[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 65°F  
River stage: 31.41 ft. Rising
Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2014
Post reply Read replies (424) More threads Create thread

Obama's Accomplishment
Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 2:00 PM:

1-Increased Debt $50,521 Per Household; More Than First 42 Presidents in 53 Terms Combined. Story:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-term-obama-increased-debt-50521-household-more-first-42-presidents-53-terms

2-number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in President Barack Obama's first term. Story: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-te...

3-Despite spending trillions on bail outs for unions, failed green initiatives, record unemployment $$, record SS disability and massive "stimulus" programs - unemployment is exactly where it was when he took office. Trillions spent and yet millions of jobs lost. The story: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/2...

A disaster by any measure. And in his inauguration speech he will focus on protecting entitlements, raising taxes and unfounded "climate change". Thank God he doesn't have the house in his hands...



Replies

Dug, As you typed, those that need to know are in awe in front of the big screen while texting on Obama phones about "From Kings to Presidents" coverage of His second corination that interupts BTV,s replay of "Roots".

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 3:19 PM

"...Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work..."

Not surprising that you were duped by an agency that claims to have "all the right news, right now."

I imagine you realize that there are almost 10 million American aged 16, 17 and 18, most of whom are going to school, so of course they are not looking for work,

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM

Re: Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 3:19 PM

To quote a bit of wisdom: "Understand, I am a free speech guy too and that means I can easily be free to pass over comments in poor taste, but you know that type comment does not earn credibility or respect."

-- Posted by Pink Panther on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:13 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM

If I listened to your incorrect post only then would I be duped. Maybe you were rich when you were 16 (like an elitist liberal maybe) and you didn't work. I worked since age 12 and looked for work every year. If you don't know the difference between someone 16 that doesn't want work and someone 16 that does want work then you are beyond help.

Bottom line - Obama increased by over 8 million those looking for work that gave up trying to get a job. Yet he spent trillions to make things better on a promise of cutting the deficit in half. Spin that.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:18 PM

Michelle Obama rolls her eyes at Boehner as he talks to Obama today. What I noticed was the food she was shoveling in her mouth like a starving animal. Isn't she the one who is telling us all how/what to eat? Poor manners. The video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:28 PM

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:33 PM

"....since age 12 and looked for work every year."

And I started peddling newspapers outside the Raytheon plant in Waltham Massachusetts at age 9 and worked ever since. So what. Do you not recognize the difference between a full time job and part time or summer work. Try to get real.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:38 PM

The loyalty created by debt: Alexander Hamilton, Governor Morris, and the New York bankers wanted the newly formed central government to assume the debt of the former colonies. The Founders understood that investors purchasing that debt would be more loyal to the newly formed government.

With the amount of debt now accumulated by the central government, it must be going after the loyalty of the world,s savers.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 5:06 PM

So what. Try to get real.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:38 PM

The link Shapley provided will direct you to Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now that the numbers are in-your-face and they come from the one person you would never contradict... you've been proven wrong. By your Messiah.

How would you like your crow? On bread or baked?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 5:42 PM

Correction: Anyone age 26 or younger [may] still covered by their parents .

-- Posted by existentialist on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:03 PM

Oh dang, was that today? Sorry I missed it. NOT!

-- Posted by scared of the future on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:30 PM

Lets see. In his first term Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day. That would be everyone in the city of cape in a little under 4 days.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:38 PM

"Now that the numbers are in-your-face..."

It says that the labor participation rate decreased by 17.1% from 2000 to 2010.

Means that more of that group are staying in school. How is that a bad thing? What do those numbers mean to you?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:57 PM

Yes, thank you for allowing students to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. The insurance companies have gotten out of control.

I do not remember who was always talking about wealth envy prior to the election, but I would suppose mr. Dug is suffering from food envy?

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 7:15 PM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 8:58 PM

Dropout rates have been declining steadily for over a decade. No Child Left Behind is being given some credit for this. The bad economy is being given 'credit' as well.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:05 PM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 7:15 PM

I have no clue what you are talking about. Please simplify your sarcasm - I can't.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:17 PM

I've enjoyed your comments.

BTW - We have a great looking first family.

-- Posted by Username1 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:22 PM

Common

The labor participation rate is made up of discouraged workers leaving the workforce and folks riding the disability bus, etc. If you look at the chart you can see where it was running fairly flat. Then look where Obama took over there is a very sharp drop and it continues.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/gregorymc...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:29 PM

BTW - We have a great looking first family.

-- Posted by username1 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:22 PM

Makes you proud, doesn't it User.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:32 PM

Of course. Enjoy your evening.

-- Posted by Username1 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:44 PM

Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslims.. Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

Signed, Lost

Dear Lost,

Suck it up and stop whining, Michelle. You're getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with the idiot for 4 more years.

Signed, Abby

-- Posted by dab1969 on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 6:07 AM

Having a great looking first family is the most important aspect of any presidential administration. I have no doubt the nation's problems will now be solved.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 6:17 AM

You people blew it this last election, and by all indications will be no better in 2016.

Secretly meeting inauguration day 2009 vowing no cooperation for the next 4 years, how could anyone accomplish anything?

Our country is now frozen for the next 4 years, sad situation.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM

"Secretly meeting inauguration day 2009 vowing no cooperation for the next 4 years..."

That got the republicans an approval rating below that of bedbugs.

Hopefully they will see the light and try cooperation and compromise for a change.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:43 AM

HWWT: You are one sick man. Why don't you just show us what you are and use the 'N' word. You want to but don't have the guts.

-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:23 AM

If you don't know what the 'N' word is, then you have re-confirmed my opinion that, in you words not mine, you are: DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS.

-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:35 AM

That got the republicans an approval rating below that of bedbugs. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:43 AM

Barack Obama had the lowest approval rating of any president in his first term with the exception of Gerald Ford (pardoned Nixon) and Jimmy Carter ('nuff said).

You have no business talking about approval ratings and then worshipping all-things-Obama. The republicans easily held on to the US House and they dominate - landslide - state governments. Including Missouri. You lost terribly in the last election.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:44 AM

Wheels

You burnim' crosses again?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:48 AM

"The republicans easily held on to the US House and they dominate..."

Actually the republicans lost seats in both the House and Senate. They also got fewer total votes in House races. Their only saving grace was gerrymandered districts, which is also in the process of changing.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:53 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:53 PM

Gerrymandering is done by both parties. You're point is lost.

Ya got whupped in the last election. Obama will act more dictatorial and less democratic than he did in his first 4 diasterous years. I can only hope that the republicans continue to stone-wall his far-left socialist agenda.

It's going to get harder to spin his success and cooperation in the next 4 years common. I don't know if you're up to it but the "green" spending debacles of the first term will get even worse.

Have you read the announcement today from the Governor of Nebraska? Let's see if Obama (and you) can keep a promise.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 1:40 PM

THe King and Queen Ozombies, Dexterite and Csm coming in together chiming about secret meetings. It's great to see a happy marriage. Kind of brings a gas bubble to my lower intestine.

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 2:13 PM

Gallup Poll just out: American optimism hits it's lowest point since Jimmy Carter.

Imagine - just imagine - if Carter would have beat Reagan. 4 more years of malaise. That just happened this past November. Barack Carter or Jimmy Obama just won another 4 years of failure. The story:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/2...

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 4:57 PM

Nah. Just doing what I do best.... irritating liberals.

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 1:14 PM

Sure is fun, isn't it?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 5:55 PM

I get a kick out of them trying to spin Obama into some great economic genius when the numbers don't add up. Thank god I won't have to pay it back.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 6:40 PM

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:45 PM

Thats a fact wheels

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:10 PM

"Thus ends today's lesson in irony."

Somewhat strange that you cannot understand the difference between wild animals and people.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:19 PM

Common, How about you explain the difference in this case.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:23 PM

Somewhat strange that you cannot understand the difference between wild animals and people.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:19 PM

Liberal politics turn people into animals. Only you can think we are not animals.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:40 PM

Wheels - I'm gonna use that comparison. Hilarious!

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:43 AM

Liberals will always deny the truth. It is not in their best interest. They get elected from intimidation tactics and spinning information to fit their agenda. Liberals do not get elected with their true agenda exposed. Thus the "fundamentally change this country" platform of Obama. No body really understood what changes he planned. Now we know.

-- Posted by jadip4me on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 8:48 AM

BTW - We have a great looking first family. -- Posted by username1 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:22 PM

Yes. And Lady Gaga, Brittney Spears and Justin Beiber are good looking also. I wouldn't want any of them to be trying to run the country - same for Obama. No experience and all style with no substance. He's clueless...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 9:00 AM

"I also would like to hear what the difference is ..."

The most plausible explanation for your question is that you are being intentionally dense or merely obtuse. But I guess that should not surprise me.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 9:20 AM

First of all the real reason for "don't feed the animals" admonition is the safety of the park visitors. When overzealous individuals feed many animals they eventually get hurt, and more often than not the "guilty" animal is destroyed. The issue of acquired dependency on handouts is a stratagem or maneuver to protect the animals and secondly, the visitors.

