President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The only choice is people voting in candidates not beholden to either party (and their corporate masters), which is also why someone like Ron Paul, the only candidate I've heard who actually understands economics and the Constitution has no chance... because he doesn't represent what the current RINO-Republican party does. As long as:

1. the Republican Party controls 50% of the 2 party system
2. the Republican party does not embrace Paul's definition of "conservative". (if they did it would mean cutting their own political throats, as Paul would gut the party leadership and replace it with more Libertarian thinking folks)

Dr. Paul has no chance.

.

Certainly, right now he doesn't. 2012 , whether you are a Paul supporter or a Gary Johnson supporter the Libertarian candidate. was never about winning. It is all about building a movement and educating people about how free markets and liberty actually work. There are alot of Republicans in the Coolidge/Goldwater tradition (Im not talking about Party Leaders, but donors, and volunteers) who are finally waking up to the fact that they've been served up nonsense by the Bush/Rommney/Gingrich/Limbaugh/Coulter crowd. Mix those people in with an influx of young people all taught to think about free markets the right way, and the fact that more an more people are seeing themselves as independents. there might be some hope.

Also add the fact that the US hasn't yet seen the full force of the misery that big government (whether of the red or blue kind) causes. There's only been a hint of it so far, but its coming real real soon.

Would Pauls son Rand, who is acutally the first Senator ever to act like a principled Libertarian conservative when in Washington, have a chance in 2016 or 2012? Maybe, but I also think he might be leading up a party with a different name than the Republican party.

[slucero]

The only choice is people voting in candidates not beholden to either party (and their corporate masters), which is also why someone like Ron Paul, the only candidate I've heard who actually understands economics and the Constitution has no chance... because he doesn't represent what the current RINO-Republican party does. As long as:

1. the Republican Party controls 50% of the 2 party system
2. the Republican party does not embrace Paul's definition of "conservative". (if they did it would mean cutting their own political throats, as Paul would gut the party leadership and replace it with more Libertarian thinking folks)

Dr. Paul has no chance.

.

Certainly, right now he doesn't. 2012 , whether you are a Paul supporter or a Gary Johnson supporter the Libertarian candidate. was never about winning. It is all about building a movement and educating people about how free markets and liberty actually work. There are alot of Republicans in the Coolidge/Goldwater tradition (Im not talking about Party Leaders, but donors, and volunteers) who are finally waking up to the fact that they've been served up nonsense by the Bush/Rommney/Gingrich/Limbaugh/Coulter crowd. Mix those people in with an influx of young people all taught to think about free markets the right way, and the fact that more an more people are seeing themselves as independents. there might be some hope.

Also add the fact that the US hasn't yet seen the full force of the misery that big government (whether of the red or blue kind) causes. There's only been a hint of it so far, but its coming real real soon.

Would Pauls son Rand, who is acutally the first Senator ever to act like a principled Libertarian conservative when in Washington, have a chance in 2016 or 2012? Maybe, but I also think he might be leading up a party with a different name than the Republican party.

Totally agree... well said.

My signature is pretty much how I fell about both parties.

[conversationpc]

My signature is pretty much how I fell about both parties.

“Insanity is electing Democrats or Republicans over and over again expecting different result.”

Me, too...It's exactly why I'm torn over whether to vote for the eventual Republican nominee. On one hand, I thing it would be completely devastating to the country in so many ways to re-elect Obama. On the other hand, I think we just get more of the same with whoever becomes the Republican candidate.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

My signature is pretty much how I fell about both parties.

“Insanity is electing Democrats or Republicans over and over again expecting different result.”

Me, too...It's exactly why I'm torn over whether to vote for the eventual Republican nominee. On one hand, I thing it would be completely devastating to the country in so many ways to re-elect Obama. On the other hand, I think we just get more of the same with whoever becomes the Republican candidate.

Dave, I see your quandry, but think of it this way:

Heath Care The supreme court will decide on the constitutionality of Obama Care. If they overturn the mandate fine, its dead. If they uphold it, electing a Republican will do no good. WHy because Obama has already accelerated the timeline for implementation of his bill as is outlined in this link.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/a ... ng-anyone/
So short of SCOTUS overturning it there is NOTHING a Republican President could do in 2013 to reverse it.

