President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Seven Wishes2]

I see. Color me ignorant. Let the proceedings begin...

[Seven Wishes2]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

[conversationpc]

It's rather absurd to compare the economy of a tiny, somewhat isolated European country to ours.

Austrian economics has nothing to do with Austria or the Austrian economy, its a school of thought, many of the philosophers and economists who adhered to it happened to have an association with Vienna or were of austrian decent (many of whom ended up in UK and US eventually)

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

It's rather absurd to compare the economy of a tiny, somewhat isolated European country to ours.

Austrian economics has nothing to do with Austria or the Austrian economy, its a school of thought, many of the philosophers and economists who adhered to it happened to have an association with Vienna or were of austrian decent (many of whom ended up in UK and US eventually)

LOL i wasnt being snotty, most folks havent heard the term "austrian economics" Actuallly the center for austrian economics is in Auburn,Alabama (www.mises.org)

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

To build you ego back up this is actually quite witty !

[RossValoryRocks]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

There are a LOT of jobs out there...just not ones that people feel they want to take!!! Many would rather sit on UI and do nothing, hope the government will do something about their debts (Which is a consequence of the bailouts: "If they bail out Wall Street, why not me?!", which I empathize with to some extent.) rather than go work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. I don't understand that thinking...when I was laid off in '03, with a house, 2 car payments and brand new baby I worked multiple jobs for less money to make ends meet...sure I spent more time away from the house, but at least my bills got paid, until I was able to secure better employment.

[Behshad]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

There are a LOT of jobs out there...just not ones that people feel they want to take!!! Many would rather sit on UI and do nothing, hope the government will do something about their debts (Which is a consequence of the bailouts: "If they bail out Wall Street, why not me?!", which I empathize with to some extent.) rather than go work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. I don't understand that thinking...when I was laid off in '03, with a house, 2 car payments and brand new baby I worked multiple jobs for less money to make ends meet...sure I spent more time away from the house, but at least my bills got paid, until I was able to secure better employment.

Bingo!

[Saint John]

Both parties need to sit down and have the balls to limit unemployment to 3 months ... no matter what. I would offer an additional 3 months *if* they find a job before their first 3 months are up. The "2 incomes" would help ease the burden of eventually losing the second 3 months of unemployment. That would force people to fill the jobs that are out there. Jobs would fill up faster than Chris Christie's stomach at a buffet. People used to work 2 or 3 jobs because they had to. Now? They just find a way to get a government check. It's usually something astoundingly ridiculous like anxiety, depression or some social disorder.

The democrats have done everything in their power to make people dependent on the government. The government shouldn't do shit for able-bodied individuals, and that's what the vast majority of these leaches are ... including these shameless fucks protesting Wall Street. If Obama had any balls he'd label them as the fucking losers that they are and tell them to put the same amount of energy into finding employment. There are over 2 million job openings right now, but people simply feel that most of those jobs are beneath them or not worth their time because they've grown accustomed to getting shit for nothing. I'd love to force those maggots to fill out applications and accept the jobs that they *could* get if they really wanted them. But they don't want jobs ... they want to continue to converge in swarms, and fool each other into the fallacy that they've been wronged ... that they've tried, but the system doesn't allow for them to succeed. That's BULLSHIT! And someone needs to tell them as much. I'm thinking Herman Cain is gonna be that guy.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

What famous person said?

“That's why we start with kids, we can affect who they will be forever.”

michael Jackson!!!

[Behshad]

What famous person said?

“That's why we start with kids, we can affect who they will be forever.”

Charlie Sheen ?

[Behshad]

What famous person said?

“That's why we start with kids, we can affect who they will be forever.”

michael Jackson!!!

