Sarah Palin: 'I Owe America A Global Apology'

That grand jury could and would indict a ham sandwich if it had an "R" after it's name. Sorry, jac, but I'll wait for an actual conviction before presuming guilt or innocence. So far the evidence indicates he did nothing wrong in trying to get an unrepentant drunk to resign.

 

Rosemary Lehmberg; the poster child of the Democratic Party 2014




[video=youtube;s7y7oJ266qI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7y7oJ266qI[/video]

[video=youtube;JrxsCH_p1oc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc[/video]

 

LOL...spare us!

If you would like to criticize a president go for Bush. That guy was illegitimate from the git go. He wouldn't have ever been a president if his brother, his brother's concubine and the supreme court appointed by Ronald Reagan and his Daddy Bush hadn't stolen it for him. As far as the second time:

 

Please, try to stay focused.... this thread isn't about Bush.

And btw, I didn't like Bush either.........

 

Bravo!

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did more to ruin this country's ordinary working class than the rest of the presidents combined

View attachment 30059

 

Obama could only envy the economic record of Reagan and even Bush. Under Reagan we had real growth of 5%+, not to mention inflation and unemployment being reduced. See Robert Bartley's "The Seven Fat Years". For some people, not even hindsight vision is 20/20.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, it was Gore who tried to steal the election. Luckily he failed and today is nothing more than a rich joke.

 

you have really no clue what you're talking about



Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing

9/05/2014

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After 6 consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.

One month variation does not change a trend

Even though the plus-200k monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300k; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.

And that is great news.

Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the #1 issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.

To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.

This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history




Unemployment Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

What about the Labor Participation Rate?

Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown.

U3 v U6 1994-2014Bob Deitrick: “The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a “hidden” unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called ‘U6.’ today by the BLS.


Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.

Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.


What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”

Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs

When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation.

This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, 2 points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion.

New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with 15 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, 2004 – 5 years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the “grass roots” economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2013 – demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been.

As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting

The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 – reaching new all time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth.

Investment Returns Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick: While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are. Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance.

Over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

In 2009, with pension funds underfunded and most private retirement accounts savaged by the financial meltdown and Wall Street losses, Boomers and Seniors were resigned to never retiring. The nest egg appeared gone, leaving the ‘chickens’ to keep working. But now that the coffers have been reloaded increasingly people age 55 – 70 are happily discovering they can quit their old jobs and spend time with family, relax, enjoy hobbies or start new at-home businesses from their laptops or tablets. It is due to a skyrocketing stock market that people can now pursue these dreams and reduce the labor participation rates for ‘better pastures.”


Where myth meets reality

There is another election in just 8 weeks. Statistics will be bandied about. Monthly data points will be hotly contested. There will be a lot of rhetoric by candidates on all sides. But, understanding the prevailing trends is critical. Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important – even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments.

There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best. And shows a very clear trend one can expect to continue into 2015.

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

 

Complete nonsense.

"I recently received several emails from liberals upset with comparisons I made between the economic records of President Obama and President Reagan, who died 10 years ago today on June 5.

What set off my emailers was a lecture I gave on Reagan conservatism broadcast by C-SPAN’s “Book TV,” based on my latest book. My national platform seemed to only amplify their outrage. But here’s what really riled them:

I committed an unpardonable sin when I rattled off data affirming that various minority groups had done notably well under Ronald Reagan, in contrast to Barack Obama. This clearly touched a nerve.

The record is indisputable: the Reagan economy was vastly preferable to the Obama economy.
So, what are the facts?

For starters, both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama inherited miserable economies, but they responded very differently.

In Reagan’s first year, he sought to stimulate economic growth via large cuts in marginal income tax rates. Reagan believed this would allow Americans to keep their money and spend and invest it better than government could; this was, in effect, private-sector stimulus. It was a stark contrast to President Obama’s massive $800 billion public-sector (i.e., government) stimulus in his first year.

The Reagan tax cuts helped initiate an economic boom, highlighted by 92 consecutive months of interrupted economic growth, far surpassing the previous record of 58 months. The bogeymen of the 1970s—chronic unemployment and the deadly combination of double-digit inflation and interest rates—were vanquished. The poverty rate dropped. Incomes (median earnings) and standard of living soared. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which, in real terms, had declined 70 percent from 1967-82, nearly tripled from 1983-89.

And what about minorities?

Real income for a median African-American family had dropped 11 percent from 1977-82; from 1982-89, coming out of the recession, it rose by 17 percent. In the 1980s, there was a 40 percent jump in the number of black households earning $50,000 or more. Black unemployment under Reagan in the 1980s actually fell faster than white unemployment. The number of black-owned businesses increased by almost 40 percent, while the number of blacks who enrolled in college increased by almost 30 percent (white college enrollment increased by only 6 percent).

There were likewise impressive numbers for Hispanics, who saw similar to higher increases in family income, employment, and college enrollment. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the 1980s grew by an astounding 81 percent, and the number of Hispanics enrolled in college jumped 45 percent.

Liberals often decry the income gap between men and women. Well, under Reagan, women went from earning 60 cents for every dollar a man earned to 71 cents, and their employment and median earnings outpaced their male counterparts. Women enrolled in college in record numbers.

Of course, these are the constituencies that twice elected Barack Obama, thereby giving the green light to policies that are the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan pursued to their advantage.

