2012 Elections in the USA

Ryan or Rubio will be the GOP VP nominee. Both appeal to the Conservatives and will make the ticket much stronger. Rubio would deliver Florida, which is a must win for the Republicans. For those of you not living in the US, though the "official" unemployment number continues to drop, it is not evident in most areas of the US that there are any jobs. I am in contact with many people in their twenties- my kids, nieces, nephews, their friends- it is unbelievably hard to get a job- any job- right now. Most of the press is trying to make a case that things are looking up in the US- I don't see it. I visit BA monthly. There are a significant number of articles in the US press about the "Argentina miracle" that Cristina is pulling off. Honestly, I don't see that either. I see lots of trash in the streets, a lot of homeless, etc. Is it going on somewhere besides BA? Now that the in-fighting among the Republicans is just about over, you will see the race tighten up. Obama's fundraising totals compared to this time 4 years ago are significantly down. A lot of people in the US are going to have a hard time pulling the handle for Obama this time.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 421671].

There is No Real Republican that can Win For president![/QUOTE]How do You explain that in over 70years only one democrat president has gotten a second term WT69? Put that in your pipe and smoke It dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me. Mongering on dude. Toymann

Both parties had 5 presidents elected twice.

[QUOTE=Toymann;421676]How do You explain that in over 70years only one democrat president has gotten a second term WT69? Put that in your pipe and smoke It dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me. Mongering on dude. Toymann[/QUOTE]

Punter, perhaps you did not intend to be deceptive, but that's how the information you presented comes across. There's a clear effort on the right to change the discussion from the U3 to the U6 and claim the latter is the "real" number. The article you copy and pasted is just one example. You can try and change the narrative on this all you want, but I don't recall the right wing referring to U6 under Bush, and it's certain you guys will drop it like a rock if Romney is elected. Just like Romney will mention the U6 often before the election, and then he'll switch immediately to the U3 if he is elected.

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the-real-jobless-rate/[/url]

[QUOTE]Romney calls the U-6 number the “real unemployment rate,” but BLS spokesman Gary Steinberg said the agency does not refer to U-6 as any kind of “unemployment rate,” real or otherwise, because it includes people who are employed, albeit part-time. The U-3 figure is the “official unemployment rate,” Steinberg said, and has been calculated the same way for decades.[/QUOTE]The deception is not just mere mention of the U6. The deception is claiming the U6 is the real number and that the U3 is "pure statistical bullshit".

This effort to shift the narrative to the U6 is an implicit acknowledgement that the 8.2% number sounds good. Nothing to brag about - no. But it's a good, respectable number at this point given where we've come from. The 10.3% peak in 2009 had nothing to do with Obama, both sides have said this. And we both agree there is more work to do.

Esten doesn't like the U6 number. OK, How about the real U3 number should be 11%

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 421640][b]'Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11. [/b]

Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness.

In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,604,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,315, 000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,289, 000' [snip][/quote]Esten you can huff and you can puff but you can't blow those numbers down.

Sorry Esten the guys on this forum are much smarter than you give them credit for and I think they are very capable of interpreting the employment numbers and drawing their own conclusions.

[b][i]'The unemployment rate in all 39 months of Obama's presidency has been higher than that of any single month in President Bush's 8 years in office.'[/b][/i]

Esten wants to point fingers and give excuses about who's to blame, but the American people expect results not excuses.

I suspect Stingers post is a pretty good reflection of the American heartbeat.

[i]For the record when I post somebody else's words I make every effort to put those words inside quotation marks, unlike Mr. Esten who on several occasions has post other peoples words as if they were his own. (a baiting ploy) Now he wants to limit the information you are allowed to look at because the truth 'sounds bad.' Who's really being deceptive? [/i]

I have a hard time believing these polls that show Obama leading Romney. The American people have a choice. They can send Romney (aka Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle) to plate and know they have someone swinging the bat who has excelled in the private and public sectors or they can send Obama (aka Pee Wee Herman) to the plate knowing that Obama has failed at his only private sector job, his lemonaide stand, and in the public sector has excelled only at pandering to the most despicable elements of American society while effortlessly destroying the American economy.

Alamo,

I don't know if you have watched any of the stuff from the primaries, but Romney is incredibly bad (awkward) in front of the cameras. Also, some of his comments show that he is out of touch with the average guy. Remember when someone asked Bush I about the price of milk? Imagine that, but worse. Romney is just an awkward guy and people want to vote for someone who has a personality.

Wow! This is a hot one. Obama wants Romneys tax records back to the 1970's. Romney wants to see Obama's birth certificate and Obama's high school equivalency/GED scores. Which do you think we will see first?

Punter!

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jobless-rate-figures-underestimated/2012/04/13/id/435791?s=al&promo_code=EA71-1[/url]

Some of you that may still have brains, may get a laugh or of this.

[url]http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/0/244-episode/guest-stars.html?cmpid=ABC166[/url]

This is a gem, secret service agent sent home after ripping off a pro in Columbia:

[url]http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11190256-secret-service-officers-sent-home-from-colombia-involvement-with-prostitutes-alleged?lite[/url]

Apparently the Secret Service agent (s) forgot that prostitution is legal in Columbia and that when they refused to pay she went to the police. What was the guy thinking?

WSJ? Another Wall Street friendly company from the same owner as Fox News. Newsmax? Are you kidding?

