American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;437738]Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.[/QUOTE]No kidding. I'd have to be a complete idiot. Even though I spend over 200 hours a year putting together info to prepare my taxes, and even though I do my absolute best to properly pay my taxes and comply with tax regulations, I'm sure there are some IRS employees that can and would figure out a way to fuck me over if I told that to their faces. It's interesting you say that BTW. Do you know something the rest of us don't about the ability of the IRS to persecute people it doesn't like? If so, please share.

That said, I will admit the couple of times that I've been audited, the IRS employees I've communicated with were extremely competent, professional and fair. And made no adjustments to my taxable income BTW. I don't think that applies to certain individuals in Cincinnati that went on a witch hunt though.

The National Treasury Employees Union, the PAC that represents employees from the IRS and other Treasury agencies, allocates about 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats. People who identified their employer as the IRS donated 30X more to Barack Obama's campaign than John McCain's. There are other examples where contributions by IRS employees to Democrats were as low as 2X contributions to Republicans. Anyway you slice or dice it, IRS employees are predominantly Democrats.

[QUOTE=Esten;437738]It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group [i]not[/i] be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases. [/QUOTE]

The number of applications from "progressive" groups during 2010 to 2012 wasn't that much different than the number of applications from "Tea Party" groups, based on the NYT link I've repeatedly posted here. Your argument that "Tea Party" groups are some kind of a new political movement and that justifies putting their applications off to the side for two years is baseless. It's an excuse to give your side a leg up with its "anti-Tea Party" agenda -- higher taxes, bigger government, more corporate welfare for your favorites, more unemployment and government dependency (i.e. more people who will vote for Democrats), a complicated and irrational system of taxation, and a system of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt the country.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437739]According to Esten, the IRS Inspector General 's scathing report, which the planted question by Lerner at a news conference was intended to defuse, is all total bunk because the IG is a Republican who was cherry picking data. Not only that it was only one guy in a broom closet office at the IRS, also a Republican, who came up with and carried out all on his own the interference with conservative groups being granted 504 status.

Now suddenly a "former IRS official" joins a "Tea Party" group and comes to the defense of her former agency. Just one mind you.

Amazing, simply amazing.[/QUOTE]Not much of a defense when the person has no knowledge of the situation and is only guessing.

Esten, Do you read your links? Or is it just that if you're pulling something from the mainstream press instead of the DailyKos you can't find unambiguous support for your case? Your USA Today article says that after the IRS ex-employee's 501 (c) 4 was approved, there wasn't another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. It notes that groups with liberal sounding names had their applications approved in as little as 9 months. It quotes Lois Lerner, the IRS employee who took the 5th amendment instead of testifying to Congress. It quotes Jeff Cohen, a member of a Progressive (pro-Obama) group, who says "if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It's utterly unacceptable, if that's what happened.".

I certainly do read my links, Tiny. None of them support your thesis. Jeff Cohen only said "if that's what happened", meaning he doesn't know what happened. The IG report found no political motivation. BTW, the article also states Cohen's IRS application for the group "Action for a Progressive Future" took 18 months, and also involved intrusive questions. I thought that only happened to Tea Party groups.

Let me know when you find some evidence of political motivation, Tiny. Most IRS staffers being Democrats (if true) isn't evidence, certainly not with this story. Concerning the use of "Tea Party" as a screening criteria for 501(c)(4) applications, it is documented fact that it was a Republican who started it, and a Democrat who stopped it.

Got to love Doppel's reaction. Though not surprising from a conservative who has bought into his party's hype hook, line and sinker.

[QUOTE=Esten;437746]I certainly do read my links, Tiny. None of them support your thesis. Jeff Cohen only said "if that's what happened", meaning he doesn't know what happened. The IG report found no political motivation. BTW, the article also states Cohen's IRS application for the group "Action for a Progressive Future" took 18 months, and also involved intrusive questions. I thought that only happened to Tea Party groups.