War: If a democrat wins the election, we will go to war with Iran. If a republican wins we will do the same. No difference whether you would be for or against the war.

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama tea, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

the Deficit Do you think Rommney Boehner and McConnell will actually cut anything ?

So based on the above there really is no difference, and no benefit to the country in having a Republican win. I wish it were not true, but it is.

I'll vote for the GOP nomination if by some bizzarre miracle if its Ron Paul or if Romney puts his son in as his running mate handing the future of the party to him. Otherwise, I'm voting Liberatarian.

[conversationpc]

Heath Care The supreme court will decide on the constitutionality of Obama Care. If they overturn the mandate fine, its dead. If they uphold it, electing a Republican will do no good. WHy because Obama has already accelerated the timeline for implementation of his bill as is outlined in this link.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/a ... ng-anyone/
So short of SCOTUS overturning it there is NOTHING a Republican President could do in 2013 to reverse it.

What about defunding the bill? That's something I've heard talked about but nothing in detail.

War: If a democrat wins the election, we will go to war with Iran. If a republican wins we will do the same. No difference whether you would be for or against the war.

Personally, I think Iran is a MUCH BIGGER threat than Iraq ever was but I'm certainly hoping war is not what we're headed for. Considering Obama's willingness to jump right in on the Libya thing, I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to try to prove his mettle by bombing Iran. I don't think that's a powderkeg we want to mess with right now.

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama tea, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

That legislation is something anyone who calls themselves a conservative should be ashamed for voting for. This along with the Patriot Act are huge stains on the country.

the Deficit Do you think Rommney Boehner and McConnell will actually cut anything ?

Nope, not enough to make much of a difference anyway. They'll want to hold onto power just the same and anything that angers the populace, like cutting entitlements, will be unpopular and therefor untouchable for any candidate who cares only about power and being re-elected.

[Rockindeano]

Gee, thanks Slucero. I was going to respond to you by saying your initial response to me was a "good post" but you had to get a real good dig on me so fuck no I am not going to pat you on the back.

Then of course, all the righties have to line up and come in here and bash whatever Obama has done is terrible, blah blah blah. And you wonder why I don't post in here anymore? It's a right wing bastion and it's sickening the way you guys think. Want the country to not only circle the drain but go down it? Vote for the SAME exact party that put us here in the first place- the GOP. Want a chance to CONTINUE to get better? Give the House back to the Dems and re-elect Obama. The proof is in the numbers, and things are turning around under Obama. The DO NOTHING GOP Congress isn't fooling Americans like I and they thought they would. They assumed the electorate is stupid and uninformed, and a good many are, but not enough to make the GOP's day. They are going to LOSE seats in the Senate AND the House(I don't think they'll lose enough House seats to give it back to the Dems, and Obama will win easily, going away.

What makes me laugh so hard is, if President Obama is SO bad, and Obama is SO weak, why didn't Palin, Christie, Jeb Bush and Daniels run for the presidency? it's laughable that the best you idiots could put toward battle with President Obama is Willard Romney and Newton Gingrich. Haha, GOOD LUCK.

[slucero]

Gee, thanks Slucero. I was going to respond to you by saying your initial response to me was a "good post" but you had to get a real good dig on me so fuck no I am not going to pat you on the back.

Then of course, all the righties have to line up and come in here and bash whatever Obama has done is terrible, blah blah blah. And you wonder why I don't post in here anymore? It's a right wing bastion and it's sickening the way you guys think. Want the country to not only circle the drain but go down it? Vote for the SAME exact party that put us here in the first place- the GOP. Want a chance to CONTINUE to get better? Give the House back to the Dems and re-elect Obama. The proof is in the numbers, and things are turning around under Obama. The DO NOTHING GOP Congress isn't fooling Americans like I and they thought they would. They assumed the electorate is stupid and uninformed, and a good many are, but not enough to make the GOP's day. They are going to LOSE seats in the Senate AND the House(I don't think they'll lose enough House seats to give it back to the Dems, and Obama will win easily, going away.

What makes me laugh so hard is, if President Obama is SO bad, and Obama is SO weak, why didn't Palin, Christie, Jeb Bush and Daniels run for the presidency? it's laughable that the best you idiots could put toward battle with President Obama is Willard Romney and Newton Gingrich. Haha, GOOD LUCK.