That was my #2 option

[RossValoryRocks]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

There are a LOT of jobs out there...just not ones that people feel they want to take!!! Many would rather sit on UI and do nothing, hope the government will do something about their debts (Which is a consequence of the bailouts: "If they bail out Wall Street, why not me?!", which I empathize with to some extent.) rather than go work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. I don't understand that thinking...when I was laid off in '03, with a house, 2 car payments and brand new baby I worked multiple jobs for less money to make ends meet...sure I spent more time away from the house, but at least my bills got paid, until I was able to secure better employment.

Bingo!

You mean Lazy with a sense of entitlement right???

49 weeks of unemployment...49 weeks...it's unreal!

[Rick]

"Unemploym­ent is Obama's fault!"

"Unemploym­ent wouldn't be an issue if you freeloader­s and lazy whiners would just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a dang job!"

Both cannot be true.

If jobs are abundant and available, by mere applicatio­n of determinat­ion...then Obama and the Gov shouldn't determine anything when it comes to getting work. The GOP is convinced private business does it all (even though that's been proven a fallacy by and large).

So which is it? Do you actually need the government to help create jobs, or are millions and millions of jobs just waiting to be had, with hard work and determinat­ion, whether Obama and the Congress does anything or not?

Remember, this isn't the Bible, where you get to pick two items that contradict each other but insist they're both applicable or consistent­.

There are a LOT of jobs out there...just not ones that people feel they want to take!!! Many would rather sit on UI and do nothing, hope the government will do something about their debts (Which is a consequence of the bailouts: "If they bail out Wall Street, why not me?!", which I empathize with to some extent.) rather than go work 2 jobs to try and make ends meet. I don't understand that thinking...when I was laid off in '03, with a house, 2 car payments and brand new baby I worked multiple jobs for less money to make ends meet...sure I spent more time away from the house, but at least my bills got paid, until I was able to secure better employment.

Bingo!

You mean Lazy with a sense of entitlement right???

49 weeks of unemployment...49 weeks...it's unreal!

And how did they even come to that figure? That's a year. A friggin year. If you can't find a job in 3 months, you're absolutely not trying. I agree with your thinking in that you may have to work as many jobs as it takes. I'd rather work any job than be unemployed. I haven't been unemployed since I was a teenager. But then again, I've had my current job for 28 years.

[Seven Wishes2]

I was fired by my gay porn studio after 11 years of faithful service, for no reason. I pounded the Pavement (a gay porn actor's name at the time) for a couple of weeks, non-stop, and got a new job. Granted, I wasn't in the same position(s) as before, but it was still work. Sure, I was forced to take a job as a fluffer for semi-impotent fat male German amateur porn actors, but it was still work, and I still had a paycheck. There ARE jobs out there.

[Memorex]

Now I know where I know you from.

[Monker]

Wasn't it these people who called Bush a fear monger?


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 98267.html

Biden Continues to Warn of Rapes and Murders If Jobs Bill Isn't Passed
7:23 PM, Oct 18, 2011 • By DANIEL HALPER

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden warned that more people would likely be raped and murdered if President Obama's jobs bill is not passed. "In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city," Biden said at an event in Flint, Michigan. "In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes--just to pick two categories--climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don't rectify it."

Today, Biden reiterated his warning at an event in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.“The other thing I’ve heard from my friends who oppose this – this whole jobs bill and this – that this is just temporary," Biden said. "Well let me tell you, it’s not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape, it’s not temporary to that woman. It’s not temporary to the guy whose store is being held up and a gun is being pointed to his head. If a cop shows up and he’s not killed, that’s not temporary to that store owner. Give me a break, temporary! I wish these guys that thought it was temporary, I wish they had some notion what it’s like to be on the other side of a gun or a 200 pound man standing over you telling you to submit. Folks, it matters. It matters!”

So, you are saying that the portions of the bill that specifically target hiring of more police officers will not result in less crime? And, if more officers are fired that it will not result in more crime?

bush held terrorism over this voters head CONSTANTLY, over EVERY issues. There is a HUGE difference there.

[Monker]

Joe Biden is a world-class idiot.