Left on their own, animals survive nicely but under an umbrella of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." Habitually, one group feeds off of the weaker members of another, and there is literal cutthroat competition for available food, prey and water. Survival and reproduction are controlled by the strongest and most opportune.

In my America, we do not allow one group to suffer, or die off for the good of a few individuals. One of the major fallacies in your concept of the majority of our citizens being permanent "takers" is that it is wrong. The majority of people that require and receive government assistance get it for limited periods of time, and then are back on their feet. While a tiny minority make a career out of welfare, the vast majority do not.

This is one of the reasons that the republican party is faring so poorly in elections. They don't recognize this fact and accuse these people of being moochers, when if truth they are working to re-establish themselves. These people did not vote for president Obama because of "handouts," they voted for him because he understood their positions and ambitions.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:21 AM

This is one of the reasons that the republican party is faring so poorly in elections. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:21 AM

Every time you post this "mistruth" I'll post this fact: The republicans held on to the US house despite Obama's 50.6% win and republicans DOMINATED in the state elections controlling 60% of the state legislatures and governorships.

You got whupped in the last election and republican ideas were accepted by a landslide - your definition.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:49 AM

8 fewer seats in the house

2 fewer seats in the senate

Obama is POTUS

That's your definition of a landside?

-- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 11:57 AM

"In my America, we do not allow one group to suffer, or die off for the good of a few individuals."

So, you're now opposed to abortion?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:25 PM

Even in the House voting, the Democrats received more votes, by over 1/2 a million votes.

And as for governors, the states controlled by Republican governors have lots of dirt, pasture and trees, but few people.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:25 PM

"So, you're now opposed to abortion?"

My opposition or support is totally irrelevant. That decision is up to the woman involved and whomever she selects to advise her. The government should keep completely out of it.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:29 PM

"First of all the real reason for "don't feed the animals" admonition is the safety of the park visitors."

Actually that may be the end result, saftey for visitors. The first reason is not to make the animals too lazy to forrage for their own food and become dependent on people to feed them. Just like people, they can become dangerous when what they have been taught to expect as owed them is taken away.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:37 PM

-- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 11:57 AM

Howdy - welcome back. How are your sons doing?

Obama reelected.

Democrats still control senate.

Republicans still control house.

Status Quo except that Obama only got 50.6% of the vote. Barely enough but all he needed.

Republicans 60% - just keep saying that number over and over in your head. 60%.

==================================

The states controlled by Republican governors have lots of dirt, pasture and trees, but few people. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:25 PM

You mean like little old Texas? Few people? Or Nebraska? Iowa? Wisconsin? Ohio? Florida? You're slipping bad. Just a bunch of dirt and no people? Laughable!

It's funny how you libs talk "green" yet have disdain for lots of "dirt, pasture and trees". You all seem to flock to environments that have been devastated by roads, pollution, crime and misery. Why is that?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 1:08 PM

2 more stats for Obama's legacy:

American optimism at it's lowest point since Jimmy Carter. This after 4 years of Obama.

Unions have had one of the steepest declines in membership under Obama. And howdy-union voted for him.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 1:14 PM

"My opposition or support is totally irrelevant. That decision is up to the woman involved and whomever she selects to advise her. The government should keep completely out of it."

That's inconsistent with your definition of 'your America': "In my America, we do not allow one group to suffer, or die off for the good of a few individuals."

You're now saying those few individuals have the right to decide for themselves whether or not a group will suffer or die off for their own selfish good.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 1:29 PM

"...or not a group will suffer..."

The abortion decision is a personal one, that involes no "group."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 5:09 PM

Just like people, they can become dangerous when what they have been taught to expect as owed them is taken away.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:37 PM

Well put.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 5:53 PM

Common, It involves a group when dems want to make abortion pill coverage mandantory for a group.

It involved a group when government monies went to planned parenthood.

It involves a group when a group advocates the practice and supports abortion for teens without parental consent.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 8:04 PM

Nothing is mandatory. Planning for parenthood prevents abortions. No one advocates the "practice."

Abortion is a private decision that the government should stay out of.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:50 PM

So is murder by suicide, but unless the murder by suicide includes others I reckon you approve.

Call me a right winger or put upon me any other despicable label per your standards, but I still think standing by and proclaiming abortion is a personal choice is advocating abortion.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 11:06 PM

Another stat for Obama:

He has increased the budget by less than most presidents.

You Republocrats like to focus on the massive debt, and blame it on Obama, you really have to remember

a) You are blaming Obama for the fiscal year 2009 debt/deficit when that was under Bush's budget/term

b) Given the massive deficit in Bush's final year Obama has actually lowered the deficit -$343,491,183,091 The first two full fiscal years of the Obama presidency saw unprecedented decreases in deficits: more in two years, after adjusting for inflation, than in Truman's eight years, and twice as much as in Clinton's eight years. That trend did not continue in the third year, which saw an insignificant decrease in deficits

c) Republicans have done NOTHING better.

Sure the governement keeps racking up Huge debt. It is terrible. But blaming it on Obama is ludacris. Bush threw out a Massive budget his final year, a recession hit, it a disaster for Obama to shrink spending back down (and unheard of)

-- Posted by futile_rant on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 1:57 AM

"...put upon me any other despicable label..."

I do not believe that any "labels" were put upon anyone. It is your perfect right to disapprove of any manner of abortion. Some are of the opinion that a fetus is a person at conception. I would suggest that such a position is primarily religious in nature. Another judgment, leaning more to science and medicine, recognizes that the embryo and fetus are essentially parasitic organisms that over time grow to a viable being that is eventually delivered as a newborn.

A related difference is that I believe that government should remove itself from the question and allow the individual involved to decide what is best.

Others seem to believe that the government should insert itself between the women and her doctor and disallow her from making a personal decision.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:26 AM

"a) You are blaming Obama for the fiscal year 2009 debt/deficit when that was under Bush's budget/term"

A favourite lie of the left.

No budget was passed for fiscal year 2009. President Bush submitted his budget request, as required by law, but it was not acted upon.

Neither the House nor the Senate passed a budget for that year. We limped along on Contintuing Resolutions until after the election.

President signed the Defense Appropiration Bill for FY 2009. He also pushed through the 'bailout bill' which authorized $700 billion to be spent to bail out the banks. He, however, only spent $350 billion of that, leaving the other half for the incoming president to spend or not to spend as he saw necessary.

Mr. Obama signed the Stimulus bill in February of 2009. This spending falls on his shoulders, not on Mr. Bush's, even though much of it occurred in FY 2009.

Mr. Obama signed the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 2009 in March of 2009, thus placing the responsibility for all spending from that point on his shoulders, not on Mr. Bush's.

I've pointed this out numerous times, but the Democrats here either don't comprehend it, or they willingly ignore it. Whether the ignorance is willful or not, it does not change the truth.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:43 AM

-- Posted by futile_rant on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 1:57 AM

Quit making things up. The deficits were declining rapidly under Bush until... Pelosi and Reid took over the congress. Then they began their turn the other direction. Then add a democrat in the white house and it became even worse. All the numbers I'm using come from the government.

You don't have to look any further than the metro areas and states run by democrats. As a rule they have the worst crime, debt and poverty than any others. St. Louis' decline began 60 years ago when democrats took over and controlled it. It will not recover as long as the liberal democrat ideology set in.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:48 AM

"Others seem to believe that the government should insert itself between the women and her doctor and disallow her from making a personal decision."

If she involves a doctor, it's not a personnal decision, is it?

We're not asking the government to involve itself in the decision process, we're asking the government to regulate a medical proceedure, establishing criteria for its use that are consistent with protecting the life of the fetus. Isn't that what all medical regulation is about?

If the woman were self-aborting, that would be another issue. In this case, the women is using the medical system, which is heavily subidized by the government, and is regulated by them.

'The Left' has no problem instilling itself in the regulation of such things as the lending of money, which should be personnal decision between a lender and his customer, or the regulation of firearms purchases, which should be a private matter between a firearms seller and his customer, but they think the government should not have any say in the carving out of a fetus, which is not solely between a doctor and a woman, but involved another life, one which has no advocate to speak on its behalf.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:50 AM

"The abortion decision is a personal one, that involes no "group."

The 'group' is the millions of unborn children who are slaughtered in the womb, thus 'dying off for the good a few individuals'.

In this case, the few individuals are the abortion providers, profiting from the death of future generations.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:55 AM

"...with protecting the life of the fetus."

With this you are inserting a religious view that the fetus has a life of its own separate and independent from the mother. In fact the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother until a point of viability.

"..millions of unborn children who are slaughtered..."

This too is religion based emotional rhetoric that does not stand up to factual assessment. There are no actual children involved and referring to a fetus as such does not advance any argument.

Of course there is nothing wrong with those views and many people hold them, but I do not agree with forcing those opinions on others that disagree.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:28 AM

"With this you are inserting a religious view that the fetus has a life of its own separate and independent from the mother."

The fact that a fetus has a life of its own is a matter of science, not of religion. That a fetus, even in development, is an entirely different entity than the mother is not really disputable.

