2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421616]Punter.

Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama.[/QUOTE]I didn't realize INDEC was reporting on US election voter fraud. Alamo's claims are a complete fantasy. Independent studies document that over the past five national election cycles out of hundreds of millions votes cast a few dozen criminal charges have been brought for voter fraud and of those most were dismissed for lack of evidence.

Sounds like Bush in Florida.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421616]Punter.

You may be right. Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama.

It is similar to a football game where one side plays by the rules and the other team wants 5 points for a field goal. 12 points for a touchdown and 3 points for the conversion after a touchdown.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;421623]Sounds like Bush in Florida.[/QUOTE]Are you serious? They crimped every chad under the sun in Florida.

Sounds like you still think we needed Gore since he invented the Internet while cutting carbon dioxide emissions and monitoring it all from his G4 (that his daddy let him that he buy with the coal mine profits in Tennessee).

This mornings jobs report reiterated what many have said on this board. Obama will keep a lid on the US economy. If Obama were in charge of Apple he would bankrupt the company within 6 months. The man is absolutely clueless. Anti-business to the bone and then wonders why the economy stays in the gutter

[QUOTE=El Alamo;421630]This mornings jobs report reiterated what many have said on this board. Obama will keep a lid on the US economy. If Obama were in charge of Apple he would bankrupt the company within 6 months. The man is absolutely clueless. Anti-business to the bone and then wonders why the economy stays in the gutter[/QUOTE]Pot calling kettle black? (Pun intended!)

War Horse came out on Video in the USA this week.

I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.

That was 1914.

Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?

Same as Now. Bushes War's!

Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?

Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?
What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.
They really only had only Two First Wars Then.

Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.
Please Wake Up.
Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!!
P.S.
I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURS!!

And who would profit from those Crimped Chads?

I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.

That was 1914.

Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?

Same as Now. Bushes War's!

Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?

Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?
What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.
They really only had only Two First Wars Then.

Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.
Please Wake Up.
Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!!
P.S.
I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURS!![/QUOTE]

P.S.
I had High School Friends died In Vietnam, for the war for Oil.
How many friends or relatives did you lose?
My Brother-in-Law still will not talk about the his missions in jungle he had to go into.
Most of you young pups were not born, then and do not know shit of this counties History.
It must only what you learned on the farms?
Well, I do not know about pretty blue eyed sheep, like you do.
But, It is not for me too judge. I am just a working man, trying to survive.
Why are you middle country people supporting the Rich when you have Jack Shit (Nothing)?


[QUOTE=Texas Tornado; 421625]Are you serious? They crimped every chad under the sun in Florida.

Sounds like you still think we needed Gore since he invented the Internet while cutting carbon dioxide emissions and monitoring it all from his G4 (that his daddy let him that he buy with the coal mine profits in Tennessee).[/QUOTE]

Good grief. It is worse than I thought.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;421635]Good grief. It is worse than I thought.[/QUOTE]Here's something you might find interesting.

[url]http://news.investors.com/article/606939/201204051834/obama-dangerously-close-to-totalitarianism.htm[/url]

Sorry it's not a movie WT69

It is clear that those who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) live in their own separate universe.

Here is something to chew on. Without the Stimulus and other government initiatives, there would have been more business failures, more layoffs, more foreclosures, and higher unemployment. The Republican argument is that this short term pain would be good in the long run as the strong would remain and the weak would be weeded out.

But what happens when more of the economy is concentrated into fewer, stronger companies? These large companies become more efficient and need less labor. And when wealth is concentrated into fewer, wealthier individuals, there is less net spending into the economy.

The unemployment rate just ticked down to 8.2%. Without the Stimulus, this number would be higher. Those who advocate Darwinian capitalism imply it's a good thing for everyone. But it's only good if you're on the winning side. And that becomes increasingly difficult when the strong become stronger.

I think comrade Esten must be living in his own separate universe. The economy moves in cycles and Obama has prevented a normal recovery, or anything resembling a recovery, to occur. Obama deserves a separate Nobel Prize. How to destroy an economy in three easy steps. Step 1) waste trillions on unproven and completely worthless green energy projects that all go bankrupt without producing enough energy to turn on a 20 watt light bulb Step 2) Downgarde US Debt by convincing every monetary body in the world that the united states has a moron as president, and Step 3) add millions of bueurocratic pencil pushers to the already bloated and inefficient government payrolls and claim, with a straight face, that these are real jobs.

And most important, during all this nonsense, keep chanting It's Bush's fault, it's bush's fault etc. ect. Keep chanting this refrain nonstop until at least the year 3000 with an eye on continuing the chant to the year 5000.

[QUOTE=Esten; 421637]It is clear that those who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) live in their own separate universe.

Here is something to chew on. Without the Stimulus and other government initiatives, there would have been more business failures, more layoffs, more foreclosures, and higher unemployment. The Republican argument is that this short term pain would be good in the long run as the strong would remain and the weak would be weeded out.

But what happens when more of the economy is concentrated into fewer, stronger companies? These large companies become more efficient and need less labor. And when wealth is concentrated into fewer, wealthier individuals, there is less net spending into the economy.

