Speakeasy forum: Why aren't the liberals bragging

AND they are good paying jobs...You go Obama!!!!!!!

......you'd only claim the numbers were fudged (again) or something, so why bother?

Nobody thinks 7.7% is something to brag about, Toni. It's an improvement though, and I bet those 146,000 people are a lot happier about it than you are.

146,000 jobs in the military?

Which, by the way would, be "government jobs".

... try and convince themselves and everyone around them of their supposed superiority like all the neocon on this board do.

I got a link here that explains everything you are raising in your OP

the one who provided it in the first place.....as far as the 'cuts' you mention, were they actually CUT or did they retire with big pensions (at taxpayer expense)?

NO...you didn't

show me where in either one or both of YOUR links it says

state, local and federal governments cut 1,000

You act like "working" for the military is of no worth. People die, people are injured, people work in many areas to insure peace, watch for warning signs, interpreting foreign communications indicating adverse military movements, and a whole host of other things. You don't seem to realize where we'd be as a nation without any military, because that's the other side of that coin. You don't seem to have any problem with those getting paid in the govt social services, yet keep harping about the military. Your bias is all too clear. That's probably why she's decided to ignore your ignorance on the matter, since you wouldn't get it anyway.

I'm guessing, just like YOU.

Does this mean you are trying to build a relationship with her, to combat her perceived loneliness?

That's just one reason Mitt Romney's "47%" remarks were so offensive, since that number includes active-duty military.

.....who fell into that 47%, Ed.

especially the amounts they receive since they are already three times higher than what a private sector job equal to what the job is would get paid.

Something I found interesting that came up last evening.......BO has been in office for slightly more than 1400 days.......and yet he has increased the government payroll by 95 jobs PER DAY since he took office. And he's not done yet. Most of those jobs were to increase or create new departments/agencies that go along with BO's agendas (more EPA, more IRS, more czars, more security for people like Jarrett, etc).

I also found it interesting that although there are statements made here that 1000 jobs have been cut from 'local, state' and federal' governments, I could only find where state and local governments were the ones doing the cutting; whereas BO has added another 14,250 jobs with much better pay scales and benefits than the local/state governments could possibly pay. The difference is that States are required by law to balance a budget (even the point where one city laid off their entire police department because they had no funds to pay them), whereas the Feds aren't required to balance a budget and just keep printing the money.

Fed Reserve is already planning to do another QE-3 with the money (plus adding to it) with the money they just got ($5B) as profit from selling the AIG stock, all the while knowing that even though by law they are required to have a budget every year and have thumbed their nose at that for the last four years in a row and plan to ignore it again.

When does this administration become accountable for their actions (non-actions)? When does this Administration stop flaunting it to the people that they are above the very laws that their own emploERS are required to follow?

You still haven't answered that same question regarding the previous administration. Apparently they weren't accountable for 9/11 since it happened "only" nine months in. I asked you what the cutoff date was and you still haven't provided one.

The perpetrators of the first WTC attack are in prison. In hindsight we can see that he probably didn't do enough, but he didn't do "nothing." And yes, he's accountable for any attacks that happened during his presidency.

Your ball.

He went to war against them all.........Clinton had warnings that he didn't pay any attention to and when the first WTC attack happened, he went after them AFTER the fact, just like Bush....but Clinton got a nod and a wink and an 'atta boy' even though it took many previous attacks before WTC happened. Bush has been crucified by you guys because it was nine MONTHS with NO attacks previous to 9-11 on his watch. Other than a few drone attacks and OBL (because of Intel that BUSH got for him), BO has done nothing except talk a good game. The first 'red line' for Syria was "if you MOVE the chemicals"......then they were moved and he didn't do or say anything. Now they are not only MOVED, but MIXED and ready to drop.....so BO drew a new 'red line' of "If you USE them, there's gonna be trouble for you, mister".......

Won't that be a little, too little, too late?

Your ball..........