2012 Elections in the USA

When I was forecasting in the early 2000s, the decline of the labor force was a major topic. We thought labor was going to have to be more productive to support a larger population that did not work. I think the rise of internet retailing for example has eliminated many of the unproductive jobs in the economy. Your former bookstore or retail video clerk is probably peddling coffee now."Anything to eat with that?" Active duty military has also increased by 100, 000 since 2000 and I do not think they are included in the labor force number. I surmise that in 2030 that labor force participation will be smaller than today's number no matter who is in charge just like we forecast in 2000. However, no forecaster I have ever read would have projected such a long recovery in 2000. Rogoff and Rinehart probably came closest in "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" but that was published in September 2009. The long recovery in my mind has hastened the decline in labor rate participation.

Saw Obama explaining how great the economy is. In about 6 months Obama will be looking for a job with his resume highlighting a GED / high school equivalency diploma. Undoubtedly. thanks to obama's great economy, Obama will join the ranks of the long term unemployed. A relatively new classification of workers gracias a Obama.

Long-term unemployed is just a statistician's term. In the old days we called them housewives.

Here's quote from a CNN article today."Jason Everett, for example, wouldn't be counted. Out of work for nearly three years now, Everett has given up his job search altogether. Instead, the unemployed plumber and Air Force veteran takes a few community college courses and looks after his two children while his wife is the primary breadwinner."

Oh BTW, according to this article these services are worth $60k to $115k.

[url]http://moneyland.time.com/2012/04/30/a-moms-work-is-worth-113k-annually-or-maybe-about-half-that/[/url]

I think this number is high given average household income is around $50k but I think Mitt believes it.

Personally I think our choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum for President this year. So the best course is to vote your pocketbook. If you live in high tax and high real estate value state you vote Obama. Low tax and real estate value states vote Romney. Reason: Obama will cater to special interests. Romney will want to flatten tax rates but he will lower tax expenditures to accomplish it. Life is simple when you look at it from the standpoint of your wallet.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 422092]Personally I think our choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum for President this year.[/quote]I sort of agree. Of course, I am retired and am not looking for a job. It won't bother me too much if Obama is re-elected. It is just that Obama appears so clueless about a free market economy and the benefits of a free market economy. Not surprising, might I add, considering Obama has never had a real job in his life.

There are many worthwhile discussion points in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The law has a big focus on disease prevention and early detection, essential to controlling health care costs. I suspect we'll be hearing more about the benefits of the law in the election campaign.

One of the things the law did was prohibit co-pays for preventive services recommended by an independent expert panel, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The law also makes proven preventive services free for most people on Medicare. Listed below are cancer screening services for which co-pays are prohibited (at defined ages). Chest x-ray screening for lung cancer isn't included, because it hasn't proven to be cost effective. There are significant costs associated with the high false positive rate.

- colonoscopy for colon cancer.
- Pap smears for cervical cancer
- mammograms for breast cancer.

In his zeal to attack the new health care law, Doppel claimed that Medicare chest x-ray screening for lung cancer recurrence had been dropped by PPACA, implying it was a victim of $500 Billion in Medicare "cuts" to help expand Medicaid. As I posted before, there are $500 Billion of savings in future Medicare spending in the next 10 years, but not from cutting benefits. But it gets better. Doppel couldn't even prove Medicare had EVER covered this service. It's probably because no medical organization (including the USPSTF) recommends it for asymptomatic people. If you don't have symptoms, it's a "waste of time" according to the American Cancer Society.

Doppel dug himself in with a great deal of deflection and bluster, but his original claim has been exposed as false.

Esten, you are so full of it. The original post indicated the patient in question had already had surgical intervention, removal of one lobe of the lung, and the chest x-ray was for follow up. Procedure code and matching diagnostic code were rejected for payment by Medicare. The physician was frustrated with his ability to follow up due to the denial forcing the patient to now pay for a follow up test which was covered 18 months ago. I would think a cancer specialist at MD Anderson might know what he is talking about.

So Esten, why are you always trying to change the discussion to general population screening? The only person unable to stay on topic here is you, as usual. Typical liberal B / S if you don't have the facts through everything but the kitchen sink in to obscure the discussion.

If anyone is in a fight to deny women access to healthcare it is Obama and ObamaCare. Two of the three tests you listed directly affect women, mamaograms and PAP smears. Obama is all for making sure women get free contraceptives but could care less about breast or cervical cancer. So who is waging the war on women?

