The differences between W, Carter and Obama is I believe W and Carter probably thought they were helping the country. Obama set out to screw everybody day one. He knew what he was doing.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Why did you bring the NFL into a perfectly good political thread? Killjoy.
Good. Want him in before November
He loves him some Obama. That's for sure
Graf, one last nugget for you that I’m sure you won’t take.
Trump won’t tbe election because the middle class was suffering, and it wasn’t going to get better continuing to use Obama’s policies.
He has kept his campaign promises to the middle class.
In fact the Dems completely ignored us, they thought they had an unbeatable formula using demographics. It’s why they have gone all in on calling anyone and everyone a racist that opposes them. They need for their voters to feel as victims, they can’t win on policy.
Trump won’t tbe election because the middle class was suffering, and it wasn’t going to get better continuing to use Obama’s policies.
He has kept his campaign promises to the middle class.
In fact the Dems completely ignored us, they thought they had an unbeatable formula using demographics. It’s why they have gone all in on calling anyone and everyone a racist that opposes them. They need for their voters to feel as victims, they can’t win on policy.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Most of what you cite compares rates at which different races are killed by police relative to their makeup of the general population. Those are meaningless numbers. We wouldn't expect the rate to match the general percentage of the population that each group makes up. In other words, blacks being 3 times more likely to be killed by cops than whites is not surprising if they are committing violent crimes at many times the rates of whites. For example, if blacks are committing 50% - 60% of murders, robberies, etc., we would expect them to make up a similar percentage of people killed by cops.
Hey hey hey.
She didn't swallow everything, Some got on her blue dress
"umm, uhhh, let's be clear that ummm, no doubt about it, uhh, mark my words uhh, umm. ahhh Trump bad"
Worst president president ever. Actually worst Kenyan president ever.
So the super duper secret spy Papadopoulos that was supposedly so in deep with the Russians got 14 days in jail because he accidentally misremembered minor details from things that happened years ago.
And the other super duper secret spy Page that was also supposedly so in deep with the Russians hasn't been charged with anything and isn't even under investigation made evident by the fact he continues to go on TV and talk smack about the investigation.
Btw how is the fact that Page hasn't been charged or at least under investigation possible? Especially considering the FBI claims to have so much evidence against him in order to renew a FISA warrant 4 times and spy on him for months? So they have enough evidence to spy on him for a year but not enough to charge him after a year of spying on him? Page must be a real life James Bond.
And the other super duper secret spy Page that was also supposedly so in deep with the Russians hasn't been charged with anything and isn't even under investigation made evident by the fact he continues to go on TV and talk smack about the investigation.
Btw how is the fact that Page hasn't been charged or at least under investigation possible? Especially considering the FBI claims to have so much evidence against him in order to renew a FISA warrant 4 times and spy on him for months? So they have enough evidence to spy on him for a year but not enough to charge him after a year of spying on him? Page must be a real life James Bond.
You’re about to be bombarded with a manifesto and links to nowhere out yo ass!!
Oh and the liberal spin you've probably heard today that Papadopoulos got a light sentence because he's a key witness cooperating with Mueller and spilling the beans about collusion and it's only a matter of time before they get Trump. Well you can tell them to shove it and laugh in their face.
Muller's team was pushing for the longest possible sentence of 5 years and when the judge denied and only gave Papadopoulos 14 days the prosecution through a fit and said this:
The sentence was a disappointment for Mueller’s office. Andrew Goldstein, one of Mueller’s prosecutors, argued in court that Papadopoulos didn’t come close to the standard of “substantial assistance,” and he made “at best, begrudging efforts to cooperate” in the investigation.
Muller's team was pushing for the longest possible sentence of 5 years and when the judge denied and only gave Papadopoulos 14 days the prosecution through a fit and said this:
The sentence was a disappointment for Mueller’s office. Andrew Goldstein, one of Mueller’s prosecutors, argued in court that Papadopoulos didn’t come close to the standard of “substantial assistance,” and he made “at best, begrudging efforts to cooperate” in the investigation.
