.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28179 Dec 6, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
Looks as though the unemployment numbers are doing the same thing they did the month before the 2012 elections. The unemployment rate stands @ 7.0% today. BUT, the math doesn't add up. 125K people enter the workforce each month. The previous potential workforce was 157 million with an unemployment rate of 7.2% or 11.3 million. For the unemployment to drop to 7% there would have had to been 310K people get jobs. Add the 125K that entered the workforce and the number of unemployed falls to 301K for the unemployment rate to be 7%. That's a far cry from 200K jobs that were claimed to be added. So either this data is a lie or it's true but 101K more people quit looking for work and weren't counted.
Well here you go again, first of all the U/E rate was 7.3% not "7.2", and payroll employment increases (+203,000).

Now there is very one important factor you left out of your calculation's.

People leave the workforce daily, you seem to have left them out.

Starting in 2011, about 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old everyday. About 60% of them are expected to retire - that is, about 6,000 per day.

How about mortality- Of all causes aprox. 6,762 people die each day in the U.S., think maybe some of those were still employed.

You can throw in the injured and the sick too.

We would have one Hell of UE rate if were not for attrition don't you think?
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28180 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
MY, my, would you look at this.
A cut and paste, now where is that originality you are always complaining about.
Is this your idea of "stomping out stupidity", doing the same thing as the one you are ridiculing, and brag about it?
It is hard to follow what I presume you are calling logic.
Your last post along with many of your others, leads me to believe you are obviously not smart enough to know "stupidity". SAD
That is the only plausible conclusion I can reach to explain that sophomoric response.
A pseudo intellectual and a liberal, isn't that precious. We're just lucky that you will never be in a position to actually make a difference, ain't life good?
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28181 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Well here you go again, first of all the U/E rate was 7.3% not "7.2", and payroll employment increases (+203,000).
Now there is very one important factor you left out of your calculation's.
People leave the workforce daily, you seem to have left them out.
Starting in 2011, about 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old everyday. About 60% of them are expected to retire - that is, about 6,000 per day.
How about mortality- Of all causes aprox. 6,762 people die each day in the U.S., think maybe some of those were still employed.
You can throw in the injured and the sick too.
We would have one Hell of UE rate if were not for attrition don't you think?
There is a major increase in November every year, it goes away the last week of December. Based on your above calculations, 6,000 retiring and 6,782 dying, there should be almost 385,000 job openings each month just from attrition, any less jobs there are no jobs being created. Thank you for pointing out that they are not creating any new jobs just replacing a few of the dead and dying.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28182 Dec 6, 2013
Pondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a major increase in November every year, it goes away the last week of December. Based on your above calculations, 6,000 retiring and 6,782 dying, there should be almost 385,000 job openings each month just from attrition, any less jobs there are no jobs being created. Thank you for pointing out that they are not creating any new jobs just replacing a few of the dead and dying.
With this line of BULL Shit sure would give someone the idea that you and R.C. are the same person.

Man I can only hope that you are, scary to think there is two of you out there that are profoundly ignorant pathological liars on the loose as you.

Now let's look back at UE rate the last quarter of 2012.

The U.S. Department of Labor released the final employment situation summary of 2012 this morning and the December unemployment rate came in at 7.8 percent. This was unchanged from the revised November 2012 figure.

This figure remained below the 8 percent level for the last four months of 2012.

While I am at it I will debunk another one of your whoppers.

"stock market grew but the companies weren't producing, much like today"

Annual gross domestic product -- the market value of all goods and services produced --

GDP during Clinton's terms grew from $8.5 trillion in 1993 to $11.2 trillion in 2000. The $2.7 trillion increase was by far the largest expansion of the American economy since World War II."
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#28183 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
With this line of BULL Shit sure would give someone the idea that you and R.C. are the same person.
Man I can only hope that you are, scary to think there is two of you out there that are profoundly ignorant pathological liars on the loose as you.
Now let's look back at UE rate the last quarter of 2012.
The U.S. Department of Labor released the final employment situation summary of 2012 this morning and the December unemployment rate came in at 7.8 percent. This was unchanged from the revised November 2012 figure.
This figure remained below the 8 percent level for the last four months of 2012.
While I am at it I will debunk another one of your whoppers.
"stock market grew but the companies weren't producing, much like today"
Annual gross domestic product -- the market value of all goods and services produced --
GDP during Clinton's terms grew from $8.5 trillion in 1993 to $11.2 trillion in 2000. The $2.7 trillion increase was by far the largest expansion of the American economy since World War II."
Hey, don't go projecting your tactics of using multiple monikers on me. I only have one. Don't blame the common practice of lying that progressive liberals use on me either. It was the liberals who said lying was good for you. What normal person thinks that way? BTW with the way the Obama administration is manipulating the unemployment numbers, I wouldn't use that as something to strengthen my argument. They have already admitted to making up people and jobs for those residents that couldn't be reached by the Census bureau prior to the 2012 elections.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-201...

Remember that? Since it was a lie, it should make you proud to be a liberal. That's how your side sees it right?
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28184 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
With this line of BULL Shit sure would give someone the idea that you and R.C. are the same person.
Man I can only hope that you are, scary to think there is two of you out there that are profoundly ignorant pathological liars on the loose as you.
Now let's look back at UE rate the last quarter of 2012.
The U.S. Department of Labor released the final employment situation summary of 2012 this morning and the December unemployment rate came in at 7.8 percent. This was unchanged from the revised November 2012 figure.
This figure remained below the 8 percent level for the last four months of 2012.
While I am at it I will debunk another one of your whoppers.
"stock market grew but the companies weren't producing, much like today"
Annual gross domestic product -- the market value of all goods and services produced --
GDP during Clinton's terms grew from $8.5 trillion in 1993 to $11.2 trillion in 2000. The $2.7 trillion increase was by far the largest expansion of the American economy since World War II."
You were proud of an 8% unemployment rate? You were the one that stated that there are 385k less people for the work force each month. I agree out that you can prove anything with statistics and you still complain. I bet you can't even get along with your life partner. I have already stated that I did well under the Clinton era, been doing good this year under Obama, I just hate that my grandchildren are going to pay for all this prosperity. And I hope that your employer is forced to give you $ 15 an hour, heck, you almost finished high school, you deserve it..
stress management

Manassas, VA

#28185 Dec 6, 2013
STRESS MANAGEMENT:

In case you are having a rough day, here's a stress management technique recommended in all the latest psychological journals.
The funny thing is that it really does work and will make you smile.

1. Picture yourself lying on your belly on a warm rock that hangs out over a crystal clear pond.
2. Picture yourself with both your hands dangling in the cool water.
3. Birds are sweetly singing in the cool mountain air.
4. No one knows your secret place.
5. You are in total seclusion from that hectic place called the world.
6. The soothing sound of a gentle waterfall fills the air with a cascade of serenity.
7. The water is so clear that you can make out the face of the Congressman you are holding underwater.

See, it worked. You feel better already.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28186 Dec 6, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, don't go projecting your tactics of using multiple monikers on me. I only have one. Don't blame the common practice of lying that progressive liberals use on me either. It was the liberals who said lying was good for you. What normal person thinks that way? BTW with the way the Obama administration is manipulating the unemployment numbers, I wouldn't use that as something to strengthen my argument. They have already admitted to making up people and jobs for those residents that couldn't be reached by the Census bureau prior to the 2012 elections.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-201...
Remember that? Since it was a lie, it should make you proud to be a liberal. That's how your side sees it right?
You sure are getting your nose bent out of shape over a post that was directed at Ponder.

Why is that?
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28187 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure are getting your nose bent out of shape over a post that was directed at Ponder.
Why is that?
Because you accused me of being him, does the kid that does your typing read to you what he posts? Are you actually gainfully employed? Hard to believe that fast food would need help bad enough to hire you. You be careful trying to get home.
Please moron

Mountain Home, AR

#28188 Dec 6, 2013
Pondering wrote:
<quoted text>Because you accused me of being him, does the kid that does your typing read to you what he posts? Are you actually gainfully employed? Hard to believe that fast food would need help bad enough to hire you. You be careful trying to get home.
. WTF you two queers take turns answering for the other. You're busted fool. Lmfao
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28189 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Well here you go again, first of all the U/E rate was 7.3% not "7.2", and payroll employment increases (+203,000).
Now there is very one important factor you left out of your calculation's.
People leave the workforce daily, you seem to have left them out.
Starting in 2011, about 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old everyday. About 60% of them are expected to retire - that is, about 6,000 per day.
How about mortality- Of all causes aprox. 6,762 people die each day in the U.S., think maybe some of those were still employed.
You can throw in the injured and the sick too.
We would have one Hell of UE rate if were not for attrition don't you think?
Given the 7.3% correction, the number of newly employed would have to equal 472000 to make the rate go down to 7%. You had it easier my way. Do you think all 10000 people turning 65 each day are retiring? I don't think so. With Obama at the helm people are having to work more just to make ends meet. As for death, how many were before working age which under Obama is much older due to no jobs coming out of college or children not leaving home until lets say 26? You forgot those in the workforce that were abducted by aliens. Your simply grasping for straws.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28190 Dec 6, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure are getting your nose bent out of shape over a post that was directed at Ponder.
Why is that?
As much as you wish I would get mad, I don't. I certainly don't get mad at posts directed at someone else.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28191 Dec 7, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the 7.3% correction, the number of newly employed would have to equal 472000 to make the rate go down to 7%. You had it easier my way. Do you think all 10000 people turning 65 each day are retiring? I don't think so. With Obama at the helm people are having to work more just to make ends meet. As for death, how many were before working age which under Obama is much older due to no jobs coming out of college or children not leaving home until lets say 26? You forgot those in the workforce that were abducted by aliens. Your simply grasping for straws.
Oh-boy, you are putting that lack of comprehension on full display today.

No I don't think all "10000 people turning 65 each day are retiring" , I do find it quite plausible that 6,000 do, just as it said. READ IT AGAIN

Hell yes, people are having to work more just to make ends meet, while corporate profits sore.

That is just living proof that trickle down economics does not work for the working man.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#28192 Dec 7, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you wish I would get mad, I don't. I certainly don't get mad at posts directed at someone else.
"Hey, don't go projecting your tactics of using multiple monikers on me. I only have one. Don't blame the common practice of lying that progressive liberals use on me"

Either you did, or you are the poster named PONDER.

Either way you are lying, that's okay Im use to it.
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28193 Dec 7, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hey, don't go projecting your tactics of using multiple monikers on me. I only have one. Don't blame the common practice of lying that progressive liberals use on me"
Either you did, or you are the poster named PONDER.
Either way you are lying, that's okay Im use to it.
You need to speak with Pleasemoro because he is answering posts addressed to you as if they were addressed to him. And I am my own person, don't need Reality Check, or Obama or Nancy Pelowi or Harry Reid to speak for me. You should try the one original thought thing yourself.
Pondering

Jonesboro, AR

#28194 Dec 7, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh-boy, you are putting that lack of comprehension on full display today.
No I don't think all "10000 people turning 65 each day are retiring" , I do find it quite plausible that 6,000 do, just as it said. READ IT AGAIN
Hell yes, people are having to work more just to make ends meet, while corporate profits sore.
That is just living proof that trickle down economics does not work for the working man.
Since you can't make up your mind on these things, will you at least agree that the dead people are leaving the work force? I am not saying that they are leaving the voter rolls in democratic states but you have to agree that they are leaving the work force. I forgot about unions, they might still be drawing a check and therefore employed by Obama standards.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
is peco still hiring? 5 hr Jack 23
Anita Pickett 6 hr Guest 1
Peco 16 hr Whacky tabacy 18
John Simkins (Mar '15) Wed Samantha garrett 38
Jennie oden Tue One Who Knows 2
well drillers Jun 27 Guest 9
mclaughlin (Oct '14) Jun 27 Mobb186 8

Pocahontas Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pocahontas Mortgages