America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by frankj1. 9 replies replies.
Do you realize...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jpotts Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Mar 23 2013, 9:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
That if the enconomy grew only 0.8% under Bush (or even 2%), they'd be calling it another recession?

However, under Junior that's considered "strong growth".

Two thing some to mind here: a slavish devition by the majot media to socialist / new-age "economics" and the soft bigotry of low expectations...
frankj1 Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Mar 23 2013, 10:46 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
jpotts wrote:
That if the enconomy grew only 0.8% under Bush (or even 2%), they'd be calling it another recession?

However, under Junior that's considered "strong growth".

Two thing some to mind here: a slavish devition by the majot media to socialist / new-age "economics" and the soft bigotry of low expectations...

due to possible (your) smartphone issues, I'm not sure if I am reading your premise correctly. But from what I surmise, my response would be that 0.8% growth following several years of strong growth is dismal. But 0.8% following possibly the worst economy in our history is hopeful.
DadZilla3 Offline
#3 Posted: Sun, Mar 24 2013, 6:32 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
The economic numbers that Washington claims are factual have in actuality been spun for decades now. And, there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPkTItOXuN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUbKieRC6bY
wheelrite Offline
#4 Posted: Sun, Mar 24 2013, 4:55 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
REDRUM !
jpotts Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2013, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
frankj1 wrote:
due to possible (your) smartphone issues, I'm not sure if I am reading your premise correctly. But from what I surmise, my response would be that 0.8% growth following several years of strong growth is dismal. But 0.8% following possibly the worst economy in our history is hopeful.


LOL!

"Wost Economy in History?" What? The Bush years or Idi Amin Jr.'s first junta?

I'd trade eight years under Bush for 8 years under Idi Amin Jr. any day of the week.

In fact, with continual double-digit unemployment, rationing, and an 8-year drought (known as the Dust Bowl), FDR easily had the worst economy over the last century or more.

You are seriously brainwashed.
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2013, 4:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
still no gubment cheese for X..... Sad
jpotts Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2013, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
DrafterX wrote:
still no gubment cheese for X..... Sad


From everything I've ever heard, that stuff was supposed to be fantastic.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2013, 4:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
damn..... Sad
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Mar 25 2013, 9:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
jpotts wrote:
LOL!

"Wost Economy in History?" What? The Bush years or Idi Amin Jr.'s first junta?

I'd trade eight years under Bush for 8 years under Idi Amin Jr. any day of the week.

In fact, with continual double-digit unemployment, rationing, and an 8-year drought (known as the Dust Bowl), FDR easily had the worst economy over the last century or more.

You are seriously brainwashed.

need to get out of Motown. messes up the view. here's some hope for the rest of the nation...Massachusetts is on the move and we are usually on the early indicator side.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top