Whether or not the fetus can survive outside the womb on its own is a different matter. If that is the criteria, then is it not incumbent upon the medical community to make a determination of 'viability' before performing late-term abortions?

"This too is religion based emotional rhetoric that does not stand up to factual assessment. There are no actual children involved and referring to a fetus as such does not advance any argument."

Actually, methinks it is more a case of squemishness on the part of abortion advocates, who don't want to be faced with the reality of their position.

When our soldiers marched into war, they liked to refer to their enemies by terminology which dehumanized them: Gooks and Krauts and Fish-heads and so forth, in order to desentize themselves to the reality of the fact that they were marching off to slaughter their fellow men. The same holds true today, methinks, in the war against the unborn. People feel less guilty to think they've 'aborted a fetus' than that they have 'killed a baby'. Yet, when a mother has a miscarriage (medically known as a 'spontaneous abortion'), we are perfectly comfortable in saying that she 'lost her baby'.

As illogical as it may be, the terminology hinges on the desire to have it. If the child is wanted, it is a child from conception. If the child is unwanted, it is a fetus.

"...but I do not agree with forcing those opinions on others that disagree."

Yet your viewpoint forces that opinion on the unborn child, who will be denied the option to make that later choice.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:53 AM

In fact the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother until a point of viability. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:28 AM

Using this same logic a 5 year old is not at a point of "viability". Lay a new born baby on the sidewalk and see how long it survives with no help. A newborn child is 100% dependent on others - yet we scream murder when people abuse them in their state of 100% dependency - just like a fetus.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 10:21 AM

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.ph...

"North Korea's top governing body warned Thursday that the regime will conduct its third nuclear test in defiance of U.N. punishment, and made clear that its long-range rockets are designed to carry not only satellites but also warheads aimed at striking the United States.

"The National Defense Commission, headed by the country's young leader, Kim Jong Un, denounced Tuesday's U.N. Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's long-range rocket launch in December as a banned missile activity and expanding sanctions against the regime. The commission reaffirmed in its declaration that the launch was a peaceful bid to send a satellite into space, but also clearly indicated the country's rocket launches have a military purpose: to strike and attack the United States.

"While experts say North Korea doesn't have the capability to hit the U.S. with its missiles, recent tests and rhetoric indicate the country is feverishly working toward that goal.

"The commission pledged to keep launching satellites and rockets and to conduct a nuclear test as part of a "new phase" of combat with the United States, which it blames for leading the U.N. bid to punish Pyongyang. It said a nuclear test was part of "upcoming" action but did not say exactly when or where it would take place.

"We do not hide that a variety of satellites and long-range rockets which will be launched by the DPRK one after another and a nuclear test of higher level which will be carried out by it in the upcoming all-out action, a new phase of the anti-U.S. struggle that has lasted century after century, will target against the U.S., the sworn enemy of the Korean people," the commission said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words, as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival," the commission said."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 10:53 AM

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.ph...

"Britain, Germany and the Netherlands urged their citizens Thursday to immediately leave the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi in response to what was described as an imminent threat against Westerners.

"The warnings come a day after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified to Congress about the deadly September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya. They also come as French troops battle al-Qaida linked militants in Mali, and follow the deaths of dozens of foreigners at the hands of Islamist extremists in Algeria -- though it remained unclear if those two events were linked to the European nations' concerns about Libya.

"The foreign ministries of the three countries issued statements variously describing the threat as specific and imminent but none gave details as to its exact nature. Germany and Britain urged their nationals still in Benghazi to leave "immediately" while Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman Thijs van Son said that "staying in this area is not to be advised."

"It was not immediately clear how many people could be affected; Britain's Foreign Office said likely "dozens" of its citizens were in the city, while Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman Thijs van Son said there are four Dutch citizens registered as being in Benghazi and possibly two more. Several countries have for months advised against all travel to the city, especially after the U.S. consulate was attacked, and local residents said that many foreigners had already left in recent weeks.

"Benghazi, a city of 1 million people, is a business hub where many major firms employ Westerners. It also was where the Libyan uprising against longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi began in 2011. Gadhafi was eventually toppled and killed after NATO backed the rebel movement, and the Arab country has since struggled with security. Al-Qaida-linked militants operate in the country alongside other Islamist groups.

"Adel Mansouri, principal of the International School of Benghazi, said British and foreign nationals were warned two days ago about a possible threat to Westerners."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 11:05 AM

Ahhh.... the Arab Spring. What did Obama say about this?

He said: "I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations. There is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and SHARED VALUES." Shared values like:

Stoning women that were raped?

Throwing acid on school girls faces just for going to school?

Execution of women who are caught in affairs or marry against family wishes?

Obama's inexperience and hubris are seriously damaging this country. I can't wait to get through this next 4 years. Maybe we can still recover.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 12:58 PM

Dug: You will probably stroke out in 4 years. Anybody with all that vitral to spew is bound to blow a gasket. I hope you don't because for 8 years after that it will be HRC.

-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 1:29 PM

"Shared values like:

Stoning women that were raped?

Throwing acid on school girls faces just for going to school?

Execution of women who are caught in affairs or marry against family wishes?"

-- Posted by Dug

No. Just another case of someone being intentionally obtuse.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:22 PM

"...fetus has a life of its own is a matter of science..."

There is no question about that.

--------------------------

"...an entirely different entity..."

But not yet a "person."

---------------------------

"People feel less guilty to think they've 'aborted a fetus' than that they have 'killed a baby'."

It is not a matter of guilt, but a matter of accuracy. Somewhere I heard that we must start by calling things what they really are.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:29 PM

From Merriam-Webster:

Child: 1a : an unborn or recently born person

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:49 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:50 PM

From Dictionary.com:

"Child:... 4. a human fetus."

"Idioms

11. with child, pregnant: She's with child."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:56 PM

So, you see, it is I who called the child what it really is, and you who are trying to dehumanize it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:57 PM

Just another case of someone being intentionally obtuse. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 2:22 PM

If Obama is being intentionally obtuse then why do you support him?

==========================================

You will probably stroke out in 4 years. -- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 1:29 PM

Not me. As I've pointed out to you numerous times I will be fine regardless of who is president or in government. I've prepared.

I feel for our children. That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Time and again democrats post a huge "where's mine" attitude on here. I'm not asking for "wealth" from someone elses pocket, welfare, food stamps or even more taxes on the evil rich and corporations. You and the rest of the democrat crowd are obsessed with destroying this country by asking "where's mine". I can take care of myself.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 3:20 PM

Webster's New World Dictionary

1. an infant.

2. a boy or a girl before puberty.

3 a son or daughter; offspring.

(Last entry)

If you check a number of dictionaries you can find a definition to suit you. The majority of people would not come up with a fetus as the first or main definition of child.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:11 PM

"-- Posted by Dug

No. Just another case of Dug being intentionally obtuse.

That should be clear enough for even you...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:13 PM

"If you check a number of dictionaries you can find a definition to suit you. The majority of people would not come up with a fetus as the first or main definition of child."

Are you saying Merriam-Webster is not a valid authority on the English Language?

Have you polled the majority of people to know that? Dictionary.com puts is fourth, but it's still a valid definition.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thusly:

"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:"

Note that it defines it below the specified age but not above the age of birth.

Do you have a reference that disputes the use of the word as applied to a fetus, or is thus just another case of your refusing to admit that you are incorrect?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:23 PM

"He has increased the budget by less than most presidents."

What budget?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 5:03 PM

"...just another case of your refusing to admit that you are incorrect?"

No. I am maintaining that the accepted American definition of a child is not an embryo nor a fetus.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 6:04 PM

"No. I am maintaining that the accepted American definition of a child is not an embryo nor a fetus."

And I'm challenging you to support that claim. Are you saying Merriam-Webster doesn't know what it's talking about? Are you saying the use of the term 'with child' when applied to pregnant women is an anomaly?

I've provided documenation for my claim. All you have provided is your statement that it is not so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM

"All you have provided is your statement that it is not so."

I provided a dictionary definition also.

Furthermore were you to Google "child" the vast majority of links and web sites refer to children from birth to puberty.

To most this would confirm that the vast majority think that child does not refer to an embryo or fetus.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:55 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:55 PM

And you never answer the question. You said that a fetus is fair game for termination because it cannot survive on it's own. I guess that applies to newborn babies and 1 year olds? Your definition is absurd.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 10:26 PM

"You said that a fetus is fair game for termination because it cannot survive on it's own. I guess that applies to newborn babies and 1 year olds?"

Actually I said nothing of the sort. In order to clearly differentiate between a fetus and a child, I pointed out that...

"the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother until a point of viability."

Perhaps you overlooked the fact that "viable" means "sufficiently developed to be able to live outside the uterus." This has nothing to do with the obvious care that newborns require.

There seem to be a lot of issues that have to be explained to you.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 6:53 AM

"Please do not try to represent me or my thoughts..."

That's the last thing I would try to do. My comments were in reference to the majority of people that apply a modicum of sense.

As President Kennedy pointed out..

Too often "we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 6:59 AM

"I provided a dictionary definition also."

So you did, I missed it. But you provided no link. I can't find Webster's New World Dictionary. I checked my paper copy of Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, and, while it does not define it as a 'fetus', it also includes the entry for 'with child' referring to a pregnant woman. Nor does your definition prohibit the application to unborn babies, since it does not limit the age defined to post birth.

Nor can you back up your claim that the majority hold that view.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 7:03 AM

"Furthermore were you to Google "child" the vast majority of links and web sites refer to children from birth to puberty."

Not so.

Here's the first link I find when I Google it:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=child&src=I...

noun, plural chil·dren.

1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.

3. a baby or infant.

4. a human fetus.

5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.

The others follow suit. I haven't the time nor the inclinitaion to survey the whole of them and average them out, but I suspect you haven't, either.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 7:06 AM

"the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother until a point of viability."There seem to be a lot of issues that have to be explained to you. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 6:53 AM

The one year old is 100% dependent on it's parents until a point of viability. I get the strong feeling you have no experience raising children.

Some of your statements sound like far-left talking points. When something is 100% dependent on someone else (babies in the womb, elderly???) then they are no longer "viable" and are free game to be terminated. I don't think that is what you believe but some of your liberal friends in England and elsewhere do believe in terminating life based solely on that definition.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 8:19 AM

"The others follow suit. I haven't the time nor the inclinitaion to survey the whole of them and average them out, but I suspect you haven't, either."

No. But of the first ten pages of the 1.49 billion hits, I found none referring to a fetus. I am not disputing that fetus is included in some definitions of child, but it is not the generally accepted use. Being unable to canvass the complete population the Google test characterizes a representative sample of what people mean when they say "child."

Per the first Google entry...

"Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty. Some vernacular definitions of a child include the fetus, as being an unborn child. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 9:29 AM

"Are you now suggesting I have no sense..."

Nothing of the sort. The interpretation is up to you.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 9:33 AM

Google Child

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 9:57 AM

I did Google 'Child'. I posted the very first link that came up.

I also took the time to browse through the various dictionaries that I have in my home, dating back as far as 1968. The majority of them include unborn offspring in the definition. None of them include any entry that would prohibit the definition from including them.

My wife has a degree in Child Development. Most of her textbooks, which we have on hand, include prenatal development.

Just because you believe something, that does not make it consistent with the majority of America, or of the world.

I see that you do not make note of the fact that the first entry (as it most often is with Google) is Wikipedia. However, had you posted a bit more of the Wikipedia entry, you'd have found this:

"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".[6] Ratified by 192 of 194 member countries. Some English definitions of the word 'child' include the fetus and the unborn.[3] Biologically, a child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood.[1][2] Children generally have fewer rights than adults and are classed as unable to make serious decisions, and legally must always be under the care of a responsible adult."

The footnote referenced says this:

"3. ^ a b See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 397 (6th ed. 2007), which's first definition is "A fetus; an infant;...". See also 'The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically', Vol. I (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1971): 396, which defines it as: 'The unborn or newly born human being; foetus, infant'."

"Unborn or newly born human being" is also included in the definition found in my 1978 version of the Webster's Student Dictionary.

You've yet to show where 'the majority' does not include that. As I've said, it is part of an effort to dehumanize the child before killing it, not unlike the manner in which human enemies are generally dehumanized as a group by the soldiers sent to kill them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 10:23 AM

Wow - a court has dared to challenge his majesty. Interesting story about Obama's view of the constitution in a federal court ruling just issued: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court

The story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 10:36 AM

"Wow - a court has dared to challenge his majesty. Interesting story about Obama's view of the constitution in a federal court ruling just issued: Obama recess appointments unconstitutional, court"

Of course they are. One of the primary bases of recess appointments is that the legislature actually has to be in recess. The legislature was not in recess when he made his appointments, he declaring that they were in recess for all intents and purposes, they merely hadn't declared it a recess (so he made the declaration for them).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 10:49 AM

A fetus is a developing human being. Nuff said.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:25 AM

Wheels. "Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty.[1][2] Some vernacular definitions of a child include the fetus, as being an unborn child."

That is the exact wording in my '62 Webster.

That said, arguing the dictionary definitions of a child has little to do with the right or wrong of abortion.

Besides believing it is morally wrong, I also believe the government has no authority over the natural right of birth.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:44 AM

"That said, arguing the dictionary definitions of a child has little to do with the right or wrong of abortion."

We weren't arguing the right or wrong of abortion. Commonsensematters had accused me of using improper terminolgy when I refered to abortion as the "killing of children", rather the more politically correct "aborting of fetuses". I merely proved to him that my terminology was consistent with the dictionary-approved usage of the word 'children'. I'll leave it to someone else to disprove that 'abortion' is synonymous with 'killing'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM

Whether or not it is right to kill an unborn child, the fact that abortion kills an unborn child should not be denied. But that is what is being claimed.

I merely pointed out that I believe that is done in order to make the killing more palatable. It is sometimes easier to work violence upon someone when we have dehumanized the person upon whom we wish to work violence, methinks.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM

Shapley, Seems to me when some are unable to meet the challenge of debate, they are quick to veer the argument away from the subject.

Common has done just that, to avoid disproving that 'abortion' is synonymous with 'killing'.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:00 PM

Back to don't feed the animals:

http://nation.foxnews.com/welfare/2013/0...

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:24 PM

"...Federal Government defines a "child" as 26 years old..."

The government does not define a child as being 26 years old. It simply allows adult offspring to be included in health insurance policies of parents until age 26.

Some people have to have everything explained to them, as if they were children...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM

Texas had a new clean power coal plant under construction. Investors have taken a beating now that Obama's EPA has changed the rules making it non-viable to complete construction.

Heard part of the story on FOX but couldn't find it on their website.

Maybe I should have googled "Obama accomplishments".

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:57 PM

"You've yet to show where 'the majority' does not include that."

The issue is not whether the majority of dictionaries include "fetus" as part of their total definition of "child."

What I have said all along is that the vast majority of people, when confronted with the word "child" do not construe that the discussion is about a "fetus."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 1:02 PM

Vast majority? As Spaniard says "source please".

I think you're wrong on this one.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 1:03 PM

A child may not be a fetus but a fetus is an unborn child.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 1:09 PM

Obama has broken the law once again. By law he is required to publish details of the stimulus spending bill every quarter -where the money went, what it was used for and how it has affected jobs. A story out today says:

"Have you heard much about President Obama's $787,000,000,000 economic "stimulus" (now estimated to cost $831,000,000,000) lately? In its last report, LAST PUBLISHED IN 2011, the president's own Council of Economic Advisors released an estimate showing that, for every $317,000 in "stimulus" spending that had by then gone out the door, only one job had been created or saved. Even in Washington, that's not considered good bang for the buck."

The story goes on to say how he has quit providing any updates to the stimulus spending. I'll bet a lot of democrat donors are getting rich as we speak. The rest of the story:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 9:27 AM

Waiting for this accomplishment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 10:22 PM

Another Obama accomplishment:

Announced today that the US economy shrunk in the 4th quarter of 2012. A shrinking economy is very rare and a terrible sign. But what could be wrong? I mean Obama is so focused on gun control campaigning, golfing and giving ILLEGALS a pass to citizenship how could the economy be having troubles under his genius leadership? And of course Obamacare was going to cut our costs dramatically and improve health care AND the economy as he promised.

His second accomplishment? We are now hearing that the GM UNION bailout may be settled soon and 47% of us will have paid $23 Billion to get Obama re-elected on a bail out plan to "save jobs".

It's just gets better every day with him. Even the democrat senate refused to pass his budget. He's clueless.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:25 AM

Per the New York Times...

"The United States economy unexpectedly reversed course in the final quarter of 2012 and contracted at a 0.1 percent rate, its worst performance since the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2009.

The drop was driven by a plunge in military spending, as well as fewer exports and a steep slowdown in the buildup of inventories by businesses. Anxieties about the fiscal impasse in Washington also contributed to the slowdown."

Government spending is reduced and the economy slows. How could that happen?

Didn't all of the conservative "experts" claim reduced spending by the government will spur the economy?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:40 AM

You always leave out the other half of the debate. Conservative experts claim that reduced spending AND REDUCED TAXES will spur the economy. You know, like JFK and Clinton did?

Obama takes money out of our pockets and gives F-16s and tanks to Egyptian radicals. Obamacare has 22 tax increases in it and the democrats push to raise taxes on the evil rich and dividend income.

You get what you asked for common. Can't spin a negative economy now can you? Or is it still "Bush's fault"?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:52 AM

"...negative economy now can you.."

Why? The economy grew by 2.2% last year.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:10 AM

"Government spending is reduced and the economy slows. How could that happen?"

Can you not recognize the difference between military spending and welfare spending?

The Democrats always want to cut the military budget, which is what your report says has happened. But they want to increase welfare spending, which they have, with no apprecieable improvement in the economy.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:14 AM

"Didn't all of the conservative "experts" claim reduced spending by the government will spur the economy?"

Didn't all the liberal 'experts' claim all this spending would result in economic growth?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:16 AM

The economy grew by 2.2% last year.

Also per the NY Times...

"For the entire year, the economy grew by 2.2 percent, a slight improvement from the 1.8 percent annual rate in 2011."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:33 AM

As the CNBC guy said today in an interview: "We have become Europe".

The US has had recessions in the past with small downturns and pretty quick upturns. Obama embraced the European/Japanese model of tax and spend to get out of the recession. Japan prolonged it's recovery over two decades instead of a few years. Obama isn't that smart - he's embraced the two failed models of recovery. The only thing he is good at is campaigning - his approach of tax and spend bought him an election so I guess he's not that stupid.

Turning an economy around? He's clueless. That's why he never stays at the white house very long, loves to golf, loves to vacation and likes to have parties with athletes and singers over. Or fly around the country in AF1 and talk about guns and immigration.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:50 AM

How would Obama turn the economy around?

Some believe than man is no more than a domesticated animal that must be shaped by legislation and forced into obedience by a worldly prince. Those "some" people believe that a righteous prince is all that is needed.

Those "some" people are the seeds of fascism and socialism.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 1:47 PM

"The economy grew by 2.2% last year.

"Also per the NY Times...

"For the entire year, the economy grew by 2.2 percent, a slight improvement from the 1.8 percent annual rate in 2011."

It grew much faster under President Bush, without all the spending and with the Bush Tax Cuts in place.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 2:00 PM

Dissidence, According to Mussolini, fascism is a step beyond socialism. He was a socialist before he was a fascist.

The relationship that pharmaceuticals and other corporations have with the state, would probably indicate fascism. Or as Mussolini would describe it, the corporate state.

All leaders look out for their own benefit. They depend on supporters that believe in fairy tales. Righteous leaders of a given party are weighed against the leaders of the opposing party. Neither aware that man does not need to be shaped by a worldly prince or by legislation.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 3:07 PM

Dissidence, In any case, man and his economy should not be ruled by fairy tales.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 3:26 PM

BC - based on your posts are you saying that the president of the US cannot affect the economy at all? Are you saying if Obama doubled taxes and spending and ran the country off a financial cliff to disaster that would have no impact on our economy?

How would Obama turn the economy around? -- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 1:47 PM

Maybe Obama should as Rick Perry - where the unemployment is low, the economy is doing well and they have a surplus of revenue. And the republicans in control want to return the money to the people.

But I digress -- they're "all the same", right?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM

Dug, They are all fairy princes.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 5:12 PM

Can the princes affect the economy? Positively (like getting out of the way and letting capitalism work) or negatively? Can they?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 5:43 PM

Common

Obama is now spending $168 Per Day for every household in poverty. That is a 40% rise since he took office and claimed that would move the economy. It didn't. Now he cuts military spending and the economy tanks and you somehow blame that on republicans.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:03 PM

Regret: Obama or no other POTUS cuts defense. Only congress can do that.

-- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:09 PM

"President Obama announced a new military strategy on Thursday that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Speaking from the Pentagon, Obama said the plan is "smart, strategic" and sets priorities.

"I just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance I gave throughout this process," Obama said."

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:31 PM

Regret, Cutting military spending and increasing the rate of military aid to Muslum dictaters is Obamas idea of pleasing both sides of the economic debate.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:15 PM

Dug, I recommend reading Frederic Bastiat's "The Law". Written by an economist and a legislator.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:26 PM

OJ

I have no idea what he is doing. I don't think he does either.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:29 PM

Dug: The Law in PDF form can be found here http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf

The Constitution Party, I believe, also has a copy on line.

Bastiat was probably more famous for his economic essays, but the Law is a worthwhile read.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:36 PM

Diss, I know just enough about it to know I'm ignorant but my take on Fascism is where the companies are privately owned but told what, when and how much to produce by the government. Although associated with Italy's dictator, I don't think representive republics are immune to fascism.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:46 PM

Bastiat's "What is Seen, and What is Not Seen" can be found here http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html a thesis on economics.

I include these links so Republicans will have more to offer as a weapon against socialism than Beyonce's lip-sync

If this is not enough of a weapon, then I will link to other economists.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:47 PM

BC

I resemble that remark. :)

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:09 PM

Regret, I apologize, I didn't mean to make it personal. :)

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:14 PM

Thanks BC. I've been off-line and will try and take a look later.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:45 PM

BC

I know. It's all gravy.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:13 PM

Here is an easier read of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/...

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 1:56 AM

"The United States economy unexpectedly reversed course in the final quarter of 2012 and contracted at a 0.1 percent rate, its worst performance since the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2009.

"The drop was driven by a plunge in military spending, as well as fewer exports and a steep slowdown in the buildup of inventories by businesses. Anxieties about the fiscal impasse in Washington also contributed to the slowdown."

"Government spending is reduced and the economy slows. How could that happen?

"Didn't all of the conservative "experts" claim reduced spending by the government will spur the economy?"

________

Quite obviously, we need another war to spur the economy on. Mr. Obama can't justify increasing defense spending, having argued for cutting it for many years now, unless we have a war to support it.

So, which will it be? Libya? North Korea? Syria? Egypt?

Or maybe throw a curve and insert us into the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands dispute.

Or, of course, we could just the current tensions in our country build to the point of Civil War. After all, it is our economy that is suffering, why involve other nations at all? If defense spending is good for the economy, how much better would it be keep all that spending in our own borders? And, we get to benefit from Reconstruction, as well!

People enjoy comparing Mr. Obama to Mr. Lincoln, so why not let the comparison run to its logical conclusion? He's probably got his own Gettysburg Address already composed...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 2:51 PM

If you object and oppose the federal government, there is always the option to relocate. Comprende?

-- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 5:04 PM

The United States is not the government, it is the people.

Comprende?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 5:12 PM

howdydoody, Shapley is right, and Bastiat's "The Law" explains why http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/...

When government feels that it is above the people, then it no longer serves the people, and demands the people serve it.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 6:58 PM

If only the republicans could have won the presidential election. darn! Such a poor president and yet they still could not elect their candidate. I guess the majority spoke again this time - and without the help of the Supreme Court.

-- Posted by Username1 on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM

username1, I think the Republicans are learning that when government feels that it is above the people, that its laws, instead of being justice are instead injustices.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 8:24 PM

I guess the majority spoke again this time - and without the help of the Supreme Court. -- Posted by username1 on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM

The majority did speak. And the republican message was widely accepted in state governments where the dominate.

What did Obama get? 50.6%?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 10:10 PM

That's what I said, the majority spoke and President Obama was re-elected.

" where the dominate"? What?

-- Posted by Username1 on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 10:18 PM

The none-of-the-above voter clobbered Obama, nearly doubling his total vote.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 11:19 PM

None-of-the-above voters were too lazy to take part in the process. They also gave up their freedom of expression right.

-- Posted by Gyatso on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 5:09 AM

alto pass: The none-of-the-above voters won. You voted for the system and Obama is your man.

I guess going to the polls and voting is considered hard work for some.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 11:28 AM

Not going to the polls could very well be an exercise of free expression right.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 12:23 PM

Old John, It is an exercise of free expression, as you say.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 12:55 PM

When Bush and republicans controlled congress the average GDP was around 2.5%.

When the democrats took over Congress (aka Pelosi and Reid) and you throw Obama in the growth is a paltry 1%.

Nothing but the facts ma'am.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 2:16 PM

"Nothing but the facts ma'am."

If you "First get your facts; then ... distort them at your leisure" (courtesy of Mark Twain), you might be a Gomaoso.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 3:07 PM

Distort? My numbers are correct and your name calling confirms it. It's your Modus Operandi - when faced with fact, call someone a name. Now the hard work common - dispute the numbers.

I have an acronym as well:

Democrats

In

Pure

Senseless

Homage

Idolizing

Tyrants

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 8:55 PM

"...call someone a name."

Seems like that's all you can do.

For example, the republicans lost the presidency, lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, and some people have the audacity to falsely claim that the republicans gained. Even many of their governors are more liberal than conservative, take Christie for instance.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 9:13 PM

Still waiting on you to refute the facts I posted. Instead - your method of operation - you throw out another topic. Just like your president.

Were my numbers correct? Can't answer that one can you?

In the last election Republicans dominated the state houses with 60% control of governorships and legislatures. Dominance. They also held control of the US House.

Obama got what - 50.6%?

The republican message was heard and accepted - even more than the democrat message.

Now - about the GDP numbers? I can see the sweat on your brow...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 9:26 PM

"Now - about the GDP numbers?"

The GDP increased by 2.2% last year.

- - - - - - - - -

"The republican message was heard and accepted..."

I'm sure you meant rejected.

As in repulsive and false comments about rape.

Obsession on the President's birth certificate.

Bragging about blanket refusal to consider any fair compromise'

Bogus claims that 47% of Americans are moochers.

Proposing unconstitutional changes to the electoral vote.

Seeking ways to disenfranchise voters that simply disagree with them.

As a prominent republican governor recently warned, "we republicans have to stop being the party of stupid."