Better go back and check with the American College of Obstetrics and Gyneclogy my friend, you will find a very different view!

Big Boss Man, some how I doubt we suddenly had a surge of 9 million housewives in 3 1/2 years! I do agree in the past that part of the population which did not work were either housewives, infirmed, or retired, doubt that accounts for the "shrinkage" your seeing the BLS claim now.

Doppelganger, quoting the WSJ article you submitted:

"When people leave the labor force it could be due to discouragement of the long-term unemployed or by choice over retirement or child care. The labor force has dropped dramatically over the course of recession and recovery, and concerns have been raised it was due to discouraged workers."

So here the author gave three reasons: discouragement, retirement and childcare but focused on discouragement.

Again I think there is a secular trend toward retirement that was identified ten years ago and it is definitely part of the number.

I think that people are now realizing the value of childcare. We are moving away from the Hillary Clinton view of "It Takes a Village." We are seeing the rise of home schooling like Rick Santorum did. Google home schooling finds a USA Today article claiming a rise of 400k students between 2003 and 2007. I think it is more popular now not less. Those mothers are probably dropping out of the labor force but engaged in gainful activity.

Then there is the cyclical issue of discouragement. How do you split the 9 million? If the ex-plumber that I cited is raising children is he discouraged or is he engaged in an activity worth $60k when he could only make $40k.

I think there are many free riders cashing checks on the lengthened unemployment benefits. According to the BLS unemployed mothers of children under the age of 18 has increased by a million since 2008. Obama and the Democrats should be blamed for that one. Anyone could have seen that coming. BTW by percent the levels are the same as in the 1980s.

[url]http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf[/url]

Until someone does the hard analysis we are in the world of "Could". That is why I reacted in the first place.

I am enjoying our discussion Doppel.

Yes you would think a specialist at MD Anderson would know what he's talking about. Why don't you ask him why he's recommending something his profession doesn't support? While you're at it, ask him about the risk-benefit ratio of the followup treatments the patient might have to endure from a false-positive x-ray. Maybe he's looking to generate more revenue for his practice.

[QUOTE]So Esten, why are you always trying to change the discussion to general population screening?[/QUOTE]The point is [i]asymptomatic[/i] populations. If the patient was successfully treated, and the symptoms gone, that patient is asymptomatic. No different from the general population, except for the additional risk factor of prior cancer. I explained this before. I also researched your claim many hours online, and found no exceptions for the detection of recurrent cancer. In fact I found (and posted) a study showing chest x-ray to be a poor test for recurrence in asymptomatic patients.

There may be some limited value, but Medicare has to make choices on how to spend limited dollars. If $10M to pay for "A" can save 100 lives, but for "B" can save 1000 lives, what's the best choice? Medicare can't pay for everything.

[QUOTE]If anyone is in a fight to deny women access to healthcare it is Obama and ObamaCare. Two of the three tests you listed directly affect women, mamaograms and PAP smears. Obama is all for making sure women get free contraceptives but could care less about breast or cervical cancer. So who is waging the war on women?[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!! Go back and read what I wrote. Obama (via PPACA) has ensured screening for breast and cervical cancer WILL BE FREE. Co-pays are now prohibited. PPACA expands access for women, not only for these tests, but also the number of women who will be able to get them for free. Encouraging the use of these screening tests is a win-win for women's health and healthcare costs.

Doppel, I know you're all riled up against Obama, maybe you should take some time out and clear your head a little bit.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 422081]That's an easy one.

1. It's the Supreme Court's fault.

2. It's Congress' fault.

3. It's George Bush's fault.[/QUOTE]Even easier is guessing how Republicans will explain anything negative:

1. It's Obama's fault.

[QUOTE=Esten; 422137]Even easier is guessing how Republicans will explain anything negative:

1. It's Obama's fault.[/QUOTE]It is easier because it is true.

LMAO Esten. Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce (aka death panel) decided they were not paying for mammograms due to in their estimation the false positives outweighed the benefits of the test for women 40-49 years of age. So it is the patient's choice to have the test done, if the patient is willing to pay for it. Now just exactly how is a test 'free' if it is not authorized for payment and the patient has to foot the bill? While the Preventive Services Taskforce did determine a mammogram once every two years was acceptable, I. E. Covered for payment, for women 50 to 75 years of age.

Check with the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology both recommend screening for women to begin at 40 years of age and be performed annually. Well Esten, I guess these two outfits are talking out their ass and must hate Obama and ObamaCare.

Regarding the chest x-ray, you need to really look a little closer at the data. MD Anderson is one of the leading research institutes in the world when it comes to cancer. I would strongly suspect your 'studies' are much like those used by Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce – flawed!

Take a look at the leading study the Preventative Services Taskforce used to justify their position, it 'synthesized data from 66 other studies'. These folks selected the studies they wanted then willowed it down to what they wanted. Not new research that independently confirmed their hypothesis, just regurgitation of old material. The other used 'four computer models that simulate life histories for individual women'. Never dated a 'simulated' woman before but I'll bet you have.

So tell me Esten, how exactly is this 'free' if it's not approved or offered in the first place.

[QUOTE=Esten; 422136]I am enjoying our discussion Doppel.

There may be some limited value, but Medicare has to make choices on how to spend limited dollars. If $10M to pay for "A" can save 100 lives, but for "B" can save 1000 lives, what's the best choice? Medicare can't pay for everything.[/QUOTE]You make my point about ObamaCare and the 'death panels' for me Esten. Just like Canada, England and other countries with this style of 'healthcare' system it all comes down to once you reach a certain age. 55 to 60 depending on the country, you no longer deserve care so go home and die quietly while we spend the money on younger people, like the 'occupy' crowd since they deserve it. Does not matter you old people paid Medicare payroll taxes you whole life and your employers matched it. Let's take care of the jackasses who won't work but are more 'worthy' because they are young.

BBM, the WSJ article centered on the folks dropping out of the work force due to being long term unemployed and discouraged. These folks are still unemployed and still want a job, just can not find one. The article does mention child care and retirement as having a MINOR affect on the drop with the central factor being discouragement.

Please don't tell me you think the majority of those 9 million plus folks retired or became Mr. Mom! Even the BLS is not trying to say they retired.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422144]BBM, the WSJ article centered on the folks dropping out of the work force due to being long term unemployed and discouraged. These folks are still unemployed and still want a job, just can not find one. The article does mention child care and retirement as having a MINOR affect on the drop with the central factor being discouragement.

Please don't tell me you think the majority of those 9 million plus folks retired or became Mr. Mom! Even the BLS is not trying to say they retired.[/QUOTE]Yes, I will stick to my guns. I really do not believe, assuming this an argument against Obama's policy, it is the policy of the Republican Party to increase the size of the labor force. If elected, Republicans will be overjoyed if the labor force shrinks while jobs increase thereby lowering unemployment. Republicans are the party of the homemaker. Both Romney and Santorum's wives were stay at home mothers. Laura Bush left teaching to raise children.

The baby boomers will be retiring in the next 10 years me included. I am holding out because I think austerity is the only solution.

Stricter immigration enforcement has reduced the size of the labor force. Anecdotal evidence is that Mexican immigrants are returning to Mexico which is also reducing the labor force. It makes sense with the lack of construction jobs. From a sample of one, we offered a job to a student engineer that turned us down and went to work in Taiwan instead. Personally I just do not know any discouraged unemployed and I live in high unemployment county. I have a lead on a minimum wage graveyard shift job that can lead to $34k a year in 3 years. I have given the connection to 5 or 6 people and not one has followed through. I do not think that people are willing work at anything which takes them out of the ranks of the discouraged. Alabama has trouble finding crop workers now that the immigration laws are being enforced.

There are many reasons to vote Republican in November but the reason that Republicans will increase the labor force is BS. Here's a link to another article that is one-sided in it is assessment and follows your view. Notice these are all blogs and not in the reporting part of the WSJ or Weekly Standard.

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/one-thing-clear-not-enough-new-jobs_643170.html[/url]

The article also implies that Republicans are happy that America is struggling which is more BS. I don't think Romney thinks that at all.

Enough politics, I am in BA next week and need to figure out places I want to visit. Skittenbrewer, can I buy you a meal?

Big Boss Man, with all due respect, I just find it very hard to believe 400,000+ folks decided to become Mr or Mrs Mom in April as that many people exited the job market. The BLS's statistics shows about 25% of the folks exiting the job market are baby boomers retiring so what about the other 75%

I'm with you on stricter immigration enforcement, but as you point out in the southern states as the illegals (I guess under political correctness I just committed a hate crime) are being pushed out of the fields, the farmers are having a hard time replacing the work force. I believe the reason for this is the government (Republican and Democrat) have made it too profitable to remain unemployed and on the government dole / plantation. Why go get a job and actually work when you can lay on your ass and get paid by Uncle Sugar?

There are many high paying jobs out there but few candidates with the qualifications to fill them. Not much call for French Revolutionary Literature Majors out there or other 'soft' degrees for that matter. All three engineering companies I have for clients are looking for mechanical engineers but are having a hard time finding them since the program is so difficult, ditto for electrical and system engineers. The jobs are there the people with the requisite training are not.

Today Welfare is so attractive and pays well enough through its myriad of sources that untrained and uneducated people would rather depend on Uncle Sugar than do the labor their grandparents and great grandparents did. Welfare has made them 'too good for that sort of work'.

With the populace of France becoming tired of the austerity policies of their current government they have elected a Socialist president who has taken up Obama's themes of soak the corporations and the rich to finance the social welfare system. We Americans can now watch these programs in action in France, the flight of capital from France accompanied by continued contraction of the economy as the businesses that drive it are taxed to death.

France will follow in the footsteps of Greece, Spain, and Italy. It won't take long for Europe / Euro Zone to begin to implode when Germany finally throws in the financial towel and lets the rest of Europe sink in their own social spending ocean of debt.

We need to explore, find, and build industries / services where we can have comparative advantage- meaning the ability to offer better products / services for lower prices. We do not have comparative advantages in blue collar jobs, and in some professional jobs. Education among the people and innovativeness among entrepreneurs are important.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 422149 ]Yes, I will stick to my guns. I really do not believe, assuming this an argument against Obama's policy, it is the policy of the Republican Party to increase the size of the labor force. If elected, Republicans will be overjoyed if the labor force shrinks while jobs increase thereby lowering unemployment. Republicans are the party of the homemaker. Both Romney and Santorum's wives were stay at home mothers. Laura Bush left teaching to raise children.

The baby boomers will be retiring in the next 10 years me included. I am holding out because I think austerity is the only solution.

Stricter immigration enforcement has reduced the size of the labor force. Anecdotal evidence is that Mexican immigrants are returning to Mexico which is also reducing the labor force. It makes sense with the lack of construction jobs. From a sample of one, we offered a job to a student engineer that turned us down and went to work in Taiwan instead. Personally I just do not know any discouraged unemployed and I live in high unemployment county. I have a lead on a minimum wage graveyard shift job that can lead to $34k a year in 3 years. I have given the connection to 5 or 6 people and not one has followed through. I do not think that people are willing work at anything which takes them out of the ranks of the discouraged. Alabama has trouble finding crop workers now that the immigration laws are being enforced.

There are many reasons to vote Republican in November but the reason that Republicans will increase the labor force is BS. Here's a link to another article that is one-sided in it is assessment and follows your view. Notice these are all blogs and not in the reporting part of the WSJ or Weekly Standard.

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/one-thing-clear-not-enough-new-jobs_643170.html[/url]

The article also implies that Republicans are happy that America is struggling which is more BS. I don't think Romney thinks that at all.

Enough politics, I am in BA next week and need to figure out places I want to visit. Skittenbrewer, can I buy you a meal?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422143]LMAO Esten. Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce (aka death panel) decided they were not paying for mammograms due to in their estimation the false positives outweighed the benefits of the test for women 40-49 years of age. So it is the patient's choice to have the test done, if the patient is willing to pay for it. Now just exactly how is a test 'free' if it is not authorized for payment and the patient has to foot the bill? While the Preventive Services Taskforce did determine a mammogram once every two years was acceptable, I. E. Covered for payment, for women 50 to 75 years of age.

Check with the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology both recommend screening for women to begin at 40 years of age and be performed annually. Well Esten, I guess these two outfits are talking out their ass and must hate Obama and ObamaCare.[/QUOTE]Wrong again. The PPACA has a provision that defers to the USPSTF 2002 guidelines which recommends screening mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older. It doesn't follow the more recent USPSTF guidance in this case, so it's hard to make a case this is Obama's Taskforce, which was B/S anyways.

You're making a fool out of yourself with your constant lack of fact-checking.

[QUOTE]Regarding the chest x-ray, you need to really look a little closer at the data. MD Anderson is one of the leading research institutes in the world when it comes to cancer. I would strongly suspect your 'studies' are much like those used by Obama's Preventive Services Taskforce – flawed![/QUOTE]It's not Obama's Taskforce. The science is far less-disputed on lung cancer (vs. breast cancer) , even the American Cancer Society recommends against routine screening of asymptomatic patients. Your doctor is an outlier.

[QUOTE]You make my point about ObamaCare and the 'death panels' for me Esten. [/QUOTE]Death panels.... you sound like Sarah Palin. LOL. Here's a news flash for you Doppel: no private or public health insurance system has or will ever have unlimited funds. Look into it. The best you can hope for is that dollars are spent wisely. And once again, PPACA does not cut Medicare benefits.

Super packs will destroy the electorial process: the super pacts misrewpresent the truth and both side are not trustworthy.

The Mitt: the wallstreet crowd parades not half truths but maybe 25% truths:

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/[/url]

In the Miami market the ads were on shows ranging from the Sunday morning news shows to the afternoon flintstones-you can see I have far ranging tastes.

-

The budget debates-both sides are telling lots of half truths, but Obama likely is more full of it than the Mitt.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/04/fall-preview-obama-vs-romney-and-ryan/[/url]

Factchecker makes an interesting read after all the baloney spread by the spin masters on both sides. Actually read the factchecker article completely is you are going to discuss the buget debate.

-

The teaparty folks are even more full of it. Let's bring back the good old days-1919.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/03/tea-partys-targets/[/url]

The moderate voices in both parties should be silenced so only the most extreme irrational loud mouths with minimal thought attached to reality prevail!

There you go. 42% of Americans will be obese by 2030. Unemployment and hunger should not be a major issue in the future.

Poor people are obese, and middle / upper class people are relatively in better shape.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;422206]There you go. 42% of Americans will be obese by 2030. Unemployment and hunger should not be a major issue in the future.[/QUOTE]

Esten, they did not reveret to the earlier finding only suggested they would consider it after the recommendation caused a firestorm of criticism.

I am sure you and the 'panel' know more about medicine and treatment than the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Cancer Institute, they are just dummies and don't know what they are talking about.

I love the way one post you put something out there then retract it in the next. I don't know when you have time to even post as you read the 2, 000+ pages of convoluted hyprocisy of the ObamaCare legislation, which will be a moot point come June.

On a separate note the 'panel' uses studies and 'models' of virtual patients to come to conclusions and don't seem terribly interested in listening to the folks with differing opinions in the medical profession who are actually PRACTING medicine not theorizing about it.

Looking weak Esten, looking very weak.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 422196]The teaparty folks are even more full of it. Let's bring back the good old days-1919.[/QUOTE]

Shut 'Er Down!

Doppel, when I read about the Socialist victory in France, I was reminded of you. Complaining at the slightest hint of cuts in government spending. If you're arguing the government should cover more in health care, not less, isn't that a Socialist position?

Here's a contrast for you. College student loans have been in the news recently. Both parties say they want to extend low interest rates on Stafford loans. Here's how each party wants to pay for the $6 Billion cost:

Republicans: By eliminating a preventive health program created by the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats: By collecting more payroll taxes from high-earning owners of some privately owned corporations.
[url]http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2012/05/07/ppaca-senate-turns-to-partisan-fight-over-student[/url]

Sure looks like the Republican Party is more interested in protecting the rich, than funding preventive health care.

Esten, why do you have such a hard time staying on topic?

I have always advocated the reduction in the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid and Welfare Programs; the continuation of funded programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The Government made a bargain with these folks when they started taking their money via payroll taxes; it's time to keep that bargain at the expense of the unfunded giveaway programs. Check your facts; Medicaid is growing at a much faster pace than Medicare.

According to you George Bush, the Republican Party or both are responsible for every ill which arises in the world. Either individually or both want to kill, starve, and enslave the population to the 'rich' and you can pick whichever demographic you wish. While in reality it is the Democratic Ruling Elite who wish to do this as we individuals are too stupid to know what is good for us and need their divine guidance to live our lives. Total B / S.

Ok here we go on your miscellaneous B / S you throw up to cloud the issue.

French elections IMHO herald the beginning of the end of the Euro Zone, with the new French president taking the path of your beloved Obama: Tax the Rich, Tax the Corporations, Increase Social Spending. The problem is there will quickly be no place to go to borrow the money and Germany will quickly grow weary of paying for others reckless spending. First Greece, then Portugal or Spain, then Italy followed by France begin defaulting and collapsing. At least England did not join the Euro Zone. Check our markets, they are already reacting to this scenario.

Student loan debt is now greater than all combined credit card debt and Obama's answer is to forgive, restructure and reduce interest even further. I am shocked that after the Stimulus and other wonderful packages Obama has given the nation these students don't have jobs after graduation so they can pay back the loans. Gee what happened, guess it must be George Bush, the Republicans or both conspiring against them.

Esten, nobody held a gun to their heads and made them take the loans and don't give me the B / S they had to have the money to go to school. I and many others in my generation worked our way through college, taking any menial, disgusting job that was available in a college town to get through, see my earlier post about this generation being "too good" to lower themsleves to this level of labor.

Esten, if all you got is Class Warfare you need to pack it in because your kungfu is getting pretty weak on that front my friend.

The republicans love to spew the religious Jesus bullshit at any fucking moment. Then they turn around and want to cut healthcare for the poor and elderly. This is exactly the opposite of the Jesus bullshit that they ranted about just before. What a bunch of dipshits.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 422196]Super packs will destroy the electorial process: the super pacts misrewpresent the truth and both side are not trustworthy.

The Mitt: the wallstreet crowd parades not half truths but maybe 25% truths:

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/[/url]

In the Miami market the ads were on shows ranging from the Sunday morning news shows to the afternoon flintstones-you can see I have far ranging tastes.

-

The budget debates-both sides are telling lots of half truths, but Obama likely is more full of it than the Mitt.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/04/fall-preview-obama-vs-romney-and-ryan/[/url]

Factchecker makes an interesting read after all the baloney spread by the spin masters on both sides. Actually read the factchecker article completely is you are going to discuss the buget debate.

-

The teaparty folks are even more full of it. Let's bring back the good old days-1919.

[url]http://factcheck.org/2012/03/tea-partys-targets/[/url]

The moderate voices in both parties should be silenced so only the most extreme irrational loud mouths with minimal thought attached to reality prevail![/QUOTE]Hey Bob:

I hope you're well. I'm sure you don't get all your views based on what "Factcheck" supposedly decides is the truth. But, it might be worth your time to check out who's behind that organization. The Annenberg Center for Public Policy can hardly be described as "neutral" or "centrist." They are a left-leaning organization. Garbage in. Garbage out.

If you dig a bit deeper, you'll see a description of who their "fact checkers" are. The vast majority are journalists. Some are from respected publications; others are not. But, there's one thing that that the vast majority of journalists in this country have in common: They are liberal. So, it's not surprising that their "results" show a consistent left wing bias. They can't maintain any semblance of credibility if they simply claimed Democrats are right all the time. They know that. So, like NPR, you see them slant their conclusions most frequently by what they choose not to mention and by what they leave out.

Finally, who in their right mind would willingly trust a bunch of journalists to be the arbiters of truth? They are supposed to deliver the facts without bias or preconception, but we haven't been close to that standard in this country in my lifetime.

Just my two cents, but you'd be better off relying on the Flintstones for your political truths.

See the movie 1911. [url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772230/[/url]

Some one said If you Do not remember your history you will repeat it.

The Rich screwing over the poor.

When asked after the European banks declined to give money to the ruling Dowager, if the rich would give money to fight the poor peoples revolution, same as is now, they would not depart with their money. And it is the same as Now we the working people have to pay for your wars.

While the Rich make money and we suffer.

Greed Is Good.

Shame on You!

Fact-checker is the gold standard and writes detailed reports with footnotes to the original sources. Most hard right wingers use a ghetto site that is run by a couple with a backround in urban legends-snopes. The annenberg family at one time was one on the richest families in the USA. They endowed the place which is physically near the wharton school-all part of a lefty communist conspiracy. I guess we should rely on rush and fox new to report only the truth.

If you have what you believe is a consistently better source of information-please post a link. The point of the posting is that inaccurate half truths by the super pacts who favor both sides.

Are going to be spending massive amounts of $$ and neither side should be taken at face value. I suggest that you may wish to google factchecker and see what various people say about it. Carl rove-another lefty quotes factchecker.

Did you bother to read the analysis of the misrepresentations by both the left and the right taking you back to the original sources. I would be please to look at alternatives.

Please provide them. I like to see what the truth is rather than the cool aide poured out of the tv airwaves. Both sides are regularly fool of shit==that's what I get from factchecker.

[url]http://factcheck.org/about/[/url]

Dick chaney quotes it and the wallstreet journal calls in a reliable source-more lefty proproganda.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck[/url]

Vs.

Snopes.

[url]http://www.snopes.com/[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05snopes.htm[/url]

Stan-any suggestions? I always try to have an open mind

Factchecker gives it good to Obama-naughty, naughty barak-your nose may grow like the little boy in the story. It is also interesting to note ryan's plan in 2012 is more generous to medicare recipients than in 2011. Yet we all know that ryan hasn't specified the other cuts required to be so generous with no specific increases in revenue. I wonder who gets the cuts and how. I wish I had a working crystal ball rather than factchecker.

Wouldn't it be nice to make everyone happy all the time. Have the bad guys in black hats and the good in white hats. All the hats seem to be varying shades of grey.

I wonder if reagan could be mainstream in today's republican party. Reading his diaries it is clear the reagan had personal concerns about the health of the middle class under his supply side economic policies.

FactCheck.org is an invaluable site IMO. Same for PolitiFact.org. I use them occasionally to check information on both sides. There are plenty of examples where these sites call out false information from the left, as well as from the right. I'm sure many people on both political sides use them.

Almost all the information we get is reported through the media; journalists are in the very best position to check who said what, and check what the sources were and their reliability.

Some conservatives have accused these sites of being biased to the left before, no doubt because these sites have helped expose the tremendous amount of misinformation on the right. It seems to me that a group that tries to discredit a fact-checking site, is a group that does not want the facts to be known.

Since you consider these two 'fact checking' sites to be without question the last word in unbiased unvarnished truth and then question anyone who doubts their veracity as not seeking the truth is about as rational as saying the main stream media, ABC CBS NBC MSNB CNN The New York Times et al, is not full of liberals who have slanted the news for years and amount to not much more than a cheerleading squad for Obama. Most of these folks have never been formally introduced to the truth and would not know it if it walked up and slapped them.

When you look at the number of positive and negative stories alone regarding the Anointed One vs any challenger the results speak for themselves.

A financially independent public policy research institution which discloses it's funding, is generally preferable to a site with google ads all over the place.

There are always prejudices anywhere. Factchecker seems to be balanced and generally respected by folks on the left and right-a gold standard within the context of what is available. If you assume that Fox News is superior, I would respectfully disagree. They don't publish linked footnotes when they provide the backstory and clearly have a marketing plan with an audiance to please or they lose $$

I am looking for a balance checking of the tag lines in 30 to 60 second tv spots. These spots may play a real role in the political future of the USA and major policy decisions. Private industry has billions at stake and motivation to control public opinion for reasons of maximizing profit, not necessarily the public good.

If I was working for Mitt, I would push that I have a goal of non-regulation of Wall Street and raise hundreds of millions for super packs to hire the best pr people to sway public opinion. The left has players with simular goals of self-interest.

I want to formulate my opinions based on the truth or as close to what is easily available, not propaganda. The state of the propaganda is troublesome for the health of a free electorial process while the USA is at a cross roads. I dout that god has pre-ordained that the USA will retain it's economic and scientific atvantages for ever.

Empires and great nations raise and fall. I hope that the USA can continue it's great experiment for another hundred years or more. Corruption of the political process does not bode well for the future.

Mr. D, you seem to be saying we can't trust anyone but the sourses of info which tend to support each person's world view. The is nothing close to the truth because all journalists are completely corrupt fraudsters. Somehow only the journals who support your world view are truthful and everyone else called "journalist" is corrupt.

Mr B, the first casualty of a political campaign, regardless of the party, is the truth. I believe we can agree on at least this point. While I don't trust any politician as far as I can throw them; that said I will vote for Mitt as he is the only alternative to Obama. It is truly a shame when you have to vote 'against' a candidate rather than 'for' one, which is the case this year again.

The major media sources I listed are so enamored with Obama there remains very little objective reporting as they fawn over his every word. While the 'fact checking' sites you cited are quick, they still shows its liberal underpinnings with many of their 'facts'. Fox News must be filling some need for 'truth' out there the other major players are not meeting or they would not be so successful. Look at all the Liberal shows that have been rolled out and subsequently fail. I don't believe Fox is the be all and end all in the truth market but they seem to come closer than most or they would not be so successful as an alternative to the other networks.

A good example of 'faulty fact checking' IMHO from these sites was Obama's reference to American oil reserves. He selected a 'fact' generated in the late 40's / early 50's which fit his version of the 'truth'. The reality of American reserves is totally different – check with the oil companies who have much more invested in finding, developing and bringing the product to market than a politician who hates carbon based fuels.

If pushing gas prices to $10 / gallon would make green technology grow then Europe should be 10 years ahead of us but they are not for the simple reason those technologies are not economically feasible. While Capitalism may not be a totally fair or equitable system it is much better than anything else out there.

A good story about politicians my grandfather told me years ago is as follows, he was born at the turn of the century:

A farmer goes into his barn and puts a jug of white lighting, a $20 gold piece and a Bible on a bench.

He then goes out and calls over his 18 year old son and tells him, 'Son I want you to go in the barn and you take what you think you need off the bench. '

The son asks his father why.

The farmer tells his son, 'You are almost a man now and I will know what sort of man you will be by what you decide to take. '

The son goes in the barn and sees the jug, the money and the Bible. He puts the $20 gold piece in his pocket, uncorks the jug taking a big swig, tucks the Bible under one are and the jug under the other, and then walks out of the barn.

The farmer looks his son over and exclaims, 'Damn another politician'

Another antidote on politicians comes from a Texas Ranger years ago:

"Aint nothing lower than a child molester but a politician."

I am perhaps more naive than you. I, myself, like to have some idea as to the policy choice and thier implications. I am seriously asking if the bis a better sourse than factchecker. I need to use something. In our day to day lives, friends and families disagree politaclly more often than not. Factchecky generally shows boths to me lacking in veracity. BUT many times one side is more full of it than the other.

This new world of super pacts in something that john mcCain has been talking about most of his career-the corruption of the entire process is a qualitatively different place.

In the past I generally voted democractic-I voted for ronald reagan and have always read most of the available stuff about him. The mitt who was the moderate governor of mass I would vote for any time and any place. The deals he is making now will likelky lead me to Obama. I am the other side of your coin.

Have you seen The Last Emperor? It was about the same time in China, and a good movie.

Thanks.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 422268]See the movie 1911.

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772230/[/url]

Some one said If you Do not remember your history you will repeat it.

The Rich screwing over the poor.

When asked after the European banks declined to give money to the ruling Dowager, if the rich would give money to fight the poor peoples revolution, same as is now, they would not depart with their money. And it is the same as Now we the working people have to pay for your wars.

While the Rich make money and we suffer.

Greed Is Good.

Shame on You![/QUOTE]

Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. We mongers know that. Yet, the beholden is often bound by circumstances often beyond his control or his ability even to understand himself. Uttering half-truths, rationalizing his behavior. Almost always, not guilty or insanity!

If nothing else, Obama's victory was a manifestation of new hopes / changes to an American political system that was / is broken, and McClain was just another tired retread of the old guard. Obama's victory was greeted joyously around the world (why? Think about that) , and history will show that it gave momentum to what we now call, the "Arab Spring". Most Americans were tuned out from that significance. The Wall St protests was an afterthought. Most polls show Americans wanted changes, but none that would affect them directly. Talk about dysfunctionality.

And so here we are in 2012. What do we have to show for it? Obama has not been the Messiah, he was not willing to be nailed to the cross. Yes, he was hijacked by the financial crisis, and from then on, his goal was relection. So, America will continue to stumble along, it's values and prestige decreasing everyday. But is Romney the answer? Well, he is if you believe in the status quo, and Big Business having the government in it's backpocket.

But life goes on, at least, I really have no complaints.

Let me start this off.

Why would you vote for either candidate?

I will start that the Republicans now think that Presidents Truman and Reagan are now too Socialistic?

Even though President Obama wants the same things as they did.

Watch MSNBC or HBO's Bill Mayer, and he is not a big fan of Obamas. As least watch hem for his jokes.
The best ones letely are about the Ex-Governor of Alaska. The quitter. They even made a movie about her on HBO. Watch it. I do feel sorry for Her. What a dummy.

And We All know that FOX is raceist.

Romney wants more money for his Morman (not Women) Cult. (His Rich friends, but not You!)

You Poor Mid Westerners.

And some dumb West Coast people that moved from their Mid Western Cities.

I have been in 71 countries trying to understand what other countries to really think about North American People.

What I am seeing on the AP site is that we are still playing and living parts in the old Movie."The Ugly Americans".

Come on Guys show that we are not as dumb! Speak up to these Republican Assholes they are!
Some dumb fuck has bumper stick for Romney, he has a nice BMW, but living in a shitty area and a dump, as I do.
How dumb can you be.
Romney is for the Rich, not you and Me.


Sorry Jackson YOU started This Thread!

Do you know what he said?

Bush said close the office on getting Ben Laden.

Obama said to reopen it and get him.

Check it on Google.

Everything Obama has done is within the law, which Bush did not do.