If Obama had any sense, he would dump that senile old curmugeon and beg Hillary to be his VP candidate in '12.

Biden is also 100% correct in what he said. In some cities there are simply not enough officers to respond to calls.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Austrian economics says the only governing model is the market- you dont "use it as a model" . It is a theory that states that what is important in an economy and what makes the market is the subjective choices that individuals and firms make, and they add up to create the dynamic of the economy and the business cycle. Thus microeconomic laws are what is important. In so much as modern macroeconomic theory tries to ignore the facts of micro economics and start from the top down Austrian economics tends to reject alot of it. In so much that the activities of individuals and firms make up the ecomomy I would say that Austrian economic models have been used ever since the days of the agora in Athens and furher back to when the Mesopotanians started to trade.

In other words, no regulations at all. The free market, left to it's own device, is brutal. Even Adam Smith was in favor of some regulation. And citing Athens, Mesopotamia, Middle Earth, or any other pre-industrialized economy, does not exactly inspire confindence in what you're talking about.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Austrian economics says the only governing model is the market- you dont "use it as a model" . It is a theory that states that what is important in an economy and what makes the market is the subjective choices that individuals and firms make, and they add up to create the dynamic of the economy and the business cycle. Thus microeconomic laws are what is important. In so much as modern macroeconomic theory tries to ignore the facts of micro economics and start from the top down Austrian economics tends to reject alot of it. In so much that the activities of individuals and firms make up the ecomomy I would say that Austrian economic models have been used ever since the days of the agora in Athens and furher back to when the Mesopotanians started to trade.

In other words, no regulations at all.

no, no libertarian freemarket system denies that there needs to be a legal framework in place, based on the principle that agreession and co-ercion against an fellow individual is wrong an immoral. Get away with what ever you can at the expense of other individuals is not a libertarian principle

The free market, left to it's own device, is brutal. Even Adam Smith was in favor of some regulation.

Except for the fact that big corporations and powerful interests LOVE govt regulation.. Why? because they can co-opt it and buy off the goverment and use that regulation to commit agression against their competition, be that small business owners, individuals. How becuase regulation makes it impossible for them to provide a viable alternative. So instead of people naturlly co-operationg - Regulation breeds immorality and strife between individuals.

and citing Athens, Mesopotamia, Middle Earth, or any other pre-industrialized economy, does not exactly inspire confindence in what you're talking about.

Your misunderstanding what I am saying, im not commenting on any pre-industrialized economy I am making the point that the principles of the free market are a reflection on the way that humans act, have always acted when they co-operate together and trade . That will be true 2000 years from now , that was true 5000 years ago when the first two people met up on the market place. Wherever there are two or three people who agree to respect each others rights and co-operate the principles of market economics govern the way they interact.

[RedWingFan]

Joe Biden is a world-class idiot.

If Obama had any sense, he would dump that senile old curmugeon and beg Hillary to be his VP candidate in '12.

Biden is also 100% correct in what he said. In some cities there are simply not enough officers to respond to calls.

Biden was talking about Flint, Michigan. Which happens to be where I was born and raised. The Democrat party has destroyed that city with the help of the UAW.

I don't think there's been a Republican Mayor there in my lifetime. It was the Democrat party that cut police and fire to use it on their social handout policies. It was the Democrat party along with their UAW allies that ran GM, Delphi and every other big manufacturer out of town.

True, there are only a handful of police officers to patrol a BIG city. Yeah, people are getting raped and murdered because of a lack of police officers. The people doing the raping and murdering are still getting their government checks though thanks to the Democrats. But to stand there and try to blame it on Republicans for opposing a "jobs bill" that would fund for only 12 months, is the height of hypocrisy.

You'd have to have the intelligence of a fruit fly to believe "Biden is also 100% correct." Man you're stupid.

[Behshad]

Joe Biden is a world-class idiot.

If Obama had any sense, he would dump that senile old curmugeon and beg Hillary to be his VP candidate in '12.