I don't care Bill.
Obama could be hit blown up in a muslim suicide bombing and I'd laugh at the irony.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
@Bill Derington
Ohh Lord, here we go again, Kellyanne. Divert, Divert, Divert. You don't think America is like a business? You don't think the President is essentially a Chief Executive Officer? Really? Why do you think he was ultimately appealing to people? You get he literally ran on his business record as a major business executive for president? Like, that was literally all the experience that was on his resume. But you don't see the stark similarities?
So, you honestly think he meant the height of the Great Recession and war was the best time to take over office? We were on the brink of falling into another depression. The auto industry was on the verge of complete collapse, which would have pushed us over the brink. We were involved in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan that was pointless and cost trillions. What about any of that is appealing. You have to be one of the dumbest people in the world for suggesting such a thing and can literally find nothing to support your claim, other than taking ridiculous quotes completely out of context and leaving out the rest of the statements. That's how ridiculous you statement is.
No blame? haha, right! He got blamed for anything conservatives could throw on him. They still try.
Did you seriously just said you should ignore stats and facts and live in the real world? What real world is void of fact and
supportive evidence such as stats?
Renewable is very reliable. Which is why so many are moving towards it. It will only get better.
Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up 9% in that time frame, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent. Where do you think the other roughly 9% came from? Renewables perhaps?
In Obama’s last month in office, there were just under 42.7 million Americans receiving SNAP assistance, a gain of 10.7 million or just under 33.5 percent from January 2009.
The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.
At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.
But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.
Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.
Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.
Sorry, that lie did not fit the narrative.
Ohh Lord, here we go again, Kellyanne. Divert, Divert, Divert. You don't think America is like a business? You don't think the President is essentially a Chief Executive Officer? Really? Why do you think he was ultimately appealing to people? You get he literally ran on his business record as a major business executive for president? Like, that was literally all the experience that was on his resume. But you don't see the stark similarities?
So, you honestly think he meant the height of the Great Recession and war was the best time to take over office? We were on the brink of falling into another depression. The auto industry was on the verge of complete collapse, which would have pushed us over the brink. We were involved in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan that was pointless and cost trillions. What about any of that is appealing. You have to be one of the dumbest people in the world for suggesting such a thing and can literally find nothing to support your claim, other than taking ridiculous quotes completely out of context and leaving out the rest of the statements. That's how ridiculous you statement is.
No blame? haha, right! He got blamed for anything conservatives could throw on him. They still try.
Did you seriously just said you should ignore stats and facts and live in the real world? What real world is void of fact and supportive evidence such as stats?
Renewable is very reliable. Which is why so many are moving towards it. It will only get better.
Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up 9% in that time frame, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent. Where do you think the other roughly 9% came from? Renewables perhaps?
In Obama’s last month in office, there were just under 42.7 million Americans receiving SNAP assistance, a gain of 10.7 million or just under 33.5 percent from January 2009.
The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.
At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.
But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.
Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.
Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.
Sorry, that lie did not fit the narrative.
@Bill Derington
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
The median figure represents the midpoint — half of all households earned more, half less. And while real median income hit a record level in Obama’s final year, it was a long, rough road to the top.
In fact, the 5.3 percent gain under Obama barely made up for the 4.2 percent loss under his predecessor.
The trend to higher incomes also shows up in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly report on average weekly earnings for all workers, adjusted for inflation. That figure, which includes salaried managers and supervisors, was 4.0 percent higher in the month Obama left office than it was in the month he first entered the White House. It was 3.7 percent higher for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
The median figure represents the midpoint — half of all households earned more, half less. And while real median income hit a record level in Obama’s final year, it was a long, rough road to the top.
In fact, the 5.3 percent gain under Obama barely made up for the 4.2 percent loss under his predecessor.
The trend to higher incomes also shows up in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly report on average weekly earnings for all workers, adjusted for inflation. That figure, which includes salaried managers and supervisors, was 4.0 percent higher in the month Obama left office than it was in the month he first entered the White House. It was 3.7 percent higher for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
Owners of corporate stocks also did quite well under Obama. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock average more than doubled — rising by 166 percent during his eight years in office.