For that matter, the youth vote also twice elected Barack Obama. And here, too, the data is quite eye-opening.

The peak period of youth unemployment for 16-24 year olds under Reagan was 1982, when it was 17.3%. Reagan reduced it to 10.9% by 1988. Under Obama, the peak for that same group was 19.1%. By 2013, the number was 16.3%.

The unemployment data for 16-19 year olds is even more pronounced. Under Reagan, it fell from 24% in 1982 to 14.8% in 1988. Under Obama, it declined from a high of 25.9% in 2010 to only 22.9% in 2013. The numbers for black Americans aged 16-19 are even stronger in Reagan’s favor. They fell from 49.4% in 1982 to 31.9% in 1988—a vast improvement. Under Obama, they declined from 43.0% in 2010 to only 38.8% in 2013.

Economist Stephen Moore has examined the change in household income for the four primary demographic groups that carried the electoral day for Obama in 2008 and 2012: African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, and young voters. These groups, shows Moore, have experienced the worst declines in household incomes from 2009-13.

Even then, those numbers don’t convey the current catastrophe. Many of today’s unemployed have simply become wards of the welfare state. There are an astounding 48 million Americans on food stamps under Barack Obama, far higher than under Reagan (and under George W. Bush). Reagan had reduced the number of Americans on food stamps to 18 million. The number of Americans on food stamps under Obama has jumped by 43% since his first year as president.

For the record, the total U.S. population under Reagan was 236 million, compared to 317 million under Obama. Yes, Obama has a higher population, but even then, the percentage of the population on food stamps is far higher than under Reagan.

Barack Obama once heralded what he called “redistributive change.” That’s exactly what we now have.

Finally, consider the data on another group of Americans that liberals often tout as victims of conservative economic policies.

Liberals tried to blame Ronald Reagan for the homeless in the 1980s. They did so with hysteria and viciousness. With the help of sympathetic media, their castigations had notable success, mainly because the matter of trying to quantify the total number of homeless (and the reasons for their plight) is extremely complicated.

The homeless do not register like the unemployed do, or like those filing for welfare benefits. Calculating the homeless requires careful study.

In the 1980s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to do just that. In 1984, HUD released its report, estimating 250,000-350,000 homeless. Even by the late 1980s, most studies placed the homeless around 300,000.

 

that describes your post very well

 

Another illustration of the principle that the quickest way to shut up a liberal is by presenting facts.

 

you might want to get a grip on reality and review the definition of fact

 

The public isn't buying your spin on the pathetic Obama 'recover', a recent poll said 50% think we are still in recession.

 

Actually, it is very false to say that Obama outperfomed Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing... I don't even understand how Adam Hartung could write something that is patiently false...

http://streettalklive.com/index.php/daily-x-change/2384-obama-outperformed-reagan-hardly.html

 

no it's not, an unemployed person has to be ready, willing and able to work

 

Pre-election propaganda.

 

of course you can't face the truth

 

interesting, thanks for posting

 

it's bill loonman in waco, georgia

his neighbors call him the waco wacko and he's connected to the 'north georgia militia'

 

Reagan did wonders in these categories without pushing the minimum wage, why is that? The minimum wage is a joke, the free market needs to decide these things. Such laws replace cooperation with coercion, since they make it a crime for employers and employees to enter freely into agreements for work and wages. This free market is replaced by somebody in Congress deciding what's best for all concerned. If a worker is worth $8 an hour and the minimum wage goes up to $10, he gets fired. If he doesn't get fired, let's say his expenses go up $500 over the course of a year when he visits fast food places, etc., whose prices also go up with the minimum wage. If he makes +$500 and spends +$500, where's the gain? European nations with a minimum wage have higher unemployment than nations that don't, but unfortunately, in politics demagoguery trumps data.

By the way, I know lots of business owners who aren't hiring or expanding until Obama is gone, that isn't obstructionism, its fiscal sanity. There is too much uncertainty now. Their number one obligation is to stay in business. Bill in GA gets that.

 

Loonman, that's a fitting name.

 

he didn't have so many wing-nuts in congress to contend with

 

The wing-nuts were called Tip O'Neil, Jim Wright, etc. Obama had a bullet-proof majority in Congress his first two years, what's your excuse for that?

 

I guess the possibility that Sarah might have been using the second meaning of the word "global" as in sweeping, without exception never occurred to you in your headlong rush to assassinate her character.

BTW, having worked in the addictions field for 24 years now, when anyone says someone else is on "meds" I always for some strange reason think of the the phrase "it takes one to know one."

Have a splendid day

And, you know, if Obama had maybe apologized for that "enemies" comment as Sarah has had the good grace to do, I wonder if maybe he might have gotten some work done in congress?

Just askin

 

all you're doing is showing that you don't haves a clue what a wing-nut is

 

"Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is an American political term used as a slur referring to a person who holds extreme, and often irrational, political views usually with a religious overtone. According to Merriam-Webster, it is "a mentally deranged person" or "one who advocates extreme measures or changes : radical."[1] In American politics, the term is more often aimed at members of the political right than those of the political left,[2] for which the alternative term moonbat is more often used."

I'm sorry, apparently I should have used the word 'moonbat'.

- - - Updated - - -

With our failed president, it's my way or the highway. Bill Clinton would compromise, Obama will not, being the left-wing ideologue that he is.