Biden is also 100% correct in what he said. In some cities there are simply not enough officers to respond to calls.

Biden was talking about Flint, Michigan. Which happens to be where I was born and raised. The Democrat party has destroyed that city with the help of the UAW.

I don't think there's been a Republican Mayor there in my lifetime. It was the Democrat party that cut police and fire to use it on their social handout policies. It was the Democrat party along with their UAW allies that ran GM, Delphi and every other big manufacturer out of town.

True, there are only a handful of police officers to patrol a BIG city. Yeah, people are getting raped and murdered because of a lack of police officers. The people doing the raping and murdering are still getting their government checks though thanks to the Democrats. But to stand there and try to blame it on Republicans for opposing a "jobs bill" that would fund for only 12 months, is the height of hypocrisy.

You'd have to have the intelligence of a fruit fly to believe "Biden is also 100% correct." Man you're stupid.

I wouldnt complain if I were you, since those rapists are your only chance of getting laid

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

True, there are only a handful of police officers to patrol a BIG city. Yeah, people are getting raped and murdered because of a lack of police officers. The people doing the raping and murdering are still getting their government checks though thanks to the Democrats. But to stand there and try to blame it on Republicans for opposing a "jobs bill" that would fund for only 12 months, is the height of hypocrisy.

You are right on the money here. If there were no governement checks there would much lower crime. Why? Becuase everyone who thought about raping and stealing would think "if I get caught, no one is going to hire a felon, and there is no goverment check for me to live on, and no one will feel sorry for me and give me food If I rape , I will starve literally. "

Instead people think Oh I'll get out of jail and the govt will give me my ebt, foodstamps , housing.

In fact Biden would be a bit more on the mark if he admitted "Goverment checks lead to rape"

[RossValoryRocks]

Someone gets it!

[slucero]

Man BofA really doesn't want customers....

Bank Of America Forces Depositors To Backstop Its $53 Trillion Derivative Book To Prevent A Few Clients From Departing The Bank
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-amer ... lients-dep

Bank of America, which today reported a big bottom line loss net of one-time beneficial items, did something quite tricky and extremely devious last month: it shifted anywhere up to the total of $53 trillion of the total derivatives it held as of June 30 (as Zero Hedge previously reported) on its books at Q2 from the Holding Company, which was downgraded last by Moody's from A2 to Baa1 (the third-lowest investment grade rating) to its retail bank, which was downgraded to the far more palatable A2 (from Aa3). The reason for the transfer? Bank customers who were uneasy with the fact that suddenly the collateral backstoping the operating entity handling their counterparty risk was downgraded to just above junk, demanded that said counterparty risk be mitigated by the bank's $1 trillon in deposits. In other words, as Bloomberg first reported when it broke this story, anywhere up to the full $53 trillion (we don't know for sure how much so we assume the worst case) is now fully and effectively backstopped explicitly by the bank's $1,041 trillion (as of September 30) deposits. Pardon's we meant the people's deposits: the same deposits which caused the bank's website to be inoperative for several days in a row after it was rumored that there was an electronic run on the bank. Why? Just so Bank of America can appears whatever remaining clients it has so they decide not to take their business to another derivative counterparty. And who is exposed to this latest idiocy? Why you. But that's not all: the FDIC, which is the entity backstopping the deposits in a worst-case scenario, is not happy with this move for obvious reasons. Yet even it is hopeless to override the Fed, which as Bloomberg reports, "has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company." And so, once again, we see just how much more important to the Federal Reserve are interests of US taxpayers and savers, over those of the banks that effectively run the Fed.

Laslty, nobody should make the mistake that BofA is alone in this move: every other bank that has major derivative exposure and has a depository base has certainly been forced to do precisely the same by its bigger accounts, who have no desire of being exposed to surging counterparty risk and would much rather split it with America's depositors.

What does this mean?