Of course the right wing is going to say the "real" unemployment rate is something other than 8.2%. No surprise here. But they can't even agree. Punter first said it was 14.5%. Now he says its 11%. The WSJ says its 12%. And Romney is saying it's 14.5%. My head is spinning, what's the "real" number ?

I'll stick with the 8.2% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thank you. It's the official number, and provides the only proper baseline for comparison with past numbers.

Regarding labor force participation rate (LFPR) , which I haven't commented on yet. It is correct it has been declining, which can influence the U3 number. Right wing talking points claim that millions have given up and left the labor force, because of Obama's terrible economy. In fact, the LFPR has been declining since 2000. It is mostly demographic, with a large and more recent baby boomer effect, not just people giving up looking for work. Why do Punter, Romney and WSJ fail to mention the demographic effect, and the decline occuring since 2000? Because they want to dupe people into thinking it's all Obama's fault. More deception.

Baby Boomers, Not Recession, Behind Drop In Workforce
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/[/url]

[QUOTE]According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;421721]WSJ? Another Wall Street friendly company from the same owner as Fox News. Newsmax? Are you kidding? [snip][/quote]Why don't you just give us a list of approved places to obtain official propaganda?

[QUOTE=Esten;421721]Of course the right wing is going to say the "real" unemployment rate is something other than 8.2%. No surprise here. But they can't even agree. Punter first said it was 14.5%. Now he says its 11%. The WSJ says its 12%. And Romney is saying it's 14.5%. My head is spinning, what's the "real" number ?[snip][/quote]WTF are you delusional? You still got a problem with quotes, why didn't you use real quotes instead of posting your conveniently twisted interpretation of what I said? The snip below is the only place I can find that I actually used the 14. 5% number, and I also acknowledged that [i][u] 'The official unemployment rate is 8. 2. ' [/u][/i] Try reading it slowly or perhaps you need to read it out loud so you can understand what it says.

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 421640]'The official unemployment rate is 8. 2. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc, you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is labeled U-6.

U-6 is much higher at 14. 5. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years. ' [snip][/QUOTE]Dude if your head is spinning it's because you're the king of spin, not because of anything I wrote.

[QUOTE=Esten;421721]I'll stick with the 8.2% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thank you. It's the official number, and provides the only proper baseline for comparison with past numbers. [snip][/QUOTE]No surprise here, just cherry pick a number you like, rather then look at the complete picture, typical leftwing BS!

[QUOTE=Esten; 421722]Regarding labor force participation rate (LFPR) , which I haven't commented on yet. It is correct it has been declining, which can influence the U3 number. Right wing talking points claim that millions have given up and left the labor force, because of Obama's terrible economy. In fact, the LFPR has been declining since 2000. It is mostly demographic, with a large and more recent baby boomer effect, not just people giving up looking for work. Why do Punter, Romney and WSJ fail to mention the demographic effect, and the decline occuring since 2000? Because they want to dupe people into thinking it's all Obama's fault. More deception.

Baby Boomers, Not Recession, Behind Drop In Workforce.

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/[/url]

[QUOTE]According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.”[/quote][/quote]Wow where shall I start? Lets start at the end and work back, Esten seem to be cherry picking once again, notice how he quotes a part of the article that refers to 'economists' but he doesn't bother to mention that it's only one small group of economists (Barclays Capital) they are speaking of, that must have slipped his mind.

He also seems to have skimmed over the very first two paragraphs.

[quote]To hear most economists tell it, the prolonged recession has caused millions of Americans to leave the labor force.[/quote]Key words 'most economists' they're speaking of all economist not a small group.

The second paragraph.

[quote]“ Perhaps though there’s another story there. Maybe it’s just the baby boomers.”[/quote]Key words here 'Perhaps and Maybe'.

Next he says I ignored that LFPR has been dropping since 2000 and the demographic effects in order to dupe and deceive people, sometimes I wonder if this guy can read or if it's just over his head. Either way his remarks are untrue.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;421640]Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness. [snip][/QUOTE]There are a couple of other reasons why I did not elaborate on the LFPR first and foremost is the fact that the long term trend is not part of the current labor report. The other reason is Esten is sounding more and more desperate with every post, and I didn't want to kick him while he was down. But since he won't stop whipping the dead donkey, here's some graphs to help expose more of the real labor story. Indeed as Esten said the LFPR has been going down since 2000, but notice the acceleration in the rate of decline in the last three years. Take a look at the working age population number, and the 'Percentage of Labor Force Covered by Benefits. '

Esten would have us believe that everybody just retired. I don't doubt the retirement rate has increased, but how many people retired in the last three years because their job went away?

The numbers have been exposed, you guys can draw your own conclusions, even though Esten doesn't want you to.

My work on this subject is complete at least until the next jobs report. Until then I will not respond to Esten on this subject because I refuse to continue beating up on an opponent that has been disarmed and who is now down to cherry picking, delusional interpretation and mythomania in order to help achieve his ultimate desire of destroying free markets and capitalism. (If you don't believe that's what he wants? Go back and read his posts)

Esten you can spew whatever verbal regurgitation you want but it won't matter, the guys on this forum have you figured out. You gave it your best now let it rest, more rambling by you will just further expose how deceptive you really are, give the readers a break.