The Brownback Experiment

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

There really hasn't been much unless you want to count his extension of the majority of the Bush tax cuts or sequestration which was marginally successful at reining in some spending.  Obama had nothing to do with the energy boom in natural gas and oil from the fracking process.

His signature program, Obamacare is on life support. He almost lost Iraq. The Arab spring was a bust. He's doubled the national debt. The Mideast is in flames because of his foreign policy and Iran will be a nuclear power in another year. Thanks Obama.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

I didn't say that Fcukstik™. This is what I said.

"Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP."

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

I didn't say that Fcukstik™. This is what I said.

"Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP."

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

And yet you still tout their economic independence from the rest of the state.  There isn't enough cake in the world for you...

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

I didn't say that Fcukstik™. This is what I said.

"Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP."

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

And yet you still tout their economic independence from the rest of the state.  There isn't enough cake in the world for you...

Not at all. Once again your poor reading comprehension skills betray you. I only pointed out that if you removed Sioux Falls employment numbers from the state's that your wild claim that population density matters in calculating unemployment becomes even more ludicrous.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

I didn't say that Fcukstik™. This is what I said.

"Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP."

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

And yet you still tout their economic independence from the rest of the state.  There isn't enough cake in the world for you...

Not at all. Once again your poor reading comprehension skills betray you. I only pointed out that if you removed Sioux Falls employment numbers from the state's that your wild claim that population density matters in calculating unemployment becomes even more ludicrous.

Now the truth comes out....  I obviously never said anything about calculating unemployment.  I was merely pointing out the fact that it effects our rate of employment.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

I didn't say that Fcukstik. This is what I said.

"Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP."

You really need to work on your reading comprehension

And yet you still tout their economic independence from the rest of the state.  There isn't enough cake in the world for you...

Not at all. Once again your poor reading comprehension skills betray you. I only pointed out that if you removed Sioux Falls employment numbers from the state's that your wild claim that population density matters in calculating unemployment becomes even more ludicrous.

Now the truth comes out....  I obviously never said anything about calculating unemployment.  I was merely pointing out the fact that it effects our rate of employment.

You ... are ... so .... fcukin' ... stupid.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Population density has everything to do with it.  If people actually wanted to live here in the upper midwest, our jobless rate would be much higher.  Our proportionately small population, as compared to our vast ability generate cash with an abundance of ag land creates a perfect scenario for employment.  It also makes a perfect scenario for balancing state budgets.  You didn't actually think that had anything to do with republican controlled legislatures did you???

That must explain why South Dakota, with a population density of 11 people per sq mi, has an unemployment rate of 2.6% vs Sioux Falls, with a population density of 89 people per sq mi, with an unemployment rate of 1.6%. Remove Sioux Falls employment/unemployment figures from the state's and that disparity would be even larger.

Ag, while still an important part of SD's economy, continues to shrink as a part of total SD GDP. The Sioux Falls economy in particular is fueled by the financial, construction and health care industries.

Your streak as forum DumFcuk continues unabated. Oh look, from your favorite website:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news/economy/sioux-falls-lowest-unemployment-us/

If you don't think that the Sioux Falls economy is greatly effected by ag, then you're dumber than I thought you were.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

There really hasn't been much unless you want to count his extension of the majority of the Bush tax cuts or sequestration which was marginally successful at reining in some spending.  Obama had nothing to do with the energy boom in natural gas and oil from the fracking process.

His signature program, Obamacare is on life support. He almost lost Iraq. The Arab spring was a bust. He's doubled the national debt. The Mideast is in flames because of his foreign policy and Iran will be a nuclear power in another year. Thanks Obama.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

There really hasn't been much unless you want to count his extension of the majority of the Bush tax cuts or sequestration which was marginally successful at reining in some spending.  Obama had nothing to do with the energy boom in natural gas and oil from the fracking process.

His signature program, Obamacare is on life support. He almost lost Iraq. The Arab spring was a bust. He's doubled the national debt. The Mideast is in flames because of his foreign policy and Iran will be a nuclear power in another year. Thanks Obama.

Really!?!  What's not to love about the Obama presidency???

He killed Bin Laden.  Be brought the bulk of our troops home from the Middle East and replaced them with a much smarter, cheaper, and more effective plan.  He's given Islamists the tools and the training to recently, even in the past few days,  wage war against ISIS.

Regardless of what you say,  his policies and his support for QE have been huge for the oil industry.  And he has done nothing to impede their expansion, obviously, considering the glut of oil we are working our way through.  Cheap interest and a cheap dollar made the marginal "technology" in fracking viable.  This, along with his push for renewable energy has made his administration probably the greatest energy administration most Americans ever seen.

He saved the economy after private industry drove it in the ditch.  He saved the auto industry.  He has the longest streak of job growth in modern history.  Businesses have enjoyed record profits, along with the stock markets.....

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:Seven plus years of results and you still won't give Obama credit for any success.

There really hasn't been much unless you want to count his extension of the majority of the Bush tax cuts or sequestration which was marginally successful at reining in some spending.  Obama had nothing to do with the energy boom in natural gas and oil from the fracking process.

His signature program, Obamacare is on life support. He almost lost Iraq. The Arab spring was a bust. He's doubled the national debt. The Mideast is in flames because of his foreign policy and Iran will be a nuclear power in another year. Thanks Obama.

Really!?!  What's not to love about the Obama presidency???

He killed Bin Laden.  Be brought the bulk of our troops home from the Middle East and replaced them with a much smarter, cheaper, and more effective plan.  He's given Islamists the tools and the training to recently, even in the past few days,  wage war against ISIS.

Regardless of what you say,  his policies and his support for QE have been huge for the oil industry.  And he has done nothing to impede their expansion, obviously, considering the glut of oil we are working our way through.  Cheap interest and a cheap dollar made the marginal "technology" in fracking viable.  This, along with his push for renewable energy has made his administration probably the greatest energy administration most Americans ever seen.

He saved the economy after private industry drove it in the ditch.  He saved the auto industry.  He has the longest streak of job growth in modern history.  Businesses have enjoyed record profits, along with the stock markets.....

COMPLETE BULLSHIT as usual