A portion of the 53 trillion dollars of derivatives (yes that’s with a t, about the size of the entire global economy) transferred to Bank of America’s parent company from Merrill Lynch in 2008 has recently been transferred to Bank of America.

Derivatives contracts in a bank are paid before anyone else gets paid.

Therefore, these derivatives contracts would be paid before depositors receive their money. These people just cut in front of you.

It's very simple, the reason that banks and trading houses were originally separated was to prevent this sort of thing. What’s really going to happen is that the government is going to end up bailing out the FDIC … so this will end up being a government bailout.

You’ll end up getting shafted, either by derivatives holders cutting in front of you or by your having to bail out the FDIC so it can bail out banks depositors. Either way, this is yet another instance of looting by the big banks and big government.

Most of the experts feel this is likely a precursor to a Chapter 11 filing..

[RedWingFan]

http://factcheck.org/2011/10/bidens-who ... I.facebook

Biden’s Whopper in Flint, Mich.
Posted on October 20, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 21, 2011


Joe Biden falsely claimed on multiple occasions that the number of reported rapes in Flint, Mich., has skyrocketed since 2008 — providing different accounts at different events that do not square with FBI data. He started at a 152 percent increase, and since then has said rapes in Flint have tripled and even “quadrupled.” But FBI data show the number of rapes in Flint has gone down 11 percent, from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010.

Biden also said the city’s murder rate has “tripled.” The city says there were a record-high 66 murders last year — double, not triple, the 32 murders that occurred in 2008.

Rapes Haven’t ‘Quadrupled’


The vice president has been touring the country delivering his pitch for the American Jobs Act, President Barack Obama’s $447 billion plan that includes $35 billion to prevent the layoff of police, firefighters and teachers. On Oct. 12, Biden visited Flint, Mich., which has had the highest violent crime rate in the nation for the last two years. The city’s violent crime rate has increased from 20.2 violent crimes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to 22.1 in 2010, a jump of about 9 percent, our analysis of FBI reports shows.

Crime is bad in Flint, no doubt, but Biden makes it out to be worse than it is.


Biden, Oct. 12: You know Pat Moynihan said everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on the police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229.

He has cited Flint’s crime stats in other appearances since then, including at an Oct. 18 visit to the University of Pennsylvania — the home of FactCheck.org.


Biden, Oct. 18: I was up in Flint, Michigan, last week. Their police department’s cut more than in half. The murder rate, close to triple. The number of rapes have quadrupled.

A day later, Biden was asked by a reporter for Human Events, a conservative website, if he regretted “using a rape reference to describe Senate opposition” to the bill. Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, have criticized the vice president for suggesting that rape and murder will rise if the Republicans don’t pass the jobs bill. Biden replied: “I said rape was up three times in Flint. Those are the numbers. Go look at the numbers.”

We have looked at the numbers. We started with the number of reported rapes, because Biden makes three claims that don’t add up: that rapes have gone up from 91 to 229 (a 152 percent increase), that rapes have “quadrupled,” and that rapes have tripled. He’s badly wrong on all counts. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for those years show that the number of reported rapes declined from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010, or a nearly 11 percent drop.

We also calculated the rate of reported rapes per 1,000 residents to account for the city’s declining population. Even then, the rate has declined from .91 rapes per 1,000 residents in 2008 to .84 rapes per 1,000, a decline of 8 percent.

We asked the vice president’s office to explain such a gross discrepancy. It referred us to the Flint mayor’s office — saying the figures came from the city. In response to our questions, Flint Public Safety Director Chief Alvern Lock put out a statement saying the city “stands behind the crime statistics provided to the Office of The Vice President.” It also said: “The discrepancies with the FBI and other sources reveal the differences in how crimes can be counted and categorized, based on different criteria.”

