gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.
All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.
Until, you know, it crashed and burned near the end of his reign.
But on average better than it's been during Obama's reign, right? You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was. I suppose you could just blame that on just how bad things were when the housing market crashed in 2008, or you could maybe suggest that Obama didn't manage the results of that crash well and didn't figure out a way to get the economy back on track. It's kinda the point to showing that even though unemployment is finally back to where it was during most of the Bush administration, when you calculate in the labor participation rate, it actually is still much higher.
For many Americans, the crash back in 2008 is still negatively impacting them. At some point, you have to stop blaming the crash and start blaming the economic policies enacted after that crash.
...
I can't tell whether you are serious. It is somewhat hard to decide which way I want to go with. Since that is the care, I will just go with the flow.
When you are talking about averages here, you are using the same kind of math used in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to prove that universe has no population. Observe.
Quote:
None. Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.
With that out of the way lets looks at the following sentence.
Quote:
You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was
Let us see. Where was Bush's economy and the end of the eight year reign?
Low point in 2008 DOW was 8149. When Obama was taking over it was even
lower. What is it now? At the end of Obama's reign of terror? So how did he do on average? He only ***************************************** doubled it[/link]. Yeah. On average he did so much worse than his predecessor.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I am cherry picking, right? We want to check averages and not just the worst time of the given president's reign, right?
Hwell,
on ******* average, DOW was 10500 when he took office, and what was it again when he finished?
Again, there are valid complaints about Obama, but saying Bush's economy was better is not really supported by facts.
Maybe it was good for you? Are you basing your argument on an anecdote?
I reiterate my ******** cryst dude'.