Among post-war administrations, that’s second only to the 209 percent rise in the S&P index during Clinton’s two terms, and it handily outpaced the 114 percent gain under Reagan.
To some extent, the gain under Obama represents a rebound from an unusually depressed level. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 caused stock prices to plunge. By George W. Bush’s last day in office, the S&P 500 stood 37 percent below where it had been on the last trading day before he first took office in 2001.
Other stock market indexes tell similar stories. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 138 percent under Obama after falling 22 percent under his predecessor, for example.
Some of the gain took place in the weeks just after Trump was elected, a “Trump Rally” that many attribute at least partly to investor optimism that the president-elect would, once in office, cut taxes and regulation as promised. But the S&P rise between Election Day and Obama’s last day in office was just under 6 percent — a small fraction of the entire gain during Obama’s tenure. Stock prices already had set record after record before Trump’s election, as we have written before.
Home values rebounded under Obama, reaching a new high in his final year. Sales figures from the National Association of Realtors show the national median price of an existing, single-family home was $235,500 in 2016. That was $38,900 higher than in 2008, an increase of 19.8 percent under Obama.
The 2016 figure was a record. Prices reached their pre-recession high in 2006. In the decade between then and Obama’s final year, home prices rose 6.1 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose 19 percent.
The home ownership rate drifted down under Obama, touching the lowest point in more than half a century during his final year. The home ownership rate began its slide after peaking at 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. It already had come down 1.7 percentage points before Obama took office, but it went down by a greater amount in his two terms as president.
In Obama’s last quarter, the rate rebounded to 63.7 percent, as the economy improved and sales of new and existing homes hit their best pace since before Obama entered office. But the ownership rate was still 3.8 percentage points lower than the quarter before he took office.
So yes, home ownership was lower but improving as he left office. However, house prices were significantly higher and reached new records. There was also a major boom in the housing market. Not really as bad as you want it to be. Also, millennials tend to live more in apartments, lofts and townhomes in lieu of owning property.
Again, sorry your lies just didn't meat the fact checker test.
Also, the Fed rate started rising in 2015 and rose at least once under Obama. Where are you getting your false information that it did not?
Among post-war administrations, that’s second only to the 209 percent rise in the S&P index during Clinton’s two terms, and it handily outpaced the 114 percent gain under Reagan.
To some extent, the gain under Obama represents a rebound from an unusually depressed level. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 caused stock prices to plunge. By George W. Bush’s last day in office, the S&P 500 stood 37 percent below where it had been on the last trading day before he first took office in 2001.
Other stock market indexes tell similar stories. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 138 percent under Obama after falling 22 percent under his predecessor, for example.
Some of the gain took place in the weeks just after Trump was elected, a “Trump Rally” that many attribute at least partly to investor optimism that the president-elect would, once in office, cut taxes and regulation as promised. But the S&P rise between Election Day and Obama’s last day in office was just under 6 percent — a small fraction of the entire gain during Obama’s tenure. Stock prices already had set record after record before Trump’s election, as we have written before.
Home values rebounded under Obama, reaching a new high in his final year. Sales figures from the National Association of Realtors show the national median price of an existing, single-family home was $235,500 in 2016. That was $38,900 higher than in 2008, an increase of 19.8 percent under Obama.
The 2016 figure was a record. Prices reached their pre-recession high in 2006. In the decade between then and Obama’s final year, home prices rose 6.1 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose 19 percent.
The home ownership rate drifted down under Obama, touching the lowest point in more than half a century during his final year. The home ownership rate began its slide after peaking at 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. It already had come down 1.7 percentage points before Obama took office, but it went down by a greater amount in his two terms as president.
In Obama’s last quarter, the rate rebounded to 63.7 percent, as the economy improved and sales of new and existing homes hit their best pace since before Obama entered office. But the ownership rate was still 3.8 percentage points lower than the quarter before he took office.