The unemployment rate just ticked down to 8. 2. Without the Stimulus, this number would be higher. Those who advocate Darwinian capitalism imply it's a good thing for everyone. But it's only good if you're on the winning side. And that becomes increasingly difficult when the strong become stronger.[/QUOTE] “Nonfarm Payroll +120,000,
Unemployment Rate Fell .1 to 8.2%,
[size=+1]Record 87,897,000 "Not in Labor Force"[/size]

US Unemployment Rate dropped .01 to 8.2%

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.

[b]The Civilian Labor Force fell by 164,000.

Those "Not in Labor Force" increased by 310,000. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed.

Those "Not in Labor Force" is at a new record high of 87,897,000.[/b]

By the Household Survey, the number of people employed fell by 31,000.

By the Household Survey, over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 2,270,000.

Participation Rate fell .1 to 63.8%

[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”


[i][b][u]"Success" of QE2 and Operation Twist [/i][/b][/u]

Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 2.1 percent.
In February, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) had an
over-the-year increase of 2.9 percent; growth in prices has recently been
outpacing growth in earnings.

Not only are wages rising slower than the CPI, there is also a concern as to how those wage gains are distributed.”

“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.”

The real unemployment numbers are much higher than the pure statistical bullshit our socialist comrades would have us believe.

Who really lives in a “separate universe”?

Michigan:

The powers that be say that the Democratic process does not count.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 421634]
Repubilicans

And who would profit from those Crimped Chads?

I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.

That was 1914.

Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?

Same as Now. Bushes War's!

Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?

Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?

What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.

They really only had only Two First Wars Then.

Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.

Please Wake Up.

Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!

P. S.

I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURSP. S.

I had High School Friends died In Vietnam, for the war for Oil.

How many friends or relatives did you lose?

My Brother-in-Law still will not talk about the his missions in jungle he had to go into.

Most of you young pups were not born, then and do not know shit of this counties History.

It must only what you learned on the farms?

Well, I do not know about pretty blue eyed sheep, like you do.

But, It is not for me too judge. I am just a working man, trying to survive.

Why are you middle country people supporting the Rich when you have Jack Shit (Nothing)?[/QUOTE]

You titled your post "Republicans." Your memory is selective.

Bush and the overwhelming majority of Democrat and Republican congressmen, Ron Paul excepted, didn't start the war for oil or to manipulate the working man. They did it because they are dumb shits.

Who started the war in Vietnam? Answer: JFK and LBJ (Democrats)

Who got us out of the war in Vietnam? Answer: Nixon and Kissinger (Republicans)

What did the war in Vietnam have to do with Oil? Answer: Nothing.

Who was president when we got into World War I, one of the stupidest, most senseless, most destructive wars during the history of mankind, and the subject of your new favorite movie? Answer: Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)

Who was president when we got into World War II, the most destructive in the history of the world (although admittedly justified)? Answer: FDR, a Democrat.

Who are the lackeys of the rich Democrats who manipulate the system to promote their special interests and their wars?

Why do you post in this thread when you've said a number of times that this board should be reserved for writing about hookers?

Wt69, like most liberals, never let the facts get in the way. It's not really his fault as those breakfast meetings with Pelosi sometimes gets him all fired up. Vietnam and Oil? Now that's a novel idea, no doubt WT69 feels it's all W's fault! Too funny. Looks my boy Romney is quite nicely on his way to becoming our next president. Just as I predicted over a year ago on this thread. Not bad for a redneck bible thumping Neanderthal who is incapable of free thought. That would be me! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421659]Wt69, like most liberals, never let the facts get in the way. It's not really his fault as those breakfast meetings with Pelosi sometimes gets him all fired up. Vietnam and Oil? Now that's a novel idea, no doubt WT69 feels it's all W's fault! Too funny. Looks my boy Romney is quite nicely on his way to becoming our next president. Just as I predicted over a year ago on this thread. Not bad for a redneck bible thumping Neanderthal who is incapable of free thought. That would be me! Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Ah, yes, that cocky American, an endangered species these days. Looking forward to your press conference in November.

It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10.3% to 8.2% under Obama's watch. That seems obvious from the desperate attempts to claim that the real unemployment rate is something else. Of course there are other variables, but the official rate is calculated by a prescribed, pre-determined method and that's what everyone goes by. I guess the claim that Obama was destroying the economy was just a big lie.

Bringing up the U6 rate is also deceptive because this is not the commonly used metric. People are used to numbers below 10, so hearing 14.5% sounds bad. If you were to discuss the U6 honestly, you would compare it to historical rates and especially to where it went in 2009. It went up over 17%, but like Punter's post, the right wing media doesn't mention that. They want people to compare 14.5% with numbers they are used to. That's nothing but deception.

Pull up all the numbers and analyses you can. None of it changes the fact that the official rate is 8.2%. Most people know better and won't be fooled. Some will be fooled though, which Republican strategists are counting on.

BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism. That's another little detail Republicans want voters to forget.

Right Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Romney win? Or will they backfire ?