You are beyond retarded Deano...

At the risk of repeating myself....

Q42011GDP was reported as 2.8 (1st of 3 revisions, and it will be revised DOWN)
Subtract the 1.9 for inventory stockpiling...
Subtract the 0.3 for auto
Subtract the 0.1 for net imports/exports

REAL Q42011GDP was 0.5



On today's news wire...


Latest Congressional Budget Office Outlook For 2012-2022 Released, Says Real Unemployment Rate Is 10%

"Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent"

translation: The CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%. Thank you


And the CBO's projections for 2012-2013










Chicago PMI Misses, Prints At 60.2, Down From 62.2, Dashes Hopes For Rebound

The January Chicago PMI just printed at 60.2, missing expectations of an increase to 63, and down from December's 62.2. And it gets worse: the employment index was the lowest since August at 54.7, while the order backlog number came at 48.2, the lowest since October 2009. This also means that the upcoming manufacturing ISM will also likely be a miss.

What recovery again?


No Housing Bottom: Home Prices Decline For 7th Consecutive Month, Lowest Since 2003

The November Case Shiller is out and while not surprising to most, some of those calling for a near-term housing bottom may be advised to reassess (for the 5th year in a row). According to the Top 20 City index composite, prices declined in 17 of 20 MSAs, with gains posted only in Phoenix, Denver and Minneapolis. At 137.52, the Seasonally Adjusted composite dropped to the lowest since February 2003, and is now a third lower than the housing peak in April 2006. Yet the worst news is that, even with a 2 month delay, the housing drop accelerated into the end of the year, and the sequential drop of 0.7% was the biggest decline since March 2011. Which means that except for that errant spike in home prices in April 2011, we have now seen 18 consecutive months of housing price declines since that "rebound" in late 2009. "Despite continued low interest rates and better real GDP growth in the fourth quarter, home prices continue to fall," David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor's, said in a statement. "The trend is down and there are few, if any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand." Yet just like in Europe, the improvement is coming.

Aaaaany minute now.


There is no "turning any corner"... the facts speak for themselves... but you don't deal in the realm of facts do you?


Obama, Romney, Gingrich... it doesn't matter who gains office... the above facts will not change... and no Republicrat, or Demican is going to do a thing about it.. because they serve big business and special interests... not the average American.

For every one of those average Americans (like you) who hates the Republicans, there's one who hates the Democrats... which is EXACTLY what both parties want. It's how they stay in power.

And you buy it, hook. line and sinker.

Stick to football and music Deano... politics and economics is not your strong-suit.

[verslibre]

Obama, Romney, Gingrich... it doesn't matter who gains office... the above facts will not change... and no Republicrat, or Demican is going to do a thing about it.. because they serve big business and special interests... not the average American.

For every person who hates the Republicans, there's one who hates the Democrats... which is EXACTLY what both parties want.

Amen.

[Monker]

What makes me laugh so hard is, if President Obama is SO bad, and Obama is SO weak, why didn't Palin, Christie, Jeb Bush and Daniels run for the presidency? it's laughable that the best you idiots could put toward battle with President Obama is Willard Romney and Newton Gingrich. Haha, GOOD LUCK.

And, that is the truth....the real players seem to be waiting to get past Obama's second term...and to give Mitt his 'chance'. It's like the Republicans didn't even try.

[Monker]

Heath Care The supreme court will decide on the constitutionality of Obama Care. If they overturn the mandate fine, its dead. If they uphold it, electing a Republican will do no good. WHy because Obama has already accelerated the timeline for implementation of his bill as is outlined in this link.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/a ... ng-anyone/
So short of SCOTUS overturning it there is NOTHING a Republican President could do in 2013 to reverse it.

This is true...and the entire campaign for 'repeal' was ridiculous and a lie since it was virtually impossible.

War: If a democrat wins the election, we will go to war with Iran. If a republican wins we will do the same. No difference whether you would be for or against the war.