And he is absolutely right. Unless the party of stupid changes its ways, the downward spiral will accelerate in 2014.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 10:19 PM

The GDP increased by 2.2% last year.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 10:19 PM

Another cheap shot and cop-out on your part. The pattern is revealing. You criticize numbers and when called quote some irrelevant number from last year?

Answer the question - you can't. You're wrong and you resort to your name calling and then post something from last year. I'm reminded of you as I sit here watching "A Few Good Men" which leaves you out of that group. You can't handle the truth.

Answer the question common.

Democrat Congressman Angela Micheal - Illinois - ""There's a war on women...waged by men. Obama leads the attack."

Hillary Clinton on Obama's lies: "My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests. Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill --and the bill never actually passed."

Hillary Clinton attackingn Obama on his lack of experience: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night".

Hillary Clinton on Obama's pathological lying: "He continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods," Mrs. Clinton said. "So shame on you, Barack Obama."

Want more accurate portrayals of Barack Obama from democrats? 100's of them.

Once again you lose the argument.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 11:08 PM

In simple terms from Walter williams most resent column:

"Tax revenue has remained constant for the past 50 years, averaging about 18 percent of gross domestic product. During that interval, federal spending has risen from less than 20 percent to more than 25 percent of GDP. What accounts for this growth in federal spending? The liberals like to blame national defense, but in 1962, national defense expenditures were 50 percent of the federal budget; today they are 19 percent. What accounts for most federal spending is the set of programs euphemistically called entitlements. In 1962, entitlement spending was 31 percent of the federal budget; today it is 62 percent. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone take up 44 percent of the federal budget, and worse than that, it's those expenditures that are the most rapidly growing...."

The party of stupid gets more so every time it listens to and or compromises with democrats.

Letting Ted Kennedy get his and democrats way with education and letting the democrats via the liberal media choose presidential candidates proves the true source of stupid is the liberal party.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 11:50 PM

"For example, the republicans lost the presidency,"

But we thank you for your Romney vote.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Spaniyard

Obama comes in last for the last 10 recessions since WW2. And he spent a boatload of money promising he could fix it.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 12:21 AM

"Want more accurate portrayals..."

It would seem that someone has no conception of the purpose and meaninglessness of overstated and spurious primary campaign rhetoric. If it's not possible to find someone to explain it to you, try looking back at what the republican primary candidates said about each other in 2011 and 2012.

Quoting statements made by candidate Clinton in 2008 is pointless. Had she truly believed what she said back then, why would she have given up a Senate seat to become President Obama's Secretary of State?

What Governors Jindal and Christie said was not during the heat of an ongoing primary campaign, but they were rather speaking "truth to power." When Jindal called out the republicans as the "party of stupid" he was telling the truth.

For example....

The hated Senator Reid could have been defeated in his last race had his opponent not been far right. Party of Stupid.

The most electable primary candidate in 2012 could have been Jon Huntsman, who came in dead last. Party of Stupid.

Republicans latch onto sure-fire immigration initiatives like "self-deportation." Party of Stupid.

In the Missouri Senate race Akin could have won had he not decided to display his brilliance with inane rape comments. Party of Stupid.

Romney covertly reveals to campaign contributors that 47% of Americans are like "leeches." Party of Stupid.

I could go on, I've got all manner of examples... But, as I mentioned, the republicans are trending seriously downward with no hope in sight unless they start distancing themselves from the far right, and compromising with levelheaded courses of action.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 7:08 AM

The most appropriate example was inadvertently omitted...

Republicans failed miserably after proudly and loudly declared that by withholding any and all cooperation and compromise, they would make President Obama a "one term president." Recall their slogan, "If the President is for it, we are against it." It appeared they thought the American people were too "stupid" to see what they were doing. Now they supposedly have come up with a "just say no 2.0" plan to definitely make the President a "two term president."

Party of really, really stupid.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 7:58 AM

I could go on -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 7:08 AM

Please do. Please repost all your huffington post talking points. Please. We all believe them. And I'll repost mine. Lets' see how many times I can get you to repost the same crap and ignore your lame answers on facts!

Democrat Angela Micheal - Illinois - ""There's a war on women...waged by men. Obama leads the attack."

Hillary Clinton attacking Obama on his lack of experience: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night".

Hillary Clinton on Obama's pathological lying: "He continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods," Mrs. Clinton said. "So shame on you, Barack Obama."

And then I could come up with another cute acronym like:

I - In-the-tank

D - Democrat

I - Idolizing

O - Obama

T - Threadposting on the

S - Southeast Missourian

If you believe that Obama would cut the deficit in half - you're an IDIOTS

If you believe that Obama goes skeet shooting "all the time" - you're an IDIOTS

If you support a man who embraced and supported radical Muslims in the "Arab Spring" who then murdered Americans in Libya - you're an IDIOTS

If you support a man who promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8% and it's been there ever since - you're an IDIOTS

If someone posts facts from the government and all you can do is name call and post irrelevant responses - you're an IDIOTS

If you like 1% GDP growth and deficits 7X that of republicans - you're an IDIOTS

==========

See? Anyone can post high-profile democrats harshly critical of an inexperienced, lying, sexist president. I've got 100's more.

Anyone can create cute little acronyms to name-call those they disagree with here.

This is what you resort to when someone posts facts that show Obama's terrible record. You're better off just ignoring them if you can't refute them when your debating skills stopped on the 3rd grade playground.

==========

I'll give you a fourth chance since you've failed 3 times miserably:

When Bush and republicans controlled congress the average GDP was around 2.5%.

When the democrats took over Congress (aka Pelosi and Reid) and you throw Obama in the growth is a paltry 1%.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 8:06 AM

Pretty lame...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 8:36 AM

Still no answer to the facts? Again-if the facts are right you should leave them alone. You made a huge mistake in trying to spin them and got caught up.

I've always said I admire your undying love for a charming, cool dude.

But that doesn't make him a good leader or president - and it doesn't make you smart to spin facts about him that hurt your feelings.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 8:40 AM

"Overall real GDP from January 2001 through December 2008 grew at an average annual rate of 2.0375%."

Overally real GDP from January 2009 through February 2013 grew at an average annual rate of 1.48%, so, yes, it was much faster.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 10:56 AM

"Overall real GDP from January 2001 through December 2008 grew at an average annual rate of 2.0375%."

Overally real GDP from January 2009 through February 2013 grew at an average annual rate of 1.48%, so, yes, it was much faster.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 10:56 AM

Dig still hasn't apologized to me for his previous lie. Shame on dig. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 9:53 AM

And never will - since you've never apologized for your statements I called you out on.

Your cover for common is really sweet. But it's irrelevant. Common has once again painted himself into a very "common" corner. Your age-old attempts to change the subject - like common - wont' work here.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 11:56 AM

http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/li...

"During his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the American people that one of the greatest threats to freedom came not from enemies abroad, but "the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry," which over time would lose sight of the goal of defending the United States and become devoted only to its own perpetuation."

"Yet any suggestion of reducing even the pace of defense spending growth inevitably results in dire threats about cybersecurity attacks, Chinese invasion or Americans soon speaking Chinese, Arabic or the mother tongue of whomever is deemed our most powerful adversary at the moment.

"Consider the recent reaction to the potential implementation of defense cuts through sequestration. According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending is scheduled to take a hit of about $55 billion in 2013 compared with the CBO's current baseline. While it may sound like a lot of money, it effectively means that -- with the exception of the first two years -- defense spending will continue to increase over the next decade. It would rise at a slower rate than previously planned, but it would grow nonetheless. Considering that the U.S. is getting out of two wars, it is absolutely reasonable to cut back on defense spending, especially considering the tremendous growth of the past decade.

"Moreover, even after sequestration, the current drawdown is not unique, and in fact, it is probably more modest than previous cutbacks.

"You wouldn't know this from listening to the rhetoric coming from the military-industrial complex. From the moment the cuts were announced, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that if "maximum sequestration" goes into effect, "these cuts would be devastating for the department." One of his deputies even called the cuts a form of "self-castration." Following their examples, the defense contractors have complained that their industry would suffer a great deal -- and so would the country.

"In particular, they insist that cutting defense spending would jeopardize the country's safety, kill a million jobs and shrink the economy significantly. Republicans have been more than happy to echo these threats. However, the evidence suggests that we should take these claims with a grain of salt. Data from the Office of Management and Budget show that over the years, increases and decreases in defense spending have had almost no effect on gross domestic product. That suggests that the economy isn't going to tank if we spend less on defense than we have in the past 10 years.

"There is little doubt that some defense jobs will be lost as a result of sequestration; but it is unlikely there will be as many as the industry claims. What's more, over time, some of these job losses will be offset by economic growth in other sectors due to the shift in resources. More importantly, as many others have noted, the Department of Defense isn't a job creation program; its only role should be to address the threats facing the nation. As such, private-sector profit margins or even private-contractor job losses shouldn't prevent sensible reductions in federal spending.

"Obviously, the process of sequestration is an inefficient method of resizing government. When it comes to military spending, the process doesn't allow prioritization -- cutting less important missions and programs to fully fund more critical ones.