Let me know when you find some evidence of political motivation, Tiny. Most IRS staffers being Democrats (if true) isn't evidence, certainly not with this story. Concerning the use of "Tea Party" as a screening criteria for 501(c)(4) applications, it is documented fact that it was a Republican who started it, and a Democrat who stopped it.

Got to love Doppel's reaction. Though not surprising from a conservative who has bought into his party's hype hook, line and sinker.[/QUOTE]Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. This is like the time you said George Bush was responsible for the tax increases that occurred January 1, 2013 and Obama had nothing to do with that.

Cohen undoubtedly knows the IRS delayed the applications. It's the irrefutable truth -- approvals for tea party groups were preferentially held up and some of them and some of their donors were harassed. Apparently you want Lois Lerner and a mysterious anonymous Republican IRS employee and others to come forth and explicitly say there was political bias (or have it explicitly stated in their emails) before you'll admit what's already clear based on the historical record. Jackson's analogies are better, and this one is highly exaggerated. But if several million Jews died in concentration camps, would you demand that Nazis provide documentary evidence or come forth and confess they intended to exterminate Jews before you labeled it as genocide? After all, for every 10 Jews that were killed, a Christian was gassed as well. It was just an innocent bureaucratic mistake. The fact that prominent Nazis considered Jews to be subhuman and spoke about their annihilation is irrelevant, you must show direct communication between the top brass and the staff rounding up and killing political prisoners. Besides, there's no way this could have been race or religion based, the original instructions came from an Austrian with partial Jewish ancestry.

Btw, some Republicans are more hostile to Tea Party ideals than some Democrats.

You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437762]You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.[/QUOTE]WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437763]WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]What sort of regulation for business do you favor?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437762]You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.[/QUOTE]If there was a regulation in place, why was there a spill?

Don.

Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.

It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437763]WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437767]Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.

It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.[/QUOTE]In your first post you wrote "[I]The government should remove [u]all[/u] regulations.[/I]", not "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[i]The government should remove all regulations.[/i]".

Thanks,

Jax.

I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437768]In your first post you wrote "[I]The government should remove [u]all[/u] regulations.[/I]", not "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[i]The government should remove all regulations.[/i]".

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437772]I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.[/QUOTE]Actually when this has come up before, the AP right wingers have said they believe there need to be some regulations. It would be ridiculous to say no regulations are needed.

What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it.

Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437748]Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. [/QUOTE]Thank you for the comments. Regarding the IRS 'scandal', I think you are focusing too narrowly on a certain set of facts and data, and extrapolating from that your conclusion of political bias. The additional scrutiny, the delays, the intrusive questions.. Sure on their own, it could have the appearance of bias. But you have to dig deeper, and look at the entire picture and context. I smelled the Republican hype in this story from the get-go, and my research confirmed it. Like I keep saying, the Tea Party was a very [I]political[/I] party in it's nature. So when the IRS got a surge of Tea Party applications, and especially this being soon after Citizens United, I think the IRS was 1000% correct in their decision to flag these for additional review. It's their job to figure out whether or not these groups are mostly social or political. Their motives were correct, but they probably should have been more politically savvy in their execution, and simply used "Party" in their BOLO list, than "Tea Party". As I've pointed out though, left-leaning groups were also flagged, and "Tea Party" groups were only about a quarter of the 300 groups that went into a bucket of applications getting more scrutiny. Even if you think the Tea Party groups got it worse, there would be justification because, repeating this for the umpteenth time, the Tea Party was known to be highly political. A good question is, even with the added scrutiny, why the delays were so long. Again you have to look into the environment within the IRS. Potential elements of excessive workload, lack of clear guidelines, and inadequate oversight have been cited as contributing factors, and I find them entirely plausible. Republicans were all over this, but still found absolutely zero evidence of political motivation.

Here is a quote which sums it up nicely. I encourage you to read the entire article.

[QUOTE]But in reality, this is a story about how bureaucratic bungling was turned into scandal by right wing politicians desperate to spin gold from straw.[/QUOTE]The IRS Scandal That Wasn't
[URL]http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/30/the-irs-scandal-that-wasn%E2%80%99t/[/URL]

Esten, the writer of the article is politically-biased. He works for Demos, a support wing for the Democrat party. I did read the article.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437784]Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.[/QUOTE]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?