So yes, home ownership was lower but improving as he left office. However, house prices were significantly higher and reached new records. There was also a major boom in the housing market. Not really as bad as you want it to be. Also, millennials tend to live more in apartments, lofts and townhomes in lieu of owning property.
Again, sorry your lies just didn't meat the fact checker test.
Also, the Fed rate started rising in 2015 and rose at least once under Obama. Where are you getting your false information that it did not?
@Bill Derington
Lord, here we go with more lies you've stated.
I did, where did I state this? I'm pretty sure the evidence and stats you want me to ignore say otherwise:
Despite more than a score of mass shootings, crime declined substantially overall during the Obama years.
The FBI’s crime statistics show the number of violent crimes in 2016 was 10.5 percent lower than the number in 2008, and the number of property crimes dropped 19 percent.
Meanwhile the population increased by more than 6 percent, so the rate of crime dropped even more. The number of violent crimes per 100,000 population was nearly 16 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, and the property crime rate dropped nearly 24 percent.
Among violent crimes the biggest drop was a nearly 30 percent reduction in robberies. But the murder rate dropped hardly at all — declining from 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008 to 5.3 in 2016.
Earlier, in 2014, the murder rate had dropped to the lowest level on record — 4.4 per 100,000
Your article states this only affects investor owned utility companies, which 1/3 of the country doesn't even have access to. It also states they are getting a 14% tax break, but the savings would be $1 - 4. That is likely less than 1%, depending on avg amount.
Conspiracy theories aren't arguments. Regardless of what you believe.
According to the Renewable Energy Agency's Renewable Energy and Jobs-Annual Review 2014, there are 6.5 million people employed in renewable energy. Leading the way was 2.3 million people employed in the solar industry.
I did, where did I state this? I'm pretty sure the evidence and stats you want me to ignore say otherwise:
Despite more than a score of mass shootings, crime declined substantially overall during the Obama years.
The FBI’s crime statistics show the number of violent crimes in 2016 was 10.5 percent lower than the number in 2008, and the number of property crimes dropped 19 percent.
Meanwhile the population increased by more than 6 percent, so the rate of crime dropped even more. The number of violent crimes per 100,000 population was nearly 16 percent lower in 2016 than in 2008, and the property crime rate dropped nearly 24 percent.
Among violent crimes the biggest drop was a nearly 30 percent reduction in robberies. But the murder rate dropped hardly at all — declining from 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008 to 5.3 in 2016.
Earlier, in 2014, the murder rate had dropped to the lowest level on record — 4.4 per 100,000
Your article states this only affects investor owned utility companies, which 1/3 of the country doesn't even have access to. It also states they are getting a 14% tax break, but the savings would be $1 - 4. That is likely less than 1%, depending on avg amount.
Conspiracy theories aren't arguments. Regardless of what you believe.
According to the Renewable Energy Agency's Renewable Energy and Jobs-Annual Review 2014, there are 6.5 million people employed in renewable energy. Leading the way was 2.3 million people employed in the solar industry.
Ohh, Sweetie. I read what you wrote. Unfortunately, it was just a narrative void of any factual evidence to support it. I know facts just get in the way when you desperately want to spin a fake narrative. However, in the real world we have to use them and be honest. We can't just call them meaningless and push them aside in lieu of an uninformed agenda.
The problem is they aren't. And there is a big difference in being arrested and accused than from actually being guilty. All evidence suggest black are targeted by police at a higher volume, falsely accused at a higher volume, incarcerated unjustly at a higher volume and are later acquitted at a higher volume. Yet, the % of crimes committed is actually comparable to their white counter parts. You are just a lot more likely to get away or less sentence if you are white. See Brock Turner.
@Bill Derington
Ohh Lord, here we go again, Kellyanne. Divert, Divert, Divert. You don't think America is like a business? You don't think the President is essentially a Chief Executive Officer? Really? Why do you think he was ultimately appealing to people? You get he literally ran on his business record as a major business executive for president? Like, that was literally all the experience that was on his resume. But you don't see the stark similarities?
So, you honestly think he meant the height of the Great Recession and war was the best time to take over office? We were on the brink of falling into another depression. The auto industry was on the verge of complete collapse, which would have pushed us over the brink. We were involved in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan that was pointless and cost trillions. What about any of that is appealing. You have to be one of the dumbest people in the world for suggesting such a thing and can literally find nothing to support your claim, other than taking ridiculous quotes completely out of context and leaving out the rest of the statements. That's how ridiculous you statement is.
No blame? haha, right! He got blamed for anything conservatives could throw on him. They still try.
supportive evidence such as stats?
Renewable is very reliable. Which is why so many are moving towards it. It will only get better.
Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up 9% in that time frame, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent. Where do you think the other roughly 9% came from? Renewables perhaps?
In Obama’s last month in office, there were just under 42.7 million Americans receiving SNAP assistance, a gain of 10.7 million or just under 33.5 percent from January 2009.
The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.
At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.
But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.
Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.
Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.
Sorry, that lie did not fit the narrative.
Son, you are eat up with the dumb.
Yes, for the last time it was the ideal time for a new President coming in, you can spin however you like but you know it.
All of those things you listed as detriments get blamed on Bush, every single one, rightly so.
Obama gets credit for pulling us out of the recession, even though his policies had little affect. He raised the deficit more than every other President combined, does that sound like a smoothly running economy, a recovery.
Politically speaking it was the absolute best time for an incoming President to enter office, no blame all gain. Even though as you e already admitted the first 18-24 months is the prior Presidents policies at work, so Bush got us out of the recession.
What lie? I’m trying to figure that out? 43 million people were on food stamps when Obama left office, 32 million were when he took office. So after 8 years 10 million more people were on food stamps, people receive food stamps when they don’t make enough money to support their family. Another sign of how poor the economy was for working people.
Lies? You’re simply copying and pasting and have no idea what you’re posting.
You posted 6 paragraphs when all you really had to say was yes Bill, you were correct that home ownership was down under Obama.
Stopped reading Stelters tweet at "Obama telling the truth" hahahaha. Now theres a good one.
Well I stand corrected. You did read it, you just didn't understand it. I gave you lots of statistics to support why the incidence of cop related black homicides would not reflect their percent makeup of the general population. You responded with a bunch of articles saying that since the homicide rate is higher than their percent of the general population it means there is bias. Not very convincing to anyone with a brain. If you disagree with the statistics I quoted, please explain what you disagree with and why.
You'll have to prove to me that the violent crime rates are comparable between black citizens and white. Where is your proof?
Brock Turner has nothing to do with anything. At best it's anecdotal.
You wrote just yesterday in the other thread you were copying and pasting in that crime and drug use were at all time highs, gun murders the same. Have you already forgotten what you pasted? Remember, I wrote that the US is in the best shape it’s been in 20 years, and away you went.
So 2/3’s are getting utility drops because of the tax cuts, other utilities drop too, like I said I work for power company, we’ve dropped ours as well. Like above, a simple yes Bill, you are right would suffice.
Where are these 2.3 million jobs in the United States associated solar? That is puff piece number.
You keep saying solar increased by 43%, what are the raw numbers? From 1 megawatt to 43 megawatts, what is the number?
The missing 9% isn’t renewables, it’s loss of load. Meaning the power demand is gone.
A lot of that is due to more efficient appliances and HVAC units, as well as LED lighting, you’d be surprised how much power street lights used before most went to LED. A bulk of it was due to manufacturing plants closing, the aluminum and steel mills that closed use a shit load of electricity.
However, you still haven’t grasped the difference between capacity, which is what you’re quoting in your numbers, and real world capability.
For instance, you have a gas plant with a 1000 megawatt capability, it’s there whenever you need it, it’s reliable on demand with 1000 MW’s.