The statement falls short of supporting Biden’s various claims, however. For several reasons:
■The city didn’t specify what rape figures it gave Biden, and he’s given at least three different and conflicting accounts. He said variously that the increase from 2008 was 152 percent, that it tripled and that it “quadrupled.” At least two of those claims must be wrong.
■It’s true that rapes are notoriously underreported, as the vice president’s office pointed out to us. But Biden was talking about reported rapes. In fact, he used the FBI data when he said that there were 103 rapes in Flint in 2008. So why was the FBI report accurate in 2008 but not accurate in 2010? The city didn’t explain that.
■The FBI gets its data from the city, because Uniform Crime Reports are voluntary and self reporting. If there was a mistake on the rape data, then it was the city’s fault. But the city, in its statement, does not acknowledge making a mistake in reporting rape data to the FBI.
■The city did admit that it made a mistake in reporting the number of murders that occurred in 2010. It did so immediately — on the day the FBI report came out in May — and it did so again in the statement released in response to our questions. But it did not admit to making any reporting mistakes on rapes, then or now.

Update, Oct. 21: City spokeswoman Dawn Jones later explained to us that the 2010 figure provided to Biden included not just rapes that the city reports to the FBI but also “all cases of criminal sexual conduct.” That means the city and Biden were comparing reported rapes in 2008 (103) with all acts of criminal sexual conduct (229), including rape. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. And in any case those numbers don’t support Biden’s other inaccurate claims — that rape has tripled and quadrupled. Jones did not readily have the figure for criminal sexual conduct cases in 2008 and answers to other outstanding questions, but she promised to get back to us and we will update this item more fully when she does.

Murders Haven’t ‘Tripled’

Now, what about the number of murders in Flint? There is conflicting data on this point, too, but we accept the city’s account that there were 66 murders last year.

The 2010 FBI crime report shows that there were 53 murders in Flint. However, the city statement says that there was an “internal clerical error” in reporting the data to the FBI and that there were actually 66 murders last year. That’s consistent with what has been reported by the local media months before Biden’s visit. On May 23, the day the FBI report came out, the Flint Journal wrote that city officials said there were 65 murders, not 53. A few days later, the Flint Journal wrote that there were 66 murders — a figure others have used as well. It’s clear that the city made an immediate effort to correct the record on murders, something it did not do on rapes.

Even so, Biden was wrong when he said that the murder rate has “tripled.” In 2008, there were 32 murders in a city of 113,462 people for a murder rate of .28 murders per 1,000 residents. In 2010, there were 66 murders and a population of 109,245 for a rate of .60 murders per 1,000. That’s an increase of 115 percent, more than double but not quite triple.

As for the city’s police force, it’s difficult to assess whether Biden was right. The FBI says Flint had 233 full-time law enforcement employees in 2008 and 155 in 2010, a decline of 78 employees or 33 percent. That’s a significant decline, for sure. Biden’s figures, however, show an even greater drop. In Flint, Biden said the number of “sworn officers” declined from 265 to 144, a drop of 46 percent.

Who’s right? We don’t know. We asked the city to provide information about police staffing, too, but the statement issued by the city didn’t address our questions about staffing. It’s possible, for example, that Biden included part-time employees. The FBI provides numbers only for “full-time law enforcement employees,” which it defines as “individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers” and are paid from government funds dedicated for law enforcement.

We should also note that in Philadelphia, Biden said Flint’s police department was “cut more than in half.” He may have been referring to current staffing. In Flint, Biden said the number of sworn officers is now 125 — which would represent a cut of more than half compared with Biden’s 2008 figure (265), but not the FBI’s (233).

Biden is right on his larger point: Police staffing has sharply declined, and the number of murders has sharply increased. But the vice president is clearly wrong when he says the number of rapes have “quadrupled,” when in fact they have gone down, or that the murder rate has tripled, when it has doubled.

If he’s going to quote the former New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a quotation we used when launching this site in 2003 — then he should get his facts straight to support his opinion.

– Eugene Kiely, with Scott Blackburn and Wendy Zhao

[Monker]

Someone gets it!