[QUOTE=Jackson;437790]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick[/URL]

January 27,2014 New Yorker, Going the Distance by David Remnick.

Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there.".

The article is very long and covers a wide range of subjects. If not for the "rejection" by older tired white men (the polls show it) Obama definitely could have make America better.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;437784]Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.[/QUOTE]
Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;437803][URL]
Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there."[/QUOTE]

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.

Bush, has not been Candid about his BIG Mistake about WMDs in Iraq.
He does know not what to say, same as he was in power, too dumb to say anything.
Keep your mouth shut and maybe people will forget. Sure We Will.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437790]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;437782]What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it.[/QUOTE]"War on the Little Guy" is running on Stossel this week. Here's an excerpt: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5XJl4-Reo[/URL].

That gives plenty of examples of stupid regulations that should be abolished.

I could give an example from my own business, where if I were properly complying with regulations, I'd be spending about 8,000 hours per year generating completely worthless numbers for the benefit of a federal agency in the event it should decide to audit the business. Since I only work about 2,000 to 2,500 hours per year total, that would be difficult. As I'm not complying with the regulations, it wouldn't be wise to provide additional details, so make of that what you want.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437806]Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.[/QUOTE]MSNBC was a channel I had no time for when I was still in the USA. O'Donnell, Schultz & Maddow, totally no exposure to them. Olberman, I dislike him even when he only a sportcaster. Bill Maher can be funny but mostly obnoxious. Chris Matthews, I have seen but have no opinion.

Reid & Pelosi are career politicians, and answering to their masters and self interests. Same with Boehner & McConnell. The younger John McClain, I could vote for him. As you know, he was an advocate for campaign & immigration reform. Even in 2008, it was pretty much over for him even though he was able to run for president.

I am not going defend Obama against your opinion. You will never change your mind about him. Just reflect of what you thought of Clinton now, against back in 1996 when he had 2 years to go in office. Be at least truthful to yourself, if nothing else.

Tiny, I watched the video. Stossel does lots of programs like that, they are sometimes entertaining. They do showcase some apparently non-sensical regulations, but even with some of them, if you think about it you can see some downside if those regs didn't exist. For example, maybe it sounds ridiculous to regulate tour guides, or home improvement contractors. But maybe if they didn't set certain standards, you'd see tourists upset they got crappy tours and home owners upset they got crappy or fraudulant home repairs. You trade one set of 'victims' with another set. Sometimes people take consumer protections for granted, but remove them and something bad happens, and they'll be screaming why it isn't regulated. You have to weigh the pros and cons before making a judgement. I do agree there are most likely regs that could be abolished or implemented less onerously. You just have to do something to make it happen, like they changed the regs for the Mountain Man. Of course, Stossel has to portray it like the government is waging war on people, his program is paid by Fox News. You could easily do a program showing just the opposite.

There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.

How Many Independents are in the Congress?

Since you Right Wingers have no New News other than bringing up old the Old News Word Benghazi.

Check out where The New World Started for Money and Greed.

[URL]http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/klondike/videos[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437855]There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DonB;437766]If there was a regulation in place, why was there a spill?

Don.[/QUOTE]I'm still waiting for answer from Mr. Know-it-all.

Don.

[QUOTE=Esten;437855]There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.[/QUOTE]1. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is due to the unemployed running out of benefits and no longer being counted and the million plus jobs created in the fracking industry. Although I personally consider fracking to be an economic lifesaver for America, the politically acceptable response is to put it in the negative category.

2. I believe it was 7 million people who lost their healtcare insurance due to Obamacare, myself included. So, you are saying that at least 4 million people are now without healthcare insurance? Yay?

3 & 4 I agree are good things.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;437871]That is modeling it's policies on Venezuela where those same policies failed. I heard this this morning. Shudder![/QUOTE]And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437878]And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.[/QUOTE]And how do you figure that?

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;437880]And how do you figure that?[/QUOTE]Both Obama and Cristina were elected and re-elected with votes bought by promising free money to their supporters.

