created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,815 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)
Comments
23,321 - 23,340 of 28,956 Comments Last updated 9 min ago
Amen

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25147
Jun 1, 2013
 
Rick wrote:
Looks like Blanche Lincoln lives to fight another day. Did you vote in the June 8 election?
i did
abcdef

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25148
Jun 1, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
With a little luck it just might leave us with a well trained work force who can compete in a global economy.
yes

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25149
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

abcdef wrote:
<quoted text>yes
They taught you well. "Yes" is the response they expect from their sheeple.
Reality Check

North Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25150
Jun 1, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I will have to agree with you on part of this post, lets talk a little more about what you just wrote, let me explain why I agree with it.
As you said, the "country prospered" under President Clinton. By 1999 the amount of women in the work force had reached a all time high. At the beginning of 2004 that rate had dropped about 3% but it held steady from 04 till 08.
"what do ya know"
After almost eight years of a Republican administration,
in September 2008 a particularly sharp downward turn in the economy. AKA- The Great Recession, Lesser Depression, take your pick.
Yes, eight years of almost steady participation with only SLIGHT declines. Usher in Obama and it's like going off the side of a mountain. This is where you get your Great Recession, Lesser Depression. Or Obama simply could have mirrored Ronald Reagan and it would have been named the Great Recovery to Properity.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25151
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, eight years of almost steady participation with only SLIGHT declines. Usher in Obama and it's like going off the side of a mountain. This is where you get your Great Recession, Lesser Depression. Or Obama simply could have mirrored Ronald Reagan and it would have been named the Great Recovery to Properity.
"steady participation with only SLIGHT declines"

I thought steady and decline were two different actions.

"Usher in Obama and it's like going off the side of a mountain"

I do believe President Obama inherited an economy that had already been run off the side of a mountain. Would you care to look at the numbers of people lost their job the year prior to and the year President Bush lost his.

Would you care to discuss how many of those jobs lost have been replaced with new jobs?
Reality Check

North Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25152
Jun 1, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"steady participation with only SLIGHT declines"
I thought steady and decline were two different actions.
"Usher in Obama and it's like going off the side of a mountain"
I do believe President Obama inherited an economy that had already been run off the side of a mountain. Would you care to look at the numbers of people lost their job the year prior to and the year President Bush lost his.
Would you care to discuss how many of those jobs lost have been replaced with new jobs?
Would you care to discuss how the unemployment numbers aren't as good as liberals would have you to believe because the participation rate is so low? And yes, given this fact, I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs that were lost AND the wages associated with them. You won't be able to get around the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years, if ANY new jobs have been created that they are low wage jobs (58% compared to 27% mid-wage and 15% high wage), the fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama, more people are on government assistance than ever which doesn't signify a robust or even growing economy, and the one group that supports Obama as president has suffered the worst which is the black population. All of this rests on your leader's shoulders and not Bush's, or Congress, or the Republican party, or the Tea party, or anyone's or anything's shoulders. Just Obama. He promised he could fix America's problems and he hasn't. I would argue that he never intended to.
Reality Check

North Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25153
Jun 1, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"steady participation with only SLIGHT declines"
I thought steady and decline were two different actions.
No, going from 67% to 66% over 8 years is a steady participation with only slight declines. However, going from 66% to 63% in just over 5 years is going off the cliff. Especially since there is nothing to indicate things are getting better or will get better in the next 4 years. Things look like they will only get worse.
Reality Check

North Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25154
Jun 1, 2013
 
Correction. Just over 4 years which makes it even worse.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25155
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to discuss how the unemployment numbers aren't as good as liberals would have you to believe because the participation rate is so low? And yes, given this fact, I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs that were lost AND the wages associated with them. You won't be able to get around the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years, if ANY new jobs have been created that they are low wage jobs (58% compared to 27% mid-wage and 15% high wage), the fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama, more people are on government assistance than ever which doesn't signify a robust or even growing economy, and the one group that supports Obama as president has suffered the worst which is the black population. All of this rests on your leader's shoulders and not Bush's, or Congress, or the Republican party, or the Tea party, or anyone's or anything's shoulders. Just Obama. He promised he could fix America's problems and he hasn't. I would argue that he never intended to.
I would love to, thanks for asking.

First what Liberal told you that 7.5% unemployment, and I quote, is "GOOD" ? Regardless of the reason.

AND this-"I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs" good question BTW

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office.

Employment hit its low point in February 2010. But since then, about 4.8 million net new jobs have been created,


AND THIS:

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"


Have you lost your mind? In the carter years there was Aprox. 100 million in the work force and in Jan'81 7.5% of those were unemployed.

As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.

AND this;

"fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama"

NOT FACT, not even close.

Middle-class families lost an average of 40% net worth not disposable income. That was mostly in home value decreases due to the housing bust.

And/ G W Bush was the President who lowered the limit to get food stamps.

Last/ "Just Obama"

I assure you the Black peoples struggles with poverty began long before this President was even born.

Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25156
Jun 2, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to, thanks for asking.
First what Liberal told you that 7.5% unemployment, and I quote, is "GOOD" ? Regardless of the reason.
AND this-"I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs" good question BTW
Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office.
Employment hit its low point in February 2010. But since then, about 4.8 million net new jobs have been created,
AND THIS:
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
Have you lost your mind? In the carter years there was Aprox. 100 million in the work force and in Jan'81 7.5% of those were unemployed.
As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.
AND this;
"fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama"
NOT FACT, not even close.
Middle-class families lost an average of 40% net worth not disposable income. That was mostly in home value decreases due to the housing bust.
And/ G W Bush was the President who lowered the limit to get food stamps.
Last/ "Just Obama"
I assure you the Black peoples struggles with poverty began long before this President was even born.
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25157
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

YOU SAID


YOU SAID

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

and then say

"you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today"

Look at what you wrote, then tell how 134.02 million employed persons could be less than a work pool of 100 million .

BTW-That difference in the two numbers 34.02 million plus people.

That would be the population growth from the 70's you say I did not account for.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25158
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

"the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics"

Lets be fair here, the same can be said of all races, and for the heck of it lets add the Christian right to those ranks as well.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25159
Jun 2, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU SAID
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
and then say
"you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today"
Look at what you wrote, then tell how 134.02 million employed persons could be less than a work pool of 100 million .
BTW-That difference in the two numbers 34.02 million plus people.
That would be the population growth from the 70's you say I did not account for.
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25160
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
ROF-LMAO

""the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

So now its a percentage of the total people, did I read that right?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25161
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
"Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million"

You and reading comprehension are not the best of friends are you, or are you shifting on purpose?

Read what I said..........

As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.

WTF does the population of the U.S. have to do with the above statement?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25162
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
Look here, I know what you meant when you posted this.

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

Keep in mind this post is freestanding from other post you wrote on this particular subject. Someone reading that post for the first time would have took it for what it said, not what you meant. What you said is completely wrong.

What you were trying to say was:

The percentage of the total available workforce working today is the lowest it has been since the Carter years.

That would have been correct, and I would have said, oh yeah, what verifiable evidence do you have that it is derogatory to the economy. Assuming that was your point or you saying the UE is higher than those nasty Liberals say it is and its that damn Black mans fault.

Never mind the majority of that group is unemployed because they choose to be, such as students or those who took early retirement, etc.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25163
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Between 1970 and 2010, the
enrollment rate for adults ages 2024 increased from 22
to 39 percent, and the rate for adults ages 2529 increased
from 8 to 15 percent. The enrollment rate for adults ages
3034 increased from 4 percent in 1970 to 8 percent in
2010. Between 2000 and 2010, the enrollment rate for
adults ages 2024 increased from 32 to 39 percent; for
adults ages 2529, it increased from 11 to 15 percent; and
for adults ages 3034, it increased from 7 to 8 percent.
Tomagotchi

Dexter, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25165
Jun 2, 2013
 
Things Are Def Not Like They Once Were...In 76'..that's for sure
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25166
Jun 2, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Look here, I know what you meant when you posted this.
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
Keep in mind this post is freestanding from other post you wrote on this particular subject. Someone reading that post for the first time would have took it for what it said, not what you meant. What you said is completely wrong.
What you were trying to say was:
The percentage of the total available workforce working today is the lowest it has been since the Carter years.
That would have been correct, and I would have said, oh yeah, what verifiable evidence do you have that it is derogatory to the economy. Assuming that was your point or you saying the UE is higher than those nasty Liberals say it is and its that damn Black mans fault.
Never mind the majority of that group is unemployed because they choose to be, such as students or those who took early retirement, etc.
Just to be clear, you are saying that the majority of those who were in the workforce when unemployment was 10% simply said "From this day forward I CHOOSE to be unemployed!" and that's how the rate went down to 7.5%. Uh ok. In all seriousness, I do agree with you. Those individuals had been looking for work for years with no luck. They got tired of being shot down so they decided to quit looking and drop out of the pool. Which goes back to my point that those who drop out may never return to the workforce and will forever become a governmental handout statistic. My post meant exactly what it said. There was no implied meaning contrary to the content no matter how hard you try to twist it's meaning.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25167
Jun 2, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million"
You and reading comprehension are not the best of friends are you, or are you shifting on purpose?
Read what I said..........
As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.
WTF does the population of the U.S. have to do with the above statement?
It's all about percentages. You were arguing that 134.02 million in 2012 was a greater number than the 100 million in 1981. Yes, I agree that 134.02 million is larger than 100 million. I am unsuccessfully trying to get you to see that if you add 100 million Americans to the population by 2012 then you are no longer comparing apples to apples. Lets try this 7.5% of 100 million is 7.5 million that were unemployed in 1981. In 2012 you say there were 134.02 employed people in the U.S. The unemployment rate today is 7.5%, correct? That means the workforce has grown to 144,886,486 right? That means that 10,866,486 are unemployed so would it be fair for me to say that since we have 3,366,486 more unemployed now than in 1981 that things are far worse? Since it's using your logic I guess you would agree with that assessment. I'm glad to know you have come over to my side on this.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Arkansas Forum right now

Search the Arkansas Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Arkansas Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) 26 min hunting gal 3,833
Arkansas Plans To Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Jul 20 Shocked 6
Spring River (Jun '12) Jul 20 For Real 103
Ghosts and Haunted spots in Arkansas and SouthW... (Jul '06) Jul 19 Dianne 780
Arkansas Gay Population Reaches All Time High (Jan '14) Jul 19 Peter Cheeks 2
Former Arkansas Legislator Hudson Hallum Senten... (Jul '13) Jul 12 Joke 47
Marshallese in Arkansas unhealthy, ineligible f... (Dec '07) Jul 11 Happy nd proud 267
•••
•••