[QUOTE=Esten; 421662]It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10. 3% to 8. 2% under Obama's watch. That seems obvious from the desperate attempts to claim that the real unemployment rate is something else. Of course there are other variables, but the official rate is calculated by a prescribed, pre-determined method and that's what everyone goes by. I guess the claim that Obama was destroying the economy was just a big lie.

Bringing up the U6 rate is also deceptive because this is not the commonly used metric. People are used to numbers below 10, so hearing 14. 5% sounds bad. If you were to discuss the U6 honestly, you would compare it to historical rates and especially to where it went in 2009. It went up over 17, but like Punter's post, the right wing media doesn't mention that. They want people to compare 14. 5% with numbers they are used to. That's nothing but deception.

Pull up all the numbers and analyses you can. None of it changes the fact that the official rate is 8. 2. Most people know better and won't be fooled. Some will be fooled though, which Republican strategists are counting on.

BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism. That's another little detail Republicans want voters to forget.

Right Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Romney win? Or will they backfire?[/QUOTE]Estens tantrum translates to: Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Punter is telling the stuff we don't want you to know, please make him stop. Boo-hoo-hoo!

Left wing Hypocrisy,

Obama has lost touch with the American people, he no longer feels our pain.

The hypocrisy and arrogance of Obama, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton in the following video is simple stunning.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;421663]Estens tantrum translates to: Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Punter is telling the stuff we don't want you to know, please make him stop. Boo-hoo-hoo![/QUOTE]Who will be Romney's running mate?

TL

[QUOTE=Esten; 421662]It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10.3% to 8.2% under Obama's watch.[/quote]8.2%? That's what you going to brag about?

[QUOTE=Esten;421662]BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism.[/QUOTE]Esten, your thought process are so convoluted that you're embarrassing yourself.

Capitalism does not cause unemployment. Capitalism [u]creates[/u] employment.

The [u]absence[/u] of capitalism is what causes unemployment.

[i]Left Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Obama win? Or will they backfire? [/i]

What Punter should have responded with is: "You're right Esten, it's misleading to compare the U6 to the U3."

But all he does is get defensive, and throw out some silly idea that critiquing his argument amounts to having a tantrum. LOL!

I would post some pictures to depict him unfavorably, but that would be childish.

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;421665]Who will be Romney's running mate?[/QUOTE]Hey Dude! This board is supposed to be about discussing PUSSY !!

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

My guess, Romney's running mate will be someone both likeable and Conservative. Maybe Paul Ryan. The Conservative part is easy enough to understand. The likeable part, because Romney is very weak here. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, when asked who was more "friendly and likable", 64% said Obama, 26% said Romney.

I actually like Romney, somewhat. He doesn't connect well with average Americans, but I can tell he's a good guy. His attacks on Obama seem scripted, like acting. He doesn't seem to have a genuine anger against Obama or his policies. He just seems like a high achiever who really wants to be president.

[QUOTE=Esten;421668]What Punter should have responded with is: "You're right Esten, it's misleading to compare the U6 to the U3."[/quote]It will be a cold day in hell when I let you dictate what I should and shouldn't say.

[QUOTE=Esten;421668]But all he does is get defensive, and throw out some silly idea that critiquing his argument amounts to having a tantrum. LOL![/quote]You didn't critique anything you attack the messenger and said I was being deceptive and then you tried to spin things away from the real subject at hand.

Lets take a look at what really happened here, you cherry picked some numbers out of the jobs report and ballyhooed them here expecting everyone to except your bullshit as gospel.

I acknowledged your number 8.2 and the fact that it was down 0.1 and then I presented more numbers from the same report. There is absolutely nothing deceptive about the U6 number, it's in every jobs report, and I've talked about it here before.

Why do you think the government includes the U6 number in it job's report?

Is the government being deceptive or misleading when they include the U6 number?

What Esten should have responded with is [I][b]'Punter is right, his report shows the true unemployment picture. ' [/b][/i]

It is true that the unemployment rate has been as high as 10.3, but that number was achieved on Obamas watch, and it was [u][b]not[/u][/b] Part of the current jobs report. I find it interesting that you bring up the 10.3 number but fail to mention fact that unemployment is still higher now than it was when Obama took office, must have slipped your mind? Oh and how much debt did we take on to get where we are today?

One last thing you seem to have [strike]ignored[/strike] missed and failed to address is the fact that [b]the number of people not in the work force is at a record high. [/b] I guess you just can't [strike]spin[/strike] explain that one away. If I were you I'd want to ignore that also.

Right Wingers please keep on Fighting.

There is No Real Republican that can Win for President!

I loved it, no sex just from the mouth. Why do all Republicans do not want safe sex?

Unprotected sex to make babies, which no one wants to pay for. The Church will not part with their Gold to support Your Republican Kids?

But, I wish I was getting some pussy in Buenos Aires instead of watching the TV that Republicans say no sex for pleasure, unless you want babies!

I get off from hearing about you Republican losers.

Our Brother Foreigners has more to say. They laugh at us, being Un-worldized Americans.

P.S.
The Budget was not so bad under Clinton.
The next person to take over Fu---ked it Up,
GOOGLE IT!

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.