However, neither of them have the cash or the tax revenue to actually pay for the votes that they've promised to buy.

Nevertheless, Obama can borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for his votes, whereas Christina's only option is to print the money to pay for her votes.

Both strategies will result in the same failed economys, but the effects of the borrowed money take longer to develop.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437882]Both Obama and Cristina were elected and re-elected with votes bought by promising free money to their supporters.

However, neither of them have the cash or the tax revenue to actually pay for the programs they've promised to their supporters.

Nevertheless, Obama can borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for his votes, whereas Christina's only option is to print the money to pay for her votes.

Both strategies will result in the same failed economys, but the effects of the borrowed money take longer to develop.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]I thought you were comparing to Chavezland. Obama, while not my favorite also inherited a load $hit from Bush baby. But then so did Cristina, or at least Nestor did!

[QUOTE=Jackson;437878]And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.[/QUOTE]Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437884]Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.[/QUOTE]On the contrary, I believe that it only takes a person of average intelligence, abet one who is NOT being bribed with free money, to see what's going on and subsequently draw the same conclusion.

FYI, I do not blame Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, but I do blame him for pursuing his politically expedient socialist agenda instead of having the political balls to do what was really needed to fix the US economy.

However, I understand the angst in your comments, given that it is becoming clearer by the day that your emperor, like Christina, has no clothes.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437884]Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.[/QUOTE]Brother Black Shirt,

You are a very trusting individual. This has certain advantages. But it has its disadvantages as well. For example, when you encounter someone with an Adam's apple, large fingers and vagina who swears she(?) is not a post-op lady boy. Or when you start listening to what U.S. presidents say. You were a big Bush supporter until you realized the truth. Someday you will come to the same conclusion about Obama, because Obama is Bush on speed. Government deficits as a % of GDP under Obama have been the highest since World War II. The percentage of Americans in poverty is the highest since the early 1960's. Middle class incomes have fallen more than any period since World War II. And, at this point in time, 5 years later, it's ridiculous to blame it on George Bush. Kirchner and Obama make a big deal of helping the poor and middle class, but their policies in the long run do the opposite, by stifling economic growth and encouraging dependency.

I am slowly-but-surely reading the article you recommended by the way. I get the hardcopy New Yorker, and this week's edition is sitting in front of my commode.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437882]Both Obama and Cristina were elected and re-elected with votes bought by promising free money to their supporters.

However, neither of them have the cash or the tax revenue to actually pay for the votes that they've promised to buy.

Nevertheless, Obama can borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for his votes, whereas Christina's only option is to print the money to pay for her votes.

Both strategies will result in the same failed economys, but the effects of the borrowed money take longer to develop.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Jackson-.

Are you completely delusional? Under the Obama Administration the stock market is at an all time high and housing prices have rebounded from the utter destruction wrung upon them by the Bush Administration's gross mismanagement (two bankrupting wars, housing market collapse, wall street collapse, resultant unemployment). Yes, the middle class in the USA is declining but this is the continuation of a process that began over thirty years ago; the current underemployment is at its root structural in the sense that many people are unemployable because they are not trained / educated in the "jobs of today". Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?

Thanks.

RH.

1. I'm not sure how much of a factor the loss of unemployment benefits was on the December report, but to the extent that loss of benefits caused the unemployment rate to go down, all that tells me is that the rate could have dropped below 7% sooner if the benefits had not been extended so long. With regard to 1 Million fracking jobs, that's great if true, but one component of the 6 Million jobs created since the recovery began in 2009. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer. It is true we could have been lower than 6.7% at this point, but our challenges have been more with large government job losses (700 K), and the effects of Corporatism.

2. I think the number was more like 5 million policies cancelled, due to ACA [I]and[/I] the decisions of insurance companies. Insurance companies have been cancelling policies for years before ACA came along. There are not millions of people who are now without insurance because of ACA. In December, it was estimated that fewer than 500,000 people who received cancellation notices have not yet signed up for new coverage. Why are you one of them, Dccpa? I don't think the cancellations and signups can be directly added / subtracted. It gets complicated to dissect the numbers. Ultimately, a key and simple number to follow is simply the overall uninsured rate. It was at 17.3% in December, and at 16.1% earlier this month. We should expect ACA will keep moving that number lower.

