75% Of New February Jobs Were In LIBERAL California

All those jobs, and only a micro% of them pay enough to not be totally fucking poor in California.

Which is still by a long shot #1 for poverty and homelessness.

This is true in any state you choose right now. But our economy is booming thanks to trump. Or it isnt....which is it?
 
This is true in any state you choose right now.


Ummm....No.

Below the poverty line in CA is solid middle to upper middle class in most of the country.

But our economy is booming thanks to trump. Or it isnt....which is it?

Eh....I think he's helped in some ways for some markets, not so much in others.
 
Last edited:
Ummm....No.

Below the poverty line in CA is solid middle to upper middle class in most of the country.



Eh....I think he's helped in some ways for some markets, not so much in others.

Ummmm. Yes. Poverty is relative. But the wage for a given job in another state is less.
 
I dont know what I am missing...+148% for Obama, +22% Donald Duck.

It is no longer PC to use intelligence, logical consistency and reason when dealing with the 40%. It makes them feel bad inside. We are supposed to be sensitive to their feelings.
 
It is no longer PC to use intelligence, logical consistency and reason when dealing with the 40%. It makes them feel bad inside. We are supposed to be sensitive to their feelings.

Your post is a good source of irony. - Liam
 
Ummmm. Yes. Poverty is relative. But the wage for a given job in another state is less.

Things are more complicated than that bumper sticker slogan that Californians tell themselves to feel better about paying the overpriced cost of living that they do.

Depends on what industry you're in and where in that industry you tend to work.

Some pay plenty to compensate for the extra cost of living.

But not most. ;)
 
NIGGER took over at the bottom, and had 8 yrs

lets talk in 8 yrs

why the fuck do you even pretend to try?:mad:

And the recovery under Obama was the slowest in history, except for the Great Depression of the 1930's. He didn't really do a good job, but it did get done.
 
And the recovery under Obama was the slowest in history, except for the Great Depression of the 1930's. He didn't really do a good job, but it did get done.

Hmm... other than a couple months during his eight years.. who held the senate and house? Was it the people that draft bills and control spending?


Was it THESE people?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...erything-they-said-about-obama-was-a-lie.html

WALLACE: You were there, of what the Republicans did to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, on Fast and Furious. And they got some things done despite the fact that these were aggressive partisan investigations.



MULVANEY: Well, we didn’t get very much done. Listen, I’ll be the first to admit that when the tea party wave, of which I was one, got here in 2011, the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes.


Where's the tea party republicans now? Where's the outrage for the debt and deficit?
 
And the recovery under Obama was the slowest in history, except for the Great Depression of the 1930's. He didn't really do a good job, but it did get done.

It "got done" despite his stated aims and actual policies.

It "got done" by bad monetary policy that injected 80 BILLION a month for years in pretend money to prop up the obvious failure of the non-recovery by creating a massive stock market bubble that actual growth in the economy since he left office has almost, but not quite, managed to deflate. It is still a pretty ominous bubble and when and if it burst, that horrifically stupid policy will be inaccurately laid, Rory-style, at the feet of the current administration.

It "got done" as far as any actual economic growth almost entirely by growth in oil production which was specifically at odds with his stated energy policy of making the cost of energy more precious by making it less available.

Nothing. Literally nothing, that Obama actually accomplished, or even wished he could accomplish had a positive effect on growth, or could have, if he had been given free reign to implement his Ocasio-Cortez style idiocy.

Had he entered office and done literally nothing, there would have been far greater economic growth than what actually occurred. He could have easily taken credit for presiding over that natural rebound and they could be crowng over actual growth instead of imaginary growth. He also comfortably would have been re-elected on the economic strength that should have happened instead of merely being retained because voters hesitated to fire the "historic" guy. You know, the same basket of deplorables that elected Trump to explicitly undo the economic damage of the previous eight years.

All post-recession recovery periods HAVE to eventually lead to growth because demand delayed must eventually be met. Trump *should* have had no untapped demand to benefit from. The recession ended before Obama took office.

Median home prices just set a record. That did not happen on Obama's dime, unless you want to admit that bad monetary policy caused the deflation of our currency and a lot of the growth is illusory.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top