I disagree...Obama has it right in that it is easier to fly a few bombers in to blow up a reactor then it is to invade an entire country on our own. The only way there will be an Iran war is if it is something more similar to Libya with a REAL coalition. If Republicans are in control....who knows what will happen

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama tea, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

I don't think calling that a team effort is even close to fair...especially since Obama said he didn't want it and is not even enforcing it.

the Deficit Do you think Rommney Boehner and McConnell will actually cut anything ?

If a person is serious about the deficit, they will cut the military, cut social programs, and raise taxes. Otherwise, it is political BS and they should just shut the fuck up.

I'll vote for the GOP nomination if by some bizzarre miracle if its Ron Paul or if Romney puts his son in as his running mate handing the future of the party to him. Otherwise, I'm voting Liberatarian.

I'd vote for Ron Paul, too...but, voting for a VP choice is a bit senseless...the VP has no control over anything.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

War: If a democrat wins the election, we will go to war with Iran. If a republican wins we will do the same. No difference whether you would be for or against the war.

I disagree...Obama has it right in that it is easier to fly a few bombers in to blow up a reactor then it is to invade an entire country on our own. The only way there will be an Iran war is if it is something more similar to Libya with a REAL coalition. If Republicans are in control....who knows what will happen

The problem is we dont have the bunker busting bombs to completely debilitate their Nuclear program if we only bomb. It will only slow things down. And we can't afford either economically or otherwise to go in on the ground and get stuck in another mess. The only thing we can do is keep the straits of Hormuz open, and make sure Iran understands that if Iran causes any harm to a single American we will destroy their military..

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

I don't think calling that a team effort is even close to fair...especially since Obama said he didn't want it and is not even enforcing it.

Military detention of American citizens is unjust and a violation of the Constitution. Not standing up against what is unjust is wrong and Obama is violating his oath to defend the Constitution. Whether he would use it or not, he has still taken the power. Unless the can guarantee that every american president from here until the year 6969 will be perfectly just and wont use it ( and he cant) he should have vetoed it.

[Monker]

The problem is we dont have the bunker busting bombs to completely debilitate their Nuclear program if we only bomb. It will only slow things down. And we can't afford either economically or otherwise to go in on the ground and get stuck in another mess. The only thing we can do is keep the straits of Hormuz open, and make sure Iran understands that if Iran causes any harm to a single American we will destroy their military..

There will not be another "Iraq War" in Iran until another Republican is President. Maybe Jeb will run in 2016 and continue the family legacy in the Middle East. You can say all the above, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to do it right now....it makes even less sense now then what it did when Bush went into Iraq.

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

I don't think calling that a team effort is even close to fair...especially since Obama said he didn't want it and is not even enforcing it.

Military detention of American citizens is unjust and a violation of the Constitution. Not standing up against what is unjust is wrong and Obama is violating his oath to defend the Constitution. Whether he would use it or not, he has still taken the power. Unless the can guarantee that every american president from here until the year 6969 will be perfectly just and wont use it ( and he cant) he should have vetoed it.

[/quote]

There is a big difference in saying Obama should have vetoed it and saying he teamed up with other Democrats to get it passed. One is the truth and the other is an exaggeration that misrepresents the truth.

[slucero]

The problem is we dont have the bunker busting bombs to completely debilitate their Nuclear program if we only bomb. It will only slow things down. And we can't afford either economically or otherwise to go in on the ground and get stuck in another mess. The only thing we can do is keep the straits of Hormuz open, and make sure Iran understands that if Iran causes any harm to a single American we will destroy their military..

There will not be another "Iraq War" in Iran until another Republican is President. Maybe Jeb will run in 2016 and continue the family legacy in the Middle East. You can say all the above, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to do it right now....it makes even less sense now then what it did when Bush went into Iraq.

Civil liberties: . McCain, right wing republicans and Obama, democrats and Obama teamed up nicely to pass the last NDAA which allows the Executive branch to detain AMERICAN citizens the feel to be a threat. Rommney Gingrich wont over turn that.

I don't think calling that a team effort is even close to fair...especially since Obama said he didn't want it and is not even enforcing it.

Military detention of American citizens is unjust and a violation of the Constitution. Not standing up against what is unjust is wrong and Obama is violating his oath to defend the Constitution. Whether he would use it or not, he has still taken the power. Unless the can guarantee that every american president from here until the year 6969 will be perfectly just and wont use it ( and he cant) he should have vetoed it.