With a wind turbine field, say you have 200 MW capacity in the field. In reality you’re never gonna get 200MW’s, somedays you won’t get any. It’s not reliable, that’s why it must have every MW with a reliable fossil back up. That’s not even mentioning the complete lack of VAR or voltage adjustment with wind and solar.
https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/
This says there’s far fewer jobs in solar than you quoted. You only missed the mark by 2 million jobs. Then you have cost of it. Solar provides 2% of our power yet has twice as many workers as coal? Don’t need an economics degree to figure that cost basis.
Last edited:
lol NAZIS everywhere!!! I saw 45 Nazis on my way to Whole Foods today.
Under my UK foot mat at the door. 12 NAZIs scurried from underneath. Then believe it or not I saw 365 NAZIs at my mail box. Seriously. This NAZI shit is getting out of hand.
I wasn't gonna say this. But I saw 1,000 NAZIs 3 days ago at Disney. Killing all kinds of gays and blacks. Surprised Mickey let shit happen.
Mickey=NAZI=$$$$$$$
TheGrafSpots posted “What's not real about centuries of slavery, systematic abuse, oppression and racism. Why would black on white racism negate for you the fact and seriousness that racism, is still an issue in the country. Far more so than black on white racism.
Honest question....How many times in your life have you felt someone was being racist against you?
Do you not feel that white people are somewhat responsible for what little racism they might deal with? If you capture, enslave, beat, sell, torture and generally treat one race like shit for hundreds of years, and then still continue to do so long after laws are implemented to prevent it, well they are probably not going to feel too kindly towards you.
Why would people in Chicago hate me for telling them they are right and white people have enslaved and oppressed them for decades? Also, crime in Chicago isn't so much a racial thing as drug and money thing.
I think everyone who just read your post is dumber for it, and please don’t tell me you believe this crap.
Have you read the history and understand it. Do you realize that slavery is minor in this country compared to Europe, South America, Africa... Nobody agrees with slavery, and to blame it today for the issues of the black community is an insult to all of the AA’s who have succeeded and done very well. Who do you think as selling black slaves to Europe, South America, and the colonies? Do you think there were a bunch of rich white guys over in Africa doing it? No - it was blacks selling their own kind into slavery so they caused their own issue. Kingdoms in Congo, Nigeria, Angola.. sold slaves from African elites to Europe traders until the early 1800’s. Blame whitey all you want, but maybe AA’s should be made at their great-great-great-great-great grandfathers for selling them to make money.
White people have not caused the issue in Chicago and have not enslaved and oppressed the AA community. Is that your excuse for Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, and New Orleans? Highest crime cities coincide with the largest AA population - must be a coincidence huh.
Victimology, separatism, and anti intellectualism are the issues impacting the AA community and holding themselves back - not whitey. There are plenty of great members of society who are African American and a great majority are good citizens who contribute to society and are hard working. Unfortunately you have a group that makes up 13% of the population, yet 52% of murders are committed by AA’s. That has to stop. If not young black men will continue to kill one another, kids will grow up in poverty and single parent homes, and how is this the fault of anyone but those that commit these acts.
Honest question....How many times in your life have you felt someone was being racist against you?
Do you not feel that white people are somewhat responsible for what little racism they might deal with? If you capture, enslave, beat, sell, torture and generally treat one race like shit for hundreds of years, and then still continue to do so long after laws are implemented to prevent it, well they are probably not going to feel too kindly towards you.
Why would people in Chicago hate me for telling them they are right and white people have enslaved and oppressed them for decades? Also, crime in Chicago isn't so much a racial thing as drug and money thing.
I think everyone who just read your post is dumber for it, and please don’t tell me you believe this crap.
Have you read the history and understand it. Do you realize that slavery is minor in this country compared to Europe, South America, Africa... Nobody agrees with slavery, and to blame it today for the issues of the black community is an insult to all of the AA’s who have succeeded and done very well. Who do you think as selling black slaves to Europe, South America, and the colonies? Do you think there were a bunch of rich white guys over in Africa doing it? No - it was blacks selling their own kind into slavery so they caused their own issue. Kingdoms in Congo, Nigeria, Angola.. sold slaves from African elites to Europe traders until the early 1800’s. Blame whitey all you want, but maybe AA’s should be made at their great-great-great-great-great grandfathers for selling them to make money.