"Still, the Pentagon's spending must be cut. Congress has shown an absolute lack of willingness to cut anything. So, at the least, sequestration will force Congress to take a first step. Today is the time to take Eisenhower's fear to heart and start cutting."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 9:13 AM

Solar energy efforts and being cut. I'm glad that Obama spent 100's of millions on "green" energy with "common" supporting him all the way. Hurts your credibility common. How many big democrat donors got millions? And of course the "green" companies being sold to China at a discount. The story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 6, 2013, at 1:18 PM

More for his legacy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340...

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 10:43 AM

Another one of Obama's accomplishments. Record executive overreach and orders. From the SE Missourian:

http://www.semissourian.com/story/193995...

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM

Another Obama accomplishment - his desire for $5/gallon gas. Gas prices hit record high:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0...

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 6:15 PM

"Gas prices hit record high:"

Tell the rest of the story... for a Feb 11th. The highest price here was about 6 years ago, over $4 per gallon. A few weeks ago it was less than $3.

More BS?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 7:35 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 7:35 PM

Counter the article. You can't - it's true.

January also saw a record average price for gas as well. I would expect no less from you who blindly follows and defends a man who said he'd cut the deficit in half in his first term when in fact he will double it.

It's your credibility in question. Now counter what the article says. You can't.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM

Another Obama accomplishment: African Americans are upset he is focusing his efforts on illegal immigrants and gay marriage while they suffer from the worst economic conditions of anyone. Some of their comments:

"Our issues are not being highlighted and pushed, and things like gay marriage and (immigration) are being pushed to the forefront,"

"There (are) clearly different views in the African-American community around immigration," Sharpton said on his radio show last month. "Some have said they're (illegal immigrants) taking our jobs, they dilute our strength."

African Americans voted 93% (I believe) for Obama despite the fact that their wealth, income and jobs have been devastated under Obama. Their wealth and employment was much higher under Bush. Obama has obliterated that.

But Obama kept them on the farm with more empty lies and broken promises. Just like young women and their gubmint mandated contraception - "where's mine" democrats.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 8:08 PM

"...gubmint mandated contraception..."

You've lost it again.... Sad.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:11 PM

You've lost it again.... Sad. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:11 PM

You're in deep stuff Common. Everything I posted is true and you've got nothing. It shows.

Another accomplishment for you to spin. This out today:

The Obamaphone program (started as a small program under Reagan) is no up to $2.2 BILLION under Obama. Much of it is fraudulent according to the WS Journal article today. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008 to $2.2 BILLION today.

But I digress. We don't have a spending problem, right? We have a tax problem. Heavy sarcasm.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM

Growth of Federal Debt Expected to Outpace Economy

http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2013/0...

"Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its updated outlook for the federal budget. Here are ten lessons it teaches us about the troubled state of federal finances.

"1. Federal debt is projected to grow faster than the economy can sustain. During President Obama's time in office the nation has engaged in a protracted experiment in fiscal stimulus, manifested in five years of record federal budget deficits. As a consequence federal debt has risen dramatically relative to our economic output. In President Bush's last full year in office, federal debt was 40.5% of GDP. This year it's 76.3%...

"2. It's probably worse than that. The projection described above is a literal "current law" projection incorporating various scheduled spending cuts and tax increases that may not occur. For example, Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 25% in 2014. If lawmakers override this payment cut as they have in the past, and if they also extend certain expiring provisions of tax law as well as override the so-called "sequestration" spending cuts, federal debt will grow out of control even faster -- reaching 87% of GDP by 2023 as opposed to the 77% shown.

"3. The problem is not a lack of tax revenue. In recent years, federal tax revenue has been depressed by poor economic performance as well as by fiscal stimulus measures, including a temporary Social Security payroll tax cut effective during 2011--12. But by 2015 federal tax revenues will hit 19.1% of GDP, taking a tax bite from the economy well exceeding the historical average of about 18%. This revenue increase is due in part to scheduled tax increases enacted in 2010 to fund a health coverage expansion, and in part due to tax increases on high-income taxpayers enacted earlier this year. Our unsustainable deficit projections are not a result of taxes being too low.

"4. Spending is the problem. In 2009 federal spending jumped to a post-World War II high of 25.2% of GDP as lawmakers attempted to stimulate the economy. It remained near those levels for three years before slowing down somewhat, but still remains far higher than historical norms and is projected to resume growing faster than the economy later in this decade. Unless this spending problem is fixed, Americans will be subjected to unprecedented levels of taxation, indebtedness or both.

"5. Projected spending growth is driven primarily by four programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the new health entitlement that some call "Obamacare."...

"6. The Social Security spending explosion is already hitting us. At first glance it might appear that Social Security spending growth is significantly less of a problem than growth in the health entitlements...

"7. Going forward, federal health spending is a huge problem. While Social Security has been the fastest-growing program in recent years, the biggest growth going forward will be in the federal health entitlements. Net costs for Medicare, Medicaid and "Obamacare" are expected to grow more rapidly than GDP going forward, from 4.9% of GDP today to 6.2% by 2023, faster than projected growth elsewhere in the budget.

"8. Controlling health cost inflation isn't enough to fix the budget problem. In recent years a seductive but incorrect picture of the federal budget became fashionable; the idea that the main thing we need to do to repair the budget is to conquer health care cost inflation in the public and private sectors alike. Unfortunately, it's not true. Last year CBO estimated that over the next quarter-century, cost growth in the federal health entitlements and Social Security will be 75% attributable to population aging and only 25% to health cost inflation. Even in the health entitlements considered alone, population aging accounts for 60% of such cost growth, excess health inflation only 40%. Thus even in the unlikely scenario that we completely conquer health cost inflation, we would still have to confront the bigger problem of the growing number of people receiving federal health benefits.

"9. Health care reform as enacted in 2010 made the problem worse, not better. One justification presented for passing the massive health care overhaul of 2010 was that doing so would help to correct runaway federal health spending. Unfortunately the legislation added to the federal health spending problem instead of correcting it...

"10. The fiscal strains caused by "Obamacare" may be underestimated. CBO routinely provides alternative projections in which various ongoing policies are extended or re-indexed relative to current law. For example, in its latest ten-year budget outlook CBO models the effects of overriding pending Medicare physician payment cuts, expiring tax provisions, and across-the-board "sequestration" cuts. But in its long-term budget outlook published last year, CBO also warned that the so-called "Obamacare" health exchange subsidies may ultimately prove more expensive than now projected..."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 11:51 AM

Privileges for some, punishment for others

http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/...

"Taxes collected from increasing rates on the rich in FY2013 amount to $27 billion, while tax revenue collected based on the average over 10 years is roughly $62 billion. Even in the best-case scenario for tax collection, the increases in revenue are lower than the amount being paid out to businesses and energy subsidies.

"If President Obama had let all of the special tax breaks for businesses and energy companies expire, he would have raised more revenue than his tax hikes on high-income earners. The president's actions contradict his professed desire to ensure that "the wealthiest corporation and individuals can't take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren't available to most Americans"."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 2:17 PM

"Room for Favors in 'Cliff' Deal: Harry Reid Edition"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339...

"The New Year's Day legislation that averted tax increases for millions of Americans brought an unwelcome surprise for Elekta AB, EKTA-B.SK +0.21% a Swedish maker of radiation tools designed to battle brain tumors.

"A provision, inserted at the last minute, sharply cut Medicare payments for the company's product while leaving unchanged those of its direct competitor, Varian Medical Systems Inc., VAR -0.53% of Palo Alto, Calif.

"Varian lobbyists pushed for the change, according to congressional staff and other lobbyists, which was put through by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). Under the change, payments for hospital outpatient surgeries using Elekta's technology would drop by 58%, news that knocked the company's stock sharply through early January. . . .

"In another section, first noted by the New York Times, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services postponed a payment reduction to Amgen Inc. AMGN -0.19%for its anti-anemia drugs, a move that could cost Medicare about a half-billion dollars over the next two years. The Elekta cuts were used to help pay for delaying a series of cuts known as the sequester. . . .

"Mr. Reid has a deep relationship with Varian. About nine years ago, he secured federal funding for Varian to work with the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to Oliver Hemmers, the center's director. The project looked at technologies that could X-ray cargo shipments as part of antiterror efforts."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 2:22 PM

Note on the post above: The quote is actually from a Wall Street Journal story, but you can't view it at WSJ without buying access through an online account.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 2:24 PM

"Growth of Federal Debt Expected to Outpace Economy"

It would apear very obvious that to avert this problem, a compromise on entitlement cuts, discretionary spending cuts and revenue increases through tax code reform, are all necessary. I am fairly sure the CBO did not print these 10 "lessons" in the exact format below.

The link doesn't talk about this, rather it explains how some states are determined to reduce tax rates and replace them with a higher tax burden on the middle class.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 3:50 PM

"The link doesn't talk about this, rather it explains how some states are determined to reduce tax rates and replace them with a higher tax burden on the middle class."

Sorry, I had copied that link previously to post it, but decided to run with this one. Apparently, I failed to clear the old link from the clipboard.