"You get no moral credit for somebody to do what you believe is right."

Spoken like a true Libertarian.

But, that also includes:
Forcing other countries to become Democracies through war, as the Republicans did in Iraq.
Forcing women to birth a child that they did not want to conceive, and do not want to have, which is what anti-abortionists want.
Making drugs illegal and forcing people to treat their bodies and minds in the way that YOU want them to.
Making prostitution illegal...even though it is just sex between two adults, with money being exchanged.
A belief b some that God and religion must be forced intand to everyday life in what seems in as many ways as they can imagine.
Oh, don't burn a flag, that is soooo morally wrong.
Don't build a Mosque.
Don't blah, blah, blah....cuz of blah, blah, blah "conservative" value.

...and this list goes on and on in how people wo are supposed to be 'conservative' (ie: LESS government interference in people's lives) DO want laws and other restrictions, or encouragements over people's behavior.

And, that is why I say it is a bit of hypocrisy for conservatives to go about quoting Libertarians like Penn Gellette...cuz most probably disagree with him as much as most Democrats.

And, I'll say that he is right to a certain extent...as far as individuals helping individuals. But, it is still our governments responsibility to do what it can for the general welfare of the people. If it did not, we would have a decay in the country that I don't think most people would stand for. Do we really need homeless, starving and dying people living in cardboard boxes in makeshift cities in our public parks...as there were during the depression, before conservatives realize that charity is only part of a solution?

[RossValoryRocks]

Someone gets it!

"You get no moral credit for somebody to do what you believe is right."

Spoken like a true Libertarian.

But, that also includes:
Forcing other countries to become Democracies through war, as the Republicans did in Iraq.
Forcing women to birth a child that they did not want to conceive, and do not want to have, which is what anti-abortionists want.
Making drugs illegal and forcing people to treat their bodies and minds in the way that YOU want them to.
Making prostitution illegal...even though it is just sex between two adults, with money being exchanged.
A belief b some that God and religion must be forced intand to everyday life in what seems in as many ways as they can imagine.
Oh, don't burn a flag, that is soooo morally wrong.
Don't build a Mosque.
Don't blah, blah, blah....cuz of blah, blah, blah "conservative" value.

...and this list goes on and on in how people wo are supposed to be 'conservative' (ie: LESS government interference in people's lives) DO want laws and other restrictions, or encouragements over people's behavior.

And, that is why I say it is a bit of hypocrisy for conservatives to go about quoting Libertarians like Penn Gellette...cuz most probably disagree with him as much as most Democrats.

And, I'll say that he is right to a certain extent...as far as individuals helping individuals. But, it is still our governments responsibility to do what it can for the general welfare of the people. If it did not, we would have a decay in the country that I don't think most people would stand for. Do we really need homeless, starving and dying people living in cardboard boxes in makeshift cities in our public parks...as there were during the depression, before conservatives realize that charity is only part of a solution?

Monker...I am a libertarian (small L as I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, being a registered independent) and I want the government out of our lives as much as possible. Out of the wallet, out of the womb, out of the bedroom, out of our churches, synagogues, and yes even mosques.

The problem with liberals like your self is that you view Government as the solution to everything, and are willing to take from one subset of the population to give to another who is in many cases, not all for sure, are perfectly capable of looking out for themselves but are too lazy or just plain happy to be getting free shit from the rest of us to stand up for themselves and their families and achieve.

Now is probably about the time you are about to rebutt with the "They are disadvantaged, and can't succede with out help" liberal line. Which is complete and utter bullshit. We are all created equal, as the line goes, what we do after that is up to each of us. Herman Cain, for all his faults, being the perfect example of what a person can achieve given the desire to do so, Barrack Obama the same thing.

If you are so hell bent on wanting to pay more in taxes, then please feel free to send in extra money, as much as you want, but to try and force someone else to do so is immoral.