There is a big difference in saying Obama should have vetoed it and saying he teamed up with other Democrats to get it passed. One is the truth and the other is an exaggeration that misrepresents the truth.

Very true.. but he still signed it into law... when he could have simply vetoed it and forced Congress deliver a bill that he would not have serious reservations with.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists....

[conversationpc]

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists....

What a piss poor excuse for signing a bill. If he really thought that then he should've vetoed it. Of course, I think the vote would've overridden the veto anyway.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists....

What a piss poor excuse for signing a bill. If he really thought that then he should've vetoed it. Of course, I think the vote would've overridden the veto anyway.

Yes, and the grounds on which that Obama opposed that provision were not in the spirit of upholding the liberty of Americans, Obama objected it to it on the grounds that he wanted the powers left to civilian agencies DHS, Justice to be have the power to detain suspicious Americans. He still wanted the power to detain Americans And no if he vetoed the bill it wouldn't have been overriden in its final form, becuase the veto would have highlighted the issue to everybody in the country and it would have stirred up a hornets nest of opposition. As it stands, most folks are just finding out about it now.

[Monker]

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists....

What a piss poor excuse for signing a bill. If he really thought that then he should've vetoed it. Of course, I think the vote would've overridden the veto anyway.

Yes, and the grounds on which that Obama opposed that provision were not in the spirit of upholding the liberty of Americans, Obama objected it to it on the grounds that he wanted the powers left to civilian agencies DHS, Justice to be have the power to detain suspicious Americans. He still wanted the power to detain Americans And no if he vetoed the bill it wouldn't have been overriden in its final form, becuase the veto would have highlighted the issue to everybody in the country and it would have stirred up a hornets nest of opposition. As it stands, most folks are just finding out about it now.

Oh, please and if he didn't sign it he would have others whining that he is anti-military, regardless of his reasons. IMO, it's pretty petty to make a big deal about this...I don't particularly like it, but it's pretty insignificant in the big picture. It's not like the Obama administration is pushing for things like the Patriot Act.

This was all about political posturing by EVERYBODY.

Where were the Libertarians and Conservatives when the Patriot Act was introduced? Oh, yeah, Conservatives introduced it and Libertarians let it slide due to the McCarthyism tactics of being labeled unAmerican, unPatriotic, and pro-terrorism. At that time, you all were as big of pussies and the Democrats seem to be now.

[conversationpc]

This was all about political posturing by EVERYBODY.

Where were the Libertarians and Conservatives when the Patriot Act was introduced? Oh, yeah, Conservatives introduced it and Libertarians let it slide due to the McCarthyism tactics of being labeled unAmerican, unPatriotic, and pro-terrorism. At that time, you all were as big of pussies and the Democrats seem to be now.

Bullcrap...I've opposed both of these horrible pieces of legislation from the beginning.

[Monker]

This was all about political posturing by EVERYBODY.

Where were the Libertarians and Conservatives when the Patriot Act was introduced? Oh, yeah, Conservatives introduced it and Libertarians let it slide due to the McCarthyism tactics of being labeled unAmerican, unPatriotic, and pro-terrorism. At that time, you all were as big of pussies and the Democrats seem to be now.

Bullcrap...I've opposed both of these horrible pieces of legislation from the beginning.

But, Republicans, conservatives, and Libertarians in general did and said hardly anything at all...well, unless it was to tell someone to leave the country if they didn't like it.

[conversationpc]

This was all about political posturing by EVERYBODY.

Where were the Libertarians and Conservatives when the Patriot Act was introduced? Oh, yeah, Conservatives introduced it and Libertarians let it slide due to the McCarthyism tactics of being labeled unAmerican, unPatriotic, and pro-terrorism. At that time, you all were as big of pussies and the Democrats seem to be now.

Bullcrap...I've opposed both of these horrible pieces of legislation from the beginning.

But, Republicans, conservatives, and Libertarians in general did and said hardly anything at all...well, unless it was to tell someone to leave the country if they didn't like it.

Republicans and conservatives, for the most part, yes...Libertarians? No.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists....

What a piss poor excuse for signing a bill. If he really thought that then he should've vetoed it. Of course, I think the vote would've overridden the veto anyway.