When you take into account people who are no longer looking for jobs, and not counted as unemployed, it's not a pretty picture:

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

In the long term, as the baby boom generation retires, the employment-population ratio should decrease. However, for the time period in the graph, you can't put much of the blame on demographic or secular trends. There was a big fall off in the % of the population that was employed in 2008 and 2009, and it hasn't rebounded as was the case for past recoveries from recessions.

Government is partly responsible. Policies to grow the economy and get cheaters out of the social security disability system would help. And, as Esten says, reducing corporatist influences would help, although we may differ as to our definitions of corporatism.

[QUOTE=Esten;437894]1. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer. [/QUOTE]

Esten, the graph above supports the Republicans. The stimulus did fail. It probably is too early for the effects of the ACA to have shown up in the employment data though.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437893]Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?
[/QUOTE]WTF? You've got at least part of that ass backwards. Poorer people overwhelmingly voted for Obama. More wealthy people voted for Romney. There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voting preference.

It's ironic, someone playing the race card who obviously believes people from the northeast and Pacific coast are superior to the poor and uneducated inbred hayseeds who populate southern states, Wyoming, etc.

I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. Not even mentioning the fact that Obama shares far more in common with the narrative liberals ascribe to the elite class of evildoers etc. Obama's fiscal policies have held back the economy on all fronts and are driving us into the ground. His health care lunacy alone will be untenable let alone all of his other brilliant non-capitalist ideas. In fact, Jackson is dead on correct in his drawing parallels between the political leadership of Argentina and the US. How can you blame Bush for the housing mess when it was he and numerous Republican legislators who desperately tried to point out to the Democrats the Freddie and Fanny were broken and that the loans being given out were dangerous etc. Do you not remember all the Democrats like Barney Frank, whose lover was at the head of one of these agencies, all coming out and claiming there was no housing bubble and that Republicans were just trying to scare people and keep houses away from the poor? You can still find the video on you tube if you want to check it out. Our economy has had and incredibly slow recovery as can be seen in the eyes of the huge number of people who still can't or won't get a job; partially because to buy votes Obama continues to try to provide more benefits to them. Your post truly proves that Liberal have had some form of lobotomy in childhood leaving them incapable of rational thought and consideration of the facts. I used to argue with liberals until I realized they simply can't see facts any more than the color blind can see green. If our economy is so great then explain why we have so many more people on food stamps. What happened to Obama's promises of lower health care premiums and lower college tuition? Wasn't there something about transparency in there also? He is a complete and utter failure and will go down in history as the most egotistical, pathetic, ineffective, partisan President of all time. He also recurrently seems to forget this little thing called the Constitution he swore to uphold and which is the only instrument giving him any power. Without it he is a community organizer so before he tramples it again he should consider that if the rest the country treated it with the same disdain that he does, he would be out of a job. Have you seen his majesty's approval rating lately? By the way, the only racism I have seen in regard to this President was the fact that nearly every black american voted for him and when asked again and again why, the response almost uniformly was, "Because he is black." That is racism. I did not vote for him because I quickly realized he was all smoke and mirrors and had an agenda that he elevated far above his actual duties as President and would stop at nothing to try to force his will over due process. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.

Pete.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437893]Jackson-.

Are you completely delusional? Under the Obama Administration the stock market is at an all time high and housing prices have rebounded from the utter destruction wrung upon them by the Bush Administration's gross mismanagement (two bankrupting wars, housing market collapse, wall street collapse, resultant unemployment). Yes, the middle class in the USA is declining but this is the continuation of a process that began over thirty years ago; the current underemployment is at its root structural in the sense that many people are unemployable because they are not trained / educated in the "jobs of today". Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?

Thanks.

RH.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437896]WTF? There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voting preference.

[/QUOTE]Wrong. Highly educated urban voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama.