Gone from hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month a year ago to 36,000 last month. Not good enough, but a damn site better than what would have happened with do-nothing GNOPers in charge.

And you know this . . . how exactly?

Is that going to be what you guys campaign on? It could have been worse?

It could have been worse?

I think it's safe to assume that if Grandpa Pee Pants had been in office things would most likely have been worse. It would have resembled the Hoover administration where any action by the Feds would have been deemed "socialist".

"The Labor Department said that the economy shed 36,000 jobs last month and that the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.7 percent."

Somebody may want to tell Summers and Romer, they (the labor department)have no way of determining if weather was a factor in the numbers. Seeing as they were out ahead of the report downplaying the numbers before being released. There are still 16.8% under employed or unemployed and that is not good.

No, the campaign will be on "it's getting better", which will be demonstrable by then even to reality-deniers like yourself, Trighty.

I know that the 2 million or so jobs that were saved, according to the CBO and top forecasters, don't mean anything to you since none of them were yours, but they do mean something to most of America.

"It's the Code of the GNOP
to "do unto others"
Do unto others
before they can do it unto youuuuuu!"

It's like the Iraq death tallies where the number of lives lost per month went down because there were fewer people.

#8

That doesn't even make sense, especially in a country of 25 million people.

Damn , only 36,000. Good thing the feds are hiring temporary people counters by the millions or we would realy be in the ditch.

or we would realy be in the ditch.
#10 | Posted by Sniper

I don't know about "we," Snoops, but you're already there.

I know that the 2 million or so jobs that were saved, according to the CBO and top forecasters, don't mean anything to you since none of them were yours, but they do mean something to most of America.

Seeing as we need to create 200,000 jobs a month just to break even, saving jobs is not something to celebrate.

I hope sniper joins the rank of unemployed. Somebody else deserves his job more than him.

I hope sniper joins the rank of unemployed. Somebody else deserves his job more than him.

Ugh double post again.

-saving jobs is not something to celebrate.

Really?

Bush left us with 700k jobs a month being lost. Some were saved, a few created... down to 36k a month now, was up 64k in Nov.

A little light is better than total darkness... or the Repube "policies" that turned out the lights.

The underemployed rate jumped to 16.8%. Big boost in retail sales and temporary workers, big layoffs again in construction.

Quick question: wasn't the stimulus supposed to be saving a lot of those construction jobs? You know, the "shovel-ready" thingy?

Good thing I had my shovel ready. Back out census workers and temps, and it would have been north of 10% again.

I got a raise this week!! Union Yes!!!

There will be recovery, eventually. How strong it is is wholly dependent on Obama's tax and regulatory regime, and how much of it makes it through Congress.

But what has the Dems really, really worried, is the idea of very tepid growth or stagnation until 2011 or 2012--then recovery, at which time a Republican Congress can start taking credit for it.

Back out census workers and temps, and it would have been north of 10% again.

#17 | Posted by rightisright

No kidding. Corky, put the cork back in the champaign bottle.

"A little light is better than total darkness... or the Repube "policies" that turned out the lights."

Agreed, but how long can we last if "things could have been worse is the standard?"

I call it, "a little light", and that's cracking open the champagne bottle?

Somebody needs to untwist their panties.

-Agreed, but how long can we last if "things could have been worse is the standard?"

We are just trying to get thru some recovery from Bush's Great Recession. If the commercial real estate market busts, then it will take even longer than it has already.

Cleaning up after Bush messes is, historically, damn expensive and time consuming.

Uh huh. And exactly which policies of Bush which caused your Great Recession, has Obama undone? Still giant government guarantees to Fannie and Freddie, still those pesky big-government bailouts, spending has gone from horrible to mind-bending.

At least Bush's stimulus packages worked. Tell me Corky--if we polled all your friends and asked them whether they're better off today, than they were a year ago? Or three?--what would they say?

I know what America, as a whole, is saying. I just wonder what kind of universe you're living in.

And why would the commercial real estate market bust? Obama's been on the job for over a year. We've just given him the re-appointment of Bernanke that he wanted. Obviously, there is no spending restraint in Washington that can't prop up whatever new bubble the Dems want, and they have run Congress for three years now.

I can presume that if the commercial real estate market falls apart, you'll be blaming Bush for that too.

"Quick question: wasn't the stimulus supposed to be saving a lot of those construction jobs? You know, the "shovel-ready" thingy?"

Congressman La Tourette, wanted to propose an amendment with Oberstar, which would have shifted billions of dollars in useless tax breaks which will not create jobs to funding highway projects which will. Sadly, the NC dem wouldn't yield one minute of his time in order to allow the amendment to be presented. It was a perfect example of what is wrong in DC.

As the U.S. House of Representatives nears a vote on a $15 billion jobs bill, members remain divided over geographic discrepancies in the distribution of funding for highway projects.

The funding in question amounts to a total of nearly $1 billion. House members from both parties have balked in recent days over terms that deliver more than half of the highway money to four states: California, Illinois, Louisiana and Washington state. In addition, 22 states would receive nothing.

-I just wonder what kind of universe you're living in.

I'm living in the one where the guy you voted for, twice, turned budget surpluses into huge deficits with trillion dollar plus tax breaks for his base, "the Haves" and optional preemptive wars put on the US Children's Credit Card.

California, Illinois, and Louisiana. Hmmm. Aren't there some Dem senators in trouble in those places?

Look for a lot of jobs bills to be coming down the pike, like every week until election day. Reid will be writing a lot of these letters. Problem is, a jobs bill passed in August won't have the same local effect as one passed in April.

I wonder how many Dems are pleased with their "leadership". What a joke they are. Do they realize that every day Pelosi or Reid is on the front page of the papers, they lose thousands of votes?

I'm living in the one where the guy you voted for, twice, turned budget surpluses into huge deficits with trillion dollar plus tax breaks for his base, "the Haves" and optional preemptive wars put on the US Children's Credit Card.

#27 | Posted by Corky
* * * *

Okay. And what is Obama doing about that?

You libbies are hysterically stupid. You want to criticize Bush for being reckless, then celebrate the fact that Obama is Bush x 3. Has Obama raised taxes to pay for Afghanistan? Is Obama pulling back from his guarantees to Goldman Sachs?

You're just a pussy, Corky. That's all. When you decide to stop being part of the problem, let us know. 'Til then--don't leave. You're entertaining this way. O-BAH-MAH . . . O-BAH-MAH . . . HMMMMMMMMMM

"Cleaning up after Bush messes is, historically, damn expensive and time consuming."

Again, nobody is arguing that or defending Bush. IMO the problem is the strategy to correct those wrongs is not working.

- Okay. And what is Obama doing about that?

He's doing what Hil or John McCain or any one who had been elected would have done, following Keynesian economics 101 and spending our way out of a recession.

You aren't stupid enough, I 'spose, not to know that, so I can only assume your MO of dissing everything Dem and licking Repube balls, "At least Bush's stimulus packages worked", is still intact.

-IMO the problem is the strategy to correct those wrongs is not working.

As I mentioned to Twinkletoes above, any of the Pres candidates will have followed basically the same accepted economic theory that is being followed now.

Going from 700k to 36k is progress, if not complete recovery.

will have = would have

-When you decide to stop being part of the problem, let us know

The guy I voted for is putting the trillion dollar health care plan on budget.... the guy you voted for twice put much more than that on our kid's backs for tax cuts for his friends.

Who's the pussy?

"As I mentioned to Twinkletoes above, any of the Pres candidates will have followed basically the same accepted economic theory that is being followed now."

I am far from an expert, but when was the last jobless recovery out of a recession? I also don't think any other presidential candidate would have spent all his political capitol on Healthcare reform.

There you go again. The libbies always complained about how weak the economy was under Bush--no income growth, production and manufacturing jobs lost--and yet you managed to criticize deficit spending during those years.

Now we have a weak economy under Obama--no income growth, production and manufacturing jobs lost--and you say how necessary it is to run deficits. Amazing what happens when it's a Dem who wants to kite the checks, when it's a Dem who wants to borrow trillions of dollars to save Goldman Sachs and AIG, when it's a Dem who wants to borrow to fight Middle East wars, when it's a Dem who puts morons like Geithner and Bernanke in his inner circle, when it's a Dem who wants to build a boondoggle in health care. Suddenly, all that is necessary.

By the way, you're no friend of Bush, obviously--did you not get a tax cut? Everyone I know got a tax cut. Either you did too, or you need to fire your CPA, because he sucks.

Fair enough. Send back your Bush tax cut.

-Fair enough. Send back your Bush tax cut.

I donated my rather large cut.

None of your blah, blah, blah addresses the point that anyone you voted for would have followed basically the same policies.

-Now we have a weak economy under Obama

Bush inherited relative peace, prosperity and a surplus, which he not only spent, but added trillions to our debt.

Obama inherited Bush's Great Recession, which fact you continue to pretend doesn't exist.

I donated my rather large cut.

Posted by Corky

Yeah, to the fucking Chevy Dealer, no doubt.

None of your blah, blah, blah addresses the point that anyone you voted for would have followed basically the same policies.
* * * *

That's where you're wrong. I voted Constitution Party.

And if all you can say is that Obama is doing the same thing that any of the other guys would have done, why do we need Obama?

Ah, the sticky questions.

why do we need Obama?

Because he pisses off the Ivar Kreuger types.

- I voted Constitution Party.

What a cop out.

Denial is a strong persuader for the weak minded, though. Did Mickey Mouse win anything?

No, what I'm saying is what I said, "Obama inherited Bush's Great Recession, which fact you continue to pretend doesn't exist."

You act like the last 8 years never happened, that the vast majority of economic impact we feel today isn't the direct result of rwingnut policies like those you espouse.

I don't think "Obama's doing the same thing McCain would have" is a great argument. lol!

When will someone do something about our manufacturing jobs being over seas? We could use a little protectionism right now. Repubs won't do it, and apparently neither will the Dems.

"And if all you can say is that Obama is doing the same thing that any of the other guys would have done, why do we need Obama?"

That is a pretty stupid question. We elected Obama over your objections, that is reason enough to keep him as president. If you're against him then there has to be something very good amout him.

"Repubs won't do it, and apparently neither will the Dems."

I've been waiting patiently but so far you are right. No one is dealing with the real problems that are destroying our economy.

-No one is dealing with the real problems that are destroying our economy.

I think you are right, but that dealing with trying to get the economy to recover has come before making long needed fixes to our policies.

'Cept for health care, where pushing a long needed fix also has short term benefits.

Hopefully there will more of that to come.

That is a pretty stupid question. We elected Obama over your objections, that is reason enough to keep him as president. If you're against him then there has to be something very good amout him.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-05 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

An this folks is why Danni and her friends will ruin the country, on part of spite and child like competition.

Hurray for the superior party, it switches every few years.

"An this folks is why Danni and her friends will ruin the country"

Sorry but the country was pre-ruined before the Dems took over. We're just trying to pick up the pieces these days.

That is a pretty stupid question. We elected Obama over your objections, that is reason enough to keep him as president. If you're against him then there has to be something very good amout him.

#43 | Posted by danni
* * * *

Well, then it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a few things.

I despise McCain. But what is he doing in the Middle East, than is different from what McCain would have done? How about on spending? Patriot Act? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Big bailouts of Wall Street bankers?

Just five things, howabout? How is he different from the guy you called poopy pants for all of 2008?

Hope and change!

Obama's perpetuating the recession.

The recession wouldn't have happened at all, were it not for government guarantees of mortgage loans. It was the liberal side of Bush that caused the recession, and his reluctance to shut the programs down when we had a chance.

Do you dumbassess ever stop to wonder, what would have happened if there were no government guarantees on FNMA loans? The loans wouldn't have happened, you wouldn't have gotten a real estate bubble, and so there would have been no bubble to have blown up Wall Street, and thus no need for bailouts.

$3 trillion and counting. Yes, that was Bush's fault. And the fact that it continues is Obama's. And America knows it, which is why you're the 26-percenters now.

- It was the liberal side of Bush that caused the recession

Hahahahahaha!!!

Keep it up, Henny.

-$3 trillion and counting. Yes, that was Bush's fault. And the fact that it continues is Obama's.

Obama is still just financing the recovery from your buddy's recession. He hasn't even had a chance to spend much on his own, and when he has, like the health care bill, he doesn't put the cost off on our children.

"The recession wouldn't have happened at all, were it not for government guarantees of mortgage loans."

And most Americans wouldn't own homes without government guaranteed loans. The government has guaranteed loans for many decades, it wasn't until they started offering all those variable rate loans and holding interest rates at 1% to keep the bubble growing and insure Bush's reelection that we got into trouble.
Hey what if the government stopped guaranteeing student loans????

You're out of your mind. Delusional.

Obviously, you're in a vanishing minority. The Dems aren't running scared about November because people like Corky and Doc and Danni lie too thick on the ground. Thankfully, this experiment with Obamanomics is Obamaworship is coming to an end.

Can't happen soon enough.

Does RisR ever wonder what would have happened if Greenspan would have raised interest rates in 2002.

Do you dumbassess ever stop to wonder what would have happened if there hadn't been deregulation of financial market products that allowed mortgages to be packaged by physicists and sold as "insured' investments?

"Can't happen soon enough."

Yeah, we got to get back to the "great Bush economy." More trickle down is what we need.

The government shouldn't guarantee student loans. That's why tuition keeps going up, and that's why it's impossible to bankrupt them away.

26%.

More trickle down is what we need? Is that what you said?

In Reagan's day, trickle down meant giving tax cuts to all Americans, including the guys who build factories and plants and mills, in the expectation that they would invest that money instead in their businesses.

In the BushBama era, it means sending trillions of dollars to Wall Street banks, hoping that they shore up balance sheets and pay big bonuses to get the economy bouncing again in Connecticut and New York.

Which one worked? And which trickle-down approach is it that liberals are the ones defending?

26%.

Do you dumbasses ever stop and wonder why we needed to piss away $783B for steady jobless rates of 9.7% on March 5, 2010?

I'm just glad that RisT is so sanguine about other poorer people's children paying for the tax cuts GW gave him.

Do you dumbassess ever stop to wonder what would have happened if there hadn't been deregulation of financial market products that allowed mortgages to be packaged by physicists and sold as "insured' investments?

#54 | Posted by Corky
* * * *

Deregulation didn't do that. That's what Fannie and Freddie did. That was their business, dummy, and what they've been doing since the 1970's.

You're too stupid to even know what you're talking about. The securitization of mortgages was in the regulated part of the markets, not the deregulated ones. The deregulated would include credit default swaps, and non-exchange-traded derivatives. It was the deregulated markets that were pointing to big problems long before they developed, by the way.

-In Reagan's day, trickle down meant giving tax cuts to all Americans

Horseshit.

It means what it always meant, giving tax cuts to the wealthy that would "trickle down", or Voodoo Economics as Poppy called it.

Politicians don't give me tax cuts. It's my money to begin with, not Washington's. If they can't balance budgets on $2.4 trillion worth of revenue, it's not me with the problem.

Let me in there. We'll have a balanced budget by next Thursday.

I'll be concerned about CorkDannUnity Sarvis when they're over, say, 40% or so. Until then, it's just amusing to see how many retards are just reflexively Democratic, whatever happens.

So I take that as a, "I'm fine with other poorer people's children paying for the tax cuts GW gave me."

RisT is fine with redistribution of wealth... as long as it's redistributed upwards.

"Let me in there. We'll have a balanced budget by next Thursday."

And the depression to go along with it Mr. Hoover.

"Let me in there. We'll have a balanced budget by next Thursday."

And the depression to go along with it Mr. Hoover.

the poorer people got the biggest tax cuts of all. How many millions of households have gotten wiped off the tax rolls completely?

We need Obama to put 'em back. Roll back the Bush tax cuts! It's 2000, all over again! Gobama!

26%.

Hoover borrowed more money than anyone before him. If you still believe the myth that he didn't try all the pump-priming methods that we're trying now, you're clueless. Not your fault, probably, economic history has never been taught much.

Actually I've read somewhat on Hoover and it is correct, he got a bad rap. HOwever, the small amount of spending he did was not enough to even make a dent in that depression but then no one at the time understood what they were dealing with.

"the poorer people got the biggest tax cuts of all."

Baloney.

""President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax rate declined across all income levels but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.""

I see that even Trighty isn't interested in discussing poor people's children paying for tax cuts he's already gotten.

Maybe beneath that hard, ugly, obnoxious "ME!" facade there is a heart that...... never mind, I'm getting queasy now....

Corker, you have always been queasy, that is why you so often keel over to the left, vomit and call it electable.

Then there is exps, who minds not at all that poorer people's children will be paying for his tax cut.

It's funny how when Bush had an unemployment rate below 6%, the Liberals on this board were crying the sky is falling.

Now we have 9.7% and the very same Liberals are saying it's sunny out.

TFF.

It's funny how when Bush had an unemployment rate below 6%, the Liberals on this board were crying the sky is falling.

Now we have 9.7% and the very same Liberals are saying it's sunny out.

When your boat is rapidly taking on more and more water, plugging the leak is cause for celebration even though you still have the water in your boat.

I get no tax cut. I would be rendered as "poor" in your analysis as well. All I know is that middle class is not poor to any degree. Live within your means and the world becomes a rich place.

Live outside your means and you will cry about how you can't afford what you shouldn't have wanted and didn't need in the first place.

Kan, sorry to disagree, but I would not be happy with someone celebrating in a sinking boat, whether the initial leak is plugged or not, a sinking boat is a sinking boat.

And when it does sink, it will be the captain in control during the slower decent that will look the fool of the situation.

Exp,
In my example, the boat is no longer sinking because the leak has been plugged (job rates holding steady), but we still have water to get rid of (high unemployment). We can celebrate the plug and that we are no longer taking on more water while still seeing there is more work to be done.

#73 | Posted by kanrei
When your boat is rapidly taking on more and more water, plugging the leak is cause for celebration even though you still have the water in your boat.
------------
Your anaylsis is to simplistic, your assuming that the economy only has one problem (one leak in the boat), we have may problems. The numbers for employment that most economists look at are jobs created and jobs lost, and thoese numbers have a ways to go.

We have a rough road a head, so it's to early for me to celebrate.

Exp,
In my example, the boat is no longer sinking because the leak has been plugged (job rates holding steady), but we still have water to get rid of (high unemployment). We can celebrate the plug and that we are no longer taking on more water while still seeing there is more work to be done.

#76 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-05 03:26 PM

That said, how many of those jobs will come back? I thought I read somewhere that many of the jobs lost simply won't come back, that if we make gains it'll be in other areas like the service industry. Again, when will someone give us a little protectionism for crying out loud?

How easy it is for the simple to be deceived.

they are simply deceived.

Mr. Fun, Clinton, advised Obama, to put a more positive spin on everything. Clinton made it easier by redefining employment and CPI statistics, to make them sound better than they are. Shrub couldn't keep up even with that advantage, so he was grateful to Greenspan for launching the Real Estate bubble, else he would never had a snowballs chance in hell of being re-elected.

what will the words of the rethuglicunts be whenever we start gaining jobs monthly?

i don't see how losing 36k jobs is a good thing. if they said we had a net gain of 1k jobs that would be a good thing and on the right track.

Losing jobs is bad. Gaining jobs is good.

Don't let the spin fool you.

An experiment to help your understanding of economics.

Go turn on a faucet, turn it on all the way.
NOtice how much water is shooting out.
Now slowly start turning the know the other way.
Notice how the water shooting out seems to be getting less and less.
Keep turning and pretty soon it is just a little trickle.
Turn some more and what happens???
It stops.

There I hope that helps you understand that it is far better to lose 36,000 jobs than it was 700,000 jobs and that we sort of have to pass through the 36,000 stage on the way to 0.

Liars figuire and figures lie. Those ass clowns have been saying "recovery" for years.

700,000 a year ago vs 36,000 now?

Same story 1 year ago vs Nov, Dec, Jan, and Feb of THIS year?

Ya, some would call that a 'recovery'.

Of course, there will be less job loss as we go as the number of jobs to lose is certainly declining without a full depression... so I do not think one could actually find a victory here in any way, except for one who did not lose his job last month. of course, we could help unemployment if we did not divert stimulus money to foreign sources to provide jobs, that we could actually create here if the administration and congress were really interested in bringing this nation out of the doldrums... but, no, let's just pass a few bills like this health care disaster and plunge the nation further into debt and despair.. if one thinks this Oboner is one for America, you had better wake up...!!!!

Dear Mr. POTUS, Madam Speaker & Mr. H Reid.

Economics 101

Cut taxes, stop the spending like drunken sailors and the economy will flourish.

End of lesson.

with do-nothing GNOPers in charge

I just come here and laugh at it all really.... GDOPers...LOL

Obama's plan calls for 9 trillion in more debt by 2020...

Yikes... This economy is screwed folks.. The first wave isn't over and the second wave is bound to be far far far worse... This one will be a double dipper almost for certain....

So all you leftists and arguers just flag this one and I hope you get to call me a lot of dirty names while you rub my face in it in two years. But, I fear the predictions are correct.

Find someone and hold on tight... Hard times coming like a long dark night...

I wrote that...

Signed Allen Richards....

i still can't find one. hundreds of resumes out, well qualified, and can't even get a job making pizzas "because you don't have five plus years experience making pizzas."

i still can't find one

What do you do as a trade?

I Blame both parties. They seem more worried about blaming each other and posturing than on actually sitting down and working to solve the most basic problems. I believe that those who throw insults do so because they believe they will add weight to their arguments or scrare off those who just want to discuss the issues. It's a form of bully tactics that, unfortunately many have used in the past. Right wing, left wing, they are just differing ideologies. Why waste time bickering like you were berating each other over a football game and which team you think is superior? As I recll, BOTH parties have spent like drunken sailors and enacted incredibly short sighted patches to quell the masses, then blamed each other for the consequences. Maybe it's time for real change.... Or a return to what made our country work. Non career politicians, and one person, one vote. Money is too involved, and worry over one's career makes for poor decisions. Eliminate these types of issues and we can actually begin to approach the meat of our problems. Until we do, it doesn't matter who is elected. the problems will remain unsolved. Feel free to berate me with silly names and labels now, as I'm sure I have offended those who feel that their party is blameless and morally superior.drudge.com

Jobless Numbers Raise Hopes of Recovery

Dream on kiddies. The main product this country manufactures is debt. The debt accumulates like a bad case of diarrhea. You can hold it in for only so long.

The underemployed rate jumped to 16.8%. Big boost in retail sales and temporary workers, big layoffs again in construction.
Quick question: wasn't the stimulus supposed to be saving a lot of those construction jobs? You know, the "shovel-ready" thingy?
Good thing I had my shovel ready. Back out census workers and temps, and it would have been north of 10% again.

#15 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

Stop being a sarcastic partisan prick. Your party, the GNOP caused this problem plan and simple. Blaming The sitting president for using tools to attempt to fix the problem is stupid. Of course he is going to try and fix the problem.

BTW, I pretty sure that the recent hiring of census workers accounts for the drop.

Of course he is going to try and fix the problem.

Not as long as he keeps using gasoline.

I'll say it again

Bush became a "lame duck" prez in 2006 when the DEMS took over,,,, in 2005 before the DEMS took over unemployment was at 4.4% with record federal tax revenues

Wow next up is the effect of gov census jobs. It will be wonderful, won't it? #'s will improve, cristine rhomer and paul krugman wil tell us about the genius of the messiah and how all is cured!!

let's just ignore those too discouraged to seek employment!

"Created or Saved or Estimated or Assumed"

bullshit bullshit bullshit...

look at info from fox business news

GOVT....average salary 108K plus extensive benefits

privt...average salary 69K

govt..GAINED 7,ooo jobs while privt LOST 36,000

since barry got there govt has added 55,000 while private has LOST FOUR MILLION or more.

even govt clergy make 70k while private clegry make 39k

and now CBO says that obama deficit will be ONE.2 TRILLION MORE than his estimate

yeah buddy...things are just getting better and better.....as long as you work for the feds or one of thier slaves.

AND obama white house said it wasnt bush's fault but the SNOWSTORMS....well maybe bush caused the snowstorms...

what a bunch of lying whores

I love this... Only lost 30k jobs... and this is a victory?? Setting the bar pretty low there Obama.

New jobs, hiring will herald the recovery, not job losses (no matter what the number, they are still losses).

"Obama's Job's Deficit Hits 8.3 Million But He Continues to Focus on Nationalized Health Care"

"Barack Obama vowed in his 2010 State of the Union Address he would not rest until U.S. businesses were hiring again.
That lasted for about a week."

KBM-
I'm just guessing that you voted for the motherfuckers who doubled the debt in peacetime when given a balanced budget, started two wars they couldn't finish, and brought the US and the globe to the brink of global depression so that even they panicked and threw hundreds of billions to bail out the banks they actively deregulated before they were finally thrown out of office.

Correct me if I'm wrong.