Yes, and the grounds on which that Obama opposed that provision were not in the spirit of upholding the liberty of Americans, Obama objected it to it on the grounds that he wanted the powers left to civilian agencies DHS, Justice to be have the power to detain suspicious Americans. He still wanted the power to detain Americans And no if he vetoed the bill it wouldn't have been overriden in its final form, becuase the veto would have highlighted the issue to everybody in the country and it would have stirred up a hornets nest of opposition. As it stands, most folks are just finding out about it now.

Oh, please and if he didn't sign it he would have others whining that he is anti-military, regardless of his reasons. IMO, it's pretty petty to make a big deal about this...I don't particularly like it, but it's pretty insignificant in the big picture. It's not like the Obama administration is pushing for things like the Patriot Act.

This was all about political posturing by EVERYBODY.

Where were the Libertarians and Conservatives when the Patriot Act was introduced? Oh, yeah, Conservatives introduced it and Libertarians let it slide due to the McCarthyism tactics of being labeled unAmerican, unPatriotic, and pro-terrorism. At that time, you all were as big of pussies and the Democrats seem to be now.

Yes, the Patriot act was the trojan horse which enabled NDAA. Many libertarians did oppose it, as is evidenced by this old clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7qvpS5zbqA .

As far as some of those who just let it slide the first time, many did so because they believed it when they were told the provisions of the patriot act were pretty insignificant in the big picture - "they just gave law enforcement the right to use the tools they use against the mob against terrorists"and other such non-BS , it seemed insignificant in the big picture- same thing you say about NDAA. But It certainly turned out to me much worse and we were as wrong about it back then as you are wrong about NDAA right now.

[slucero]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-pre ... ction20127

Buh Bye Stay Puff Marshmallow Man. Good riddance to your big goverment nonsense and trips to the moon.

[Memorex]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

I want to get on that plan - how does one exit the labor market? It is a stunning figure (all told) when you think about how many people have stopped looking. If i lost my job, I couldn't stop looking under any circumstance. I'd have to work 4 jobs and sell my blood. I just don't know how people afford to give up. I understand there are some benefits, but even at two years, what then?

And I'll ask what I asked before - where are all the news stories of the unemployed? With such high unemployment, you'd think you would see more food line, homeless, etc. In the early 80's it seems it was all they showed on TV. Now - I never see it. It's just odd to me.

[slucero]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

I want to get on that plan - how does one exit the labor market? It is a stunning figure (all told) when you think about how many people have stopped looking. If i lost my job, I couldn't stop looking under any circumstance. I'd have to work 4 jobs and sell my blood. I just don't know how people afford to give up. I understand there are some benefits, but even at two years, what then?

And I'll ask what I asked before - where are all the news stories of the unemployed? With such high unemployment, you'd think you would see more food line, homeless, etc. In the early 80's it seems it was all they showed on TV. Now - I never see it. It's just odd to me.

If you watch mainstream media... you'll never hear the stories...

The facts are there, they get reported once.. then buried because it does not "sell"... BTW there are 45 Million on food stamps... that's why there are no food lines.. the WSJ reported it: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/ ... od-stamps/

MSM wants to control the perception process... look at how they purposely avoided Ron Paul in the beginning of their coverage... skipping over even the mention of his name...

It's also why and how a sitting president can tout 250,000 jobs at the expense of 1.2 Million people no longer being counted as a good thing... the MSM not reporting "all the facts" allows the president to do the same...

[Memorex]

Yea - I know the numbers are there. It's pretty nuts. I just don't "feel" it - the despair. I been thinking a lot lately that if it did really start sinking in that regard, it's going to be really, really bad. I think that's why the keep extending benefits. They don't want to deal with the backlash.

[Monker]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

I want to get on that plan - how does one exit the labor market? It is a stunning figure (all told) when you think about how many people have stopped looking. If i lost my job, I couldn't stop looking under any circumstance. I'd have to work 4 jobs and sell my blood. I just don't know how people afford to give up. I understand there are some benefits, but even at two years, what then?

And I'll ask what I asked before - where are all the news stories of the unemployed? With such high unemployment, you'd think you would see more food line, homeless, etc. In the early 80's it seems it was all they showed on TV. Now - I never see it. It's just odd to me.