White people have not caused the issue in Chicago and have not enslaved and oppressed the AA community. Is that your excuse for Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, and New Orleans? Highest crime cities coincide with the largest AA population - must be a coincidence huh.
Victimology, separatism, and anti intellectualism are the issues impacting the AA community and holding themselves back - not whitey. There are plenty of great members of society who are African American and a great majority are good citizens who contribute to society and are hard working. Unfortunately you have a group that makes up 13% of the population, yet 52% of murders are committed by AA’s. That has to stop. If not young black men will continue to kill one another, kids will grow up in poverty and single parent homes, and how is this the fault of anyone but those that commit these acts.
KC you nailed it! If the black community wants their problem solved they are going to have to take a look at themselves and fix their own problems..Blaming someone else for things that happened 200 years ago "aint cutting it"..
It's fine you didn't understand man. I didn't expect most on here would.
I'll tell you something to keep in mind so you don't always appear as clueless. Just because it could have been a greater problem somewhere else or didn't originate here, doesn't mean it wasn't still a great issue. Slavery is the single biggest stain on American history. Attempting to minimize that fact just points to an agenda ridden with ignorance and hatred.
You might want to re-educate yourself on the version of slavery and it origins however. The Trans-Atlantic SlaveTrade began around the mid-fifteenth century when Portuguese interests in Africa moved away from the fabled deposits of gold to a much more readily available commodity -- slaves. By the seventeenth century the trade was in full swing, reaching a peak towards the end of the eighteenth century. I don't know where you think it all started in 1800's. Lol, you think slavery just lasted 60 some years in America?
I don't recall anyone stating black on black crime wasn't an issue. As was crimes committed by minority groups. The issue, much of it comes back to lack of education and basic civil rights that have only been offered to them the last 50ish years. And even then it took decades to implement civil rights across the nation. I'm not convinced were are still there yet. And that is in large part to white people. We oppressed them and prevented them from having those opportunities. As an oppressed group for centuries, it will likely take them more than a few decades to overcome that. Is that some foreign concept you don't understand?
You do get that just because some black people are able to rise above, not all come from the same situation? They aren't all lumped into one. Again, while not all problems in the black community points solely to racism and slavery, much of them are directly related to centuries of slavery and oppression. However, since white people in this country enslaved and oppressed black people for centuries, I think we maybe can do as much as possible to help them have the opportunity to achieve an equal footing in society. Instead of constantly looking for a way to blame them and avoiding the issue.
How ignorant can you be trying to twist my words. Just because you get your ass handed to you in every post by the entire board you would think you would grow tired of it. I will type slowly for you so you understand. I did not say slavery started in the 1800’s, and since you can’t read I stated up until the 1800’s which is the END - abolitionists anyone?
I already stated the issues in the Black community are due to separatism, anti intellectualism, and the constant feel to blame others for their problems - just like you are doing. How is it that southeast Asians, in the same low income areas, succeed academically and at high levels yet have the same conditions and poverty. Can’t be possible - it is due to poverty. No - it is slavery. Not like the Chinese were not slaves either during the 1850’s, and many died during that time trying to find a better life. How is it they prospered here yet endured the same conditions as AA’s.
How do you propose to give them equal footing in society to make up for it? I have an idea. Since you feel so badly about how they have been treated you need to give up your house to a black family, and give up your job to a black man or woman so things are equal. How do you feel about that? Would you not be a hypocrite for not doing so since you feel so strongly about it. How come if they are so poorly treated and they were ripped from their homeland how is it none of them go back? They are not from here, their ancestors were sold here by their own kind, so the fair thing would be to allow them to go back. That would solve the problem for them and set things right. No more racism.
Not according to any statistical evidence. But for the 100th time, please, let's see your supporting evidence of this.
Again, this is another assertion of yours that just simply isnt true, or only paint half a story.