[Monker]

Monker...I am a libertarian (small L as I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, being a registered independent) and I want the government out of our lives as much as possible. Out of the wallet, out of the womb, out of the bedroom, out of our churches, synagogues, and yes even mosques.

The problem with liberals like your self is that you view Government as the solution to everything, and are willing to take from one subset of the population to give to another who is in many cases, not all for sure, are perfectly capable of looking out for themselves but are too lazy or just plain happy to be getting free shit from the rest of us to stand up for themselves and their families and achieve.

Now is probably about the time you are about to rebutt with the "They are disadvantaged, and can't succede with out help" liberal line. Which is complete and utter bullshit. We are all created equal, as the line goes, what we do after that is up to each of us.

That is not what I believe and it is not what you read when you read my post...if you even did read it.

I said that on an individual basis, you and Penn are correct. However, society as a whole does NOT have the desire to support the lowest of the classes. People as a whole are selfish, uncharitable, and uncaring. Therefore, it the state must step in to pick up what society refuses to.

I do not believe it is somehow 'compassionate' for government to use tax dollars to support the poor. But, I do believe it is necessary.

I also do not believe that most who receive government benefits are abusing the system. Punish those who abuse the system. But, don't punish those who don't by removing needed benefits that are actually helping people who have hit hard times.

What is 'utter bullshit' is you claim the above, but quote Penn who is actually telling you, and everybody, to be charitable to the above people with YOUR personal success and wealth. The very fact that you state this contradiction tells me that you would never take a homeless person and take him to dinner. You would tell him to 'get a job' instead. You are saying you have no personal compassion for a person starving to death, dying in the streets from treatable ailments, or wear old and tattered clothes because they have no income to buy new. As Penn says, "If we're compassionate, we'll help them"...not tell them to 'get a job', which is your stated attitude.

I do not believe government is a solution to everything. It takes individuals, charitable organization, and government in a combined effort with the common goals to help people. Living your entire life off of government checks is wrong, but the government helping a person survive through a bad time in their life is not, and society as a whole should support that.

If you are so hell bent on wanting to pay more in taxes, then please feel free to send in extra money, as much as you want, but to try and force someone else to do so is immoral.

My only argument with taxes has been that capital gains taxes should be eliminated and counted as income in the same way as your savings account is. In fact, in the short term, I'd like to see the reverse...interest income be tax free and capital gains be taxed as income. That would encourage more savings and banks to have more deposits and increase their ability to make loans to business, which creates jobs. I don't think it would be much, but it would be something and a step in a good direction.

[slucero]

HOLY CRAP.

Houston, we've got a problem - Bevilacqua
http://amvona.com/blog/economics/28217- ... acqua.html

On Oct. 18th, 2011 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down their decision in the FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, THIRD vs. PABLO RODRIGUEZ – and in a moment, essentially made foreclosure sales in the commonwealth over the last five years wholly void. However, some of the more polite headlines, undoubtedly in the interest of not causing wide spread panic simply put it "SJC puts foreclosure sales in doubt" or "Buyer Can't Sue After Bad Foreclosure Sale"

In essence, the ruling upheld that those who had purchased foreclosure properties that had been illegally foreclosed upon (which is virtually all foreclosure sales in the last five years), did not in fact have title to those properties.

[Seven Wishes2]

A female BBC journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been
going to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to pray, twice a day, every day,
for a long, long time.

To check it out, she went to the Wall, and there he was, walking slowly up to the
holy site.

She watched him pray, and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave,
using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

"Pardon me Sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from the BBC. What is your name?

"Morris Feinberg," he replied

"Sir, how long have you been coming to the Wailing Wall to pray?"

"For about 60 years."
>

> "60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?"
>
> "I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims."
>

> "I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop."
>
> "I pray for all
our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their
fellow man."
>
>
> "And how do you feel
Sir, after doing this twice a day for 60 years?"

>
>

>
>
"It's like talking to a fucking brick wall."