If you watch mainstream media... you'll never hear the stories...

The facts are there, they get reported once.. then buried because it does not "sell"... BTW there are 45 Million on food stamps... that's why there are no food lines.. the WSJ reported it: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/ ... od-stamps/

MSM wants to control the perception process... look at how they purposely avoided Ron Paul in the beginning of their coverage... skipping over even the mention of his name...

It's also why and how a sitting president can tout 250,000 jobs at the expense of 1.2 Million people no longer being counted as a good thing... the MSM not reporting "all the facts" allows the president to do the same...

The bottom line is that none of these figures matter. What matters is if people 'feel' things are getting better or worse.

A very similar argument was used by Democrats against Reagan during his reelection...and I'm sure we all know how that turned out.

IMO, by election day, saying we are still in a recession and all this doom and gloom talk is going to sound loony.

[slucero]

Gotta love the unemployment number the BLS (Bureau of Lies and Smoke) released today.... up by 243,000, purportedly the biggest increase since 2006.

Yet - the actual survey number showed a decrease of 1.177 million jobs.

Using BLS data:

• the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month:
• apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference.
• Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and...

you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers.

What does this mean?

That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%.

Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%.


In the world of government data, down can be up.

I want to get on that plan - how does one exit the labor market? It is a stunning figure (all told) when you think about how many people have stopped looking. If i lost my job, I couldn't stop looking under any circumstance. I'd have to work 4 jobs and sell my blood. I just don't know how people afford to give up. I understand there are some benefits, but even at two years, what then?

And I'll ask what I asked before - where are all the news stories of the unemployed? With such high unemployment, you'd think you would see more food line, homeless, etc. In the early 80's it seems it was all they showed on TV. Now - I never see it. It's just odd to me.

If you watch mainstream media... you'll never hear the stories...

The facts are there, they get reported once.. then buried because it does not "sell"... BTW there are 45 Million on food stamps... that's why there are no food lines.. the WSJ reported it: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/ ... od-stamps/

MSM wants to control the perception process... look at how they purposely avoided Ron Paul in the beginning of their coverage... skipping over even the mention of his name...

It's also why and how a sitting president can tout 250,000 jobs at the expense of 1.2 Million people no longer being counted as a good thing... the MSM not reporting "all the facts" allows the president to do the same...

The bottom line is that none of these figures matter. What matters is if people 'feel' things are getting better or worse.

A very similar argument was used by Democrats against Reagan during his reelection...and I'm sure we all know how that turned out.

IMO, by election day, saying we are still in a recession and all this doom and gloom talk is going to sound loony.

Facts are facts... and of people are smart enough to know this, but stupid enough to ignore the facts... then they deserve what they get...

If the figures are purposely manipulated or simply omitted... in an effort to influence "how people think", regardless of the party.... then it matters, but only if one cares.


Based on your logic (and opinion) then:

• Informed = Looney.
• Uninformed = Intelligent

Its good to know where one stands on these things...

..enjoy your oblivion.

[Seven Wishes2]

Meh. If the unemployment rate is under 7.8% or so come election time, Obama wins. If it hovers where it is, Romney wins. No further debate needed. Either way, you get a career bullshit artist who will strive to maintain the political status quo. They're equally uninspiring. If Ron Paul wasn't such the (occasional) loon, a third party could actually have an impact in 2012.

[slucero]

Meh. If the unemployment rate is under 7.8% or so come election time, Obama wins. If it hovers where it is, Romney wins. No further debate needed. Either way, you get a career bullshit artist who will strive to maintain the political status quo. They're equally uninspiring. If Ron Paul wasn't such the (occasional) loon, a third party could actually have an impact in 2012.

hey Seven... how goes it!...

Like I said.. the numbers only matter if one cares...

Totally agree they don't to the average, uninformed voter... and given that no president since World War II has won re-election with unemployment higher than 7.2 percent, BO puling it out above that number would be a huge win...

BO or Romney = more of the same in my book... as the "establishment" has already won...

[verslibre]

BO or Romney = more of the same in my book... as the "establishment" has already won...

"Treasure baaaath!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgpVal23yMI