Everything that happened after Obama took office is Obama's glory,
and everything that happened AFTER Obama left, is Obamas glory too?
]
Didn't read any of the posts I see, shocking, that's why you are easy to classify, defiantly "one of his people"
Everything that happened after Obama took office is Obama's glory,
and everything that happened AFTER Obama left, is Obamas glory too?
]
What a pathetic little troll you are.
Wow, nohere'sI'm a guy who doesn't have any mirrors in his house
Didn't read any of the posts I see, shocking, that's why you are easy to classify, defiantly "one of his people"
 @ "one of his people."  It beats being a whiny moron with TDS.  Read the threadYes, I read the article. What underlying point would you care to discuss?
Or he broke them allWow, no here's a guy who doesn't have any mirrors in his house
Time and time again, I say that the Right knows that their side will never bother to click links in order to check facts. They rely on headlines, or someone else's summary of any given article. It's evident in this thread, and virtually every other inane thread started by the trump Klan. They make it entirely to easy to debunk their wild claims found in the thread titles.SAVAGE TAKEDOWN
Time and time again, I say that the Right knows that their side will never bother to click links in order to check facts. They rely on headlines, or someone else's summary of any given article. It's evident in this thread, and virtually every other inane thread started by the trump Klan. They make it entirely to easy to debunk their wild claims found in the thread titles.
I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.
There were so many by him over the years, I finally had to remove him from my view. Nice guy, but very frustrating to attempt discourse with him.Or they commit unforced errors like this:
There were so many by him over the years, I finally had to remove him from my view. Nice guy, but very frustrating to attempt discourse with him.
I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic.
Read the thread
If you won't read the thread, you don't really want to participate in this discussion, do you?If you choose not to answer, then you don't really have a point
@ "one of his people." It beats being a whiny moron with TDS.
![]()
Oh, I don't know, I mean the guy is implying that his voters are stupid, how else can you interpret him saying he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and not lose their votes
I find this rather ironic; you're a stupid voter and think stupid doesn't apply to you. I would add dishonest because you are one of the most dishonest, low IQ liberal dullards on the forum.
I'm being serious when I ask, you are not very bright are you?
Obama operated almost entirely on ZERO interest rates
That's playing with fake money.
But it can't maintain in an economy as complex as ours. Someone like Trump needed to step in and get us on some kind of sustainable footing.
Total BULLSHIT. Obama PRINTED HIS WAY through....with the most QUANTATIVE EASING in US history..by far.No, you're not being serious. You're quite aware that I'm bright -- or at least bright enough that I easily trounce you each time we argue. It really eats at you. And that's what makes you so funny. You offer very little in the way of substantive debate, but your emotional meltdowns are hilarious.
Obama INHERITED interests rates that were at or near zero, and then they rose by the end of his presidency. Thus, he wasn't one of those presidents that got the external boost of having interest rates fall on his watch. Quite the opposite.
No, it's real money. It's just that, over time, the money became scarcer on his watch, acting as a drag on the economy, whereas over time money became more easily available on the watch of Reagan or Bush, acting as a boost for the economy. This is Economics 101 material. Try to catch up.
Trump, as you know, has put us on a less sustainable footing, by greatly expanding the budget deficit. Facts matter.
No, you're not being serious. You're quite aware that I'm bright -- or at least bright enough that I easily trounce you each time we argue. It really eats at you. And that's what makes you so funny. You offer very little in the way of substantive debate, but your emotional meltdowns are hilarious.
Obama INHERITED interests rates that were at or near zero, and then they rose by the end of his presidency. Thus, he wasn't one of those presidents that got the external boost of having interest rates fall on his watch. Quite the opposite.
No, it's real money. It's just that, over time, the money became scarcer on his watch, acting as a drag on the economy, whereas over time money became more easily available on the watch of Reagan or Bush, acting as a boost for the economy. This is Economics 101 material. Try to catch up.
Trump, as you know, has put us on a less sustainable footing, by greatly expanding the budget deficit. Facts matter.
Three rounds of QE is not considering the Fed super charging the economy?
nd the fact that Obama had interest rates at zero for most of his term and they were still under 1% when he left office means there was an external drag on the economy caused by the Fed?