Republicans use a sound bite that the federal debt doubled under Obama. In looking at the numbers that is close to being numerically correct but falls short of being 100%.
However when you take into account the Great Recession, making W. Bush’s temporary tax cuts permanent, increased Social Security and Medicare spending as more Baby Boomers retire and become 65 years old and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars he inherited.
There are multiple databases that have dollar amounts of the Federal debt. While they have different numbers they are overall close to each other and essentially show the same dollar changes over the years. I am using information from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis
According to the U.S National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. President Barack Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, so it had already started before he entered office.
The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.
Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)
It is clear that the almost $1 trillion jump between fiscal 2008 and 2009 was due to the Great Recession. Tax receipts fell, expenditures rose and Obama and Congress passed the American Economy and Reinvestment Act to combat the recession.
Using percentages is a better way of analyzing data in a lot of cases as it compensates when the data set numbers are larger or smaller from each other. Federal debt falls into this category as it increases over time. The compounding impact of growth can make using absolute numbers meaningless.
Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I’ve computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.
What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.
Reagan
Started Presidency: $965 billion
Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Increased 184% or 13.9% per year
H.W. Bush
Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)
Clinton
Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Increased 36% or 4.0% per year
W. Bush
Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Increased 93% or 8.5% per year
Obama
Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
Increased 78% or 7.5% per year
President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President.
The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers. While all politicians use data to support their positions, the sound bite that the debt doubled under Obama is very misleading.
While the recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, it took several years for the economy to recover to pre-crisis levels of employment and output.
This slow recovery was due in part to households and financial institutions paying off debts accumulated in the years preceding the crisis[1] along with restrained government spending following initial stimulus efforts.[2] It followed the bursting of the housing bubble, the housing market correction and subprime mortgage crisis.
The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."[3]
This is why the housing ownership levels have not been restored and likely won't be anytime soon. Sub prime mortgages just aren't an option anymore. getting back to those levels will very likely cause another recession.
While the recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, it took several years for the economy to recover to pre-crisis levels of employment and output. This slow recovery was due in part to households and financial institutions paying off debts accumulated in the years preceding the crisis[1] along with restrained government spending following initial stimulus efforts.[2] It followed the bursting of the housing bubble, the housing market correction and subprime mortgage crisis.
The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."[3]
How did Bush get us out of the recession if it took several years to improve. Well after the 18- - 24 month time fram you now seem to now be in agreement with?
The number grew as the 2007-2009 recession threw millions out of work, as benefit levels were boosted for several years by the stimulus legislation Obama signed in 2009. The average benefit per person went up from around $113 per person in January 2009 to around $134 in July.
At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.
But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.
Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.
Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.
Sure they grew, but then they decreased. The economy was in the crapper. Of course it was going to rise. Where is it at now? Please share. And do you think the economy is in the shitter now? Even thought it's about the same.
That wouldn't have been truthful or the whole story. You want blanket statements when it's really more of a quilt, with lot's of pieces.
You gave no sources for any of your information. You claimed it was something you read a while ago. You want to make general assessment based on 1 set of numbers that simply doesn't support the big picture. Truth is, a black person is more likely to be a victim of police profiling, police abuse, and being killed by police. That is a problem no matter how you spin it. As is the fact they are killing so many people in general.
I gave your sources that broke down the numbers. Where are yours?
What do you think would of been the outcome of he was black? Be honest!
I worked in public service and I can tell you from REAL life experience that their is no conspiracy from police, EMS or fire dept.'s to oppress the black community, but I can tell you that when you were dispatched to the projects you went there scared as hell because it was either a war zone or a powder keg ready to blow at the drop of a hat. No one and I mean no one in public service is chomping at the bit to go out and get in a gun fight!
I believe this to be true, he and Michael hate America and have pretty much said so in round about ways.
MODS! FREE WILLY! This has gone on long enough.
Maybe it does say something to you. Your perception speaks to your character. Shallow of you to assume "TOOL" say's it all. Do yourself a favor "Bevis" grow up!
Similar threads