Here is the link from which the article was posted:

http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/te...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:16 PM

"It would apear very obvious that to avert this problem, a compromise on entitlement cuts, discretionary spending cuts and revenue increases through tax code reform, are all necessary."

Yet, your Democrats appear unwilling to compromise. Particularly not on the entitlement cuts.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 4:17 PM

Obama has only started his big speech and I have already heard several ways he wants to expand the federal government into and over the private sector.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:41 PM

OJ

I could only watch about about 30 minutes of the lies.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 8:46 PM

We must defeat terrorism and wipe out Al Queda by supporting the Muslim Brotherhoood.

At the same time we must reduce our defense to be buddys with Russia so that the flow of arms can be curtailed with foriegn aid to North Korea and other beligerants like Iran.

When we pay out the yazzoo and end poverty in not just America as President Johnson envisioned, but in the entire world, we will be successful in creating the high paid jobs our government educated kindergarteners expect.

Did I mention invest in our sisters and daughters with equality and the right to be sent to war?

And don't forget everything is for our children and our democracy.

I turned him off after my last post. How am I doing?

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 12, 2013, at 9:10 PM

"Particularly not on the entitlement cuts."

Per the President...

"On Medicare, I'm prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission."

As much as "$341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare." or more.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 9:34 AM

Kind of like the savings we are getting from Obamacare?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 10:15 AM

"Per the President..."

Those aren't cuts. Does he use the words 'cuts' anywhere in that comment?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 10:47 AM

Reforming the growth rate is not a cut, except in Democrat-speak.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 11:11 AM

Let's say I am a tow-headed owner of a tow bar factory that hates red-headed people but hire them just the same because they are willing to work cheaper than my tow-headed friends.

Along comes the minimum wage that says I have to pay the red-headed people the same, do you think I am going to continue to hire red-headed people I don't like when I can hire tow-headed people I do like?

The minimum wage is discriminatory against red-headed people.

In the same way the minimum wage is disfavor for low skilled workers, younger inexperienced workers, some minorities and older workers of limited physical ability.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 13, 2013, at 9:17 PM

"do you think I am going to continue to hire red-headed people I don't like when I can hire tow-headed people I do like?"

While "red-headed people" may not be a specified "protected group", in spirit of employment regulations, an employer who discriminates (intentionally or not) will enjoy inquiries from the EEOC.

-- Posted by Iscariot on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 5:19 AM

"... in spirit of employment regulations, an employer who discriminates (intentionally or not) will enjoy inquiries from the EEOC."

With total disregard to the right to freely associate (which would necessarily carry with it a right to freely dissociate).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 6:39 AM

semonin, So when will the government decide on a maximum wage?

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 10:36 PM

Openly gay military? Check.

Country in financial ruin? Check.

Executive orders on gun purchases? Check.

American allies confused? Check.

American enemies emboldened? Check.

Nearly $5/gallon gas? Check.

And the latest? Read this story. This is where the liberal democrats want this country to go. This is your president and your administration. This story is unbelievable. Actual videos of "cultural sensitivity" training. This consultant is sick - and we paid $200,000 to him to have USDA employees chant and bang a table. Username1 will love this - it's anti-white. Read:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/...

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 3:22 PM

Except that liberal democrats voted for Obama lock, stock and barrel.

Are you suggesting the conservatives voted for Obama?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 4:08 PM

"Obama presses GOP to halt automatic spending cuts"

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.ph...

"Staking out his ground ahead of a fiscal deadline, President Barack Obama lashed out against Republicans, saying they are unwilling to raise taxes to reduce deficits and warning that the jobs of essential government workers, from teachers to emergency responders, are on the line.

"Obama spoke as a March 1 deadline for automatic across-the-board spending cuts approached and with Republicans and Democrats in an apparent stalemate over how to avoid them.

"Obama cautioned that if the $85 billion in immediate cuts -- known as the sequester -- occur, the full range of government would feel the effects. Among those he listed: furloughed FBI agents, reductions in spending for communities to pay police and fire personnel and teachers, and decreased ability to respond to threats around the world.

"He said the consequences would be felt across the economy.

"People will lose their jobs," he said. "The unemployment rate might tick up again"."

________

$85 billion equates to about 2.2% of the $3.8 trillion in government spending. If we cannot find 2.2% of our massive spending to cut, then we shall never be able to rein in our spending.

Commonsensematters tells us that 'we all agree' that spending cuts are needed. Apparently, we don't all agree. Mr. Obama doesn't seem to agree.

My taxes went up by more than 2.2% in January, and yet my way of life has not been destroyed. My fuel bill went up by more than 2.2% since last year, yet my way of life has not been destroyed.

Mr. Obama needs to get a grip on reality. We cannot afford to keep spending at the current rate. $85 billion is small change in governmentspeak. Deal with the cuts that were agreed upon, and start looking for more!

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 4:13 PM

Obama's USDA is now encouraging illegal immigrants to continue to pursue food stamps. They are telling them in written brochures that they can apply and use them without worry of arrest or limitations to becoming a legal citizen.

The story: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/18/usdame...

just like Obamacare - even illegals get food stamps. But we have a "revenue" problem in the US, not a spending problem. Who was stupid enough to believe that and vote for Obama in November?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 6:26 PM

"...'we all agree' that spending cuts are needed."

Were I to be asked, I would suggest an across the board 5% cut in all federal wages, contracts, purchases, etc. But to seriously decrease the deficit we still need to revise the tax code to eliminate loopholes, etc.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 7:01 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 7:01 PM

Just curious - do you consider the mortgage deduction a "loophole"?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 7:31 PM

In my opinion, the mortgage deduction should be limited to some loan dollar amount (maybe $550K)and for a primary residence only.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 7:58 PM

Ok. Just curious what exactly you would consider loopholes. I'm sure most are tax benefits/deductions for companies. I will tell you this - as a business consultant - many businesses continue to purchase equipment at the end of the year to get the full year accelerated depreciation affect, a tax "incentive".

While it is a "loophole" it does create jobs and business growth. It is an incentive. Get rid of that and many businesses will not buy equipment at the rate they are - they will patch up what they have and that includes manufacturing equipment and vehicles.

What about charitable contributions? There are some limits on those. Eliminate them altogether?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 8:01 PM

"Were I to be asked, I would suggest an across the board 5% cut in all federal wages, contracts, purchases, etc. But to seriously decrease the deficit we still need to revise the tax code to eliminate loopholes, etc."

Yet, Mr. Obama is claiming that a 2.2% cut will be devestating to the nation. You radical cost-cutter, you.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 8:18 PM

http://mercatus.org/publication/projecte...

"On February 5, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Budget and Economic Outlook for fiscal years 2013 to 2023. While the report might suggest the US economy and federal budget are on the road to recovery, such an assessment would be shortsighted.

"These charts shows the budget surplus and deficit figures in dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Its current law baseline scenario, which is used as a yardstick for lawmakers, shows that in 2013 the deficit will continue to decrease as a share of GDP. If the projections materialize, the deficit will drop below $1 trillion to $845 billion for the first time since President Obama took office and will continue to fall for the next two years.

"However, if lawmakers were to make changes to current law, such as repealing the sequester cuts that are scheduled to go into effect on March 1, then deficits and debt would be significantly higher than the amounts reported under the current law baseline. The alternative fiscal scenario assumes that most tax provisions that have recently expired or are set to expire are extended as well as other tax and spending policies that differ from those in current law--for example, holding constant Medicare's payment rates, and undoing the automatic spending reductions. There are also other factors, such as the promised "savings" under the president's healthcare law, that are accounted for in the CBO baseline.

"Under the alternative scenario that assumes such changes to current law, the CBO projects that deficits would shrink less significantly. Also, deficits would rise to $1.3 trillion by 2023 (as opposed to $978 billion in the current baseline) and yield cumulative deficits of $9.5 trillion (as opposed to $7.0 trillion). The debt picture would also get darker. Debt held by the public would reach 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 (as opposed to 77 percent)."

________

Yet, Mr. Obama is fighting to prevent the sequester cuts from taking place.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:12 AM

Mr. Obama is fighting to prevent the sequester cuts from taking place. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:12 AM

Truth be known I believe Obama is fighting nothing more than the "image" of sequester cuts. This has been, is, and always will be about campaigning. He cares nothing of the impact of these cuts. He is demagoguing to win the house in 2014. Pure and simple.

If he cared about the poor he would have given much more to charity before he ran for President. It's all about golfing and winning the next election. No solutions, no sit-down meetings, no serious plans or offerings - just hit the road and campaign.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:18 AM

In my opinion, the mortgage deduction should be limited to some loan dollar amount (maybe $550K)and for a primary residence only.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 7:58 PM

I believe it should be for the primary nut why cut it off at 550K. Wealth envy?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:39 AM

Why have a mortgage-interest deduction?

Those who use the tax code to influence markets want the deduction becuase they claim it influences home ownership, which is viewed a being good for the country. Actually, it does not influence home ownership so much as it influences borrowing, which was considered good for the economy, or at least good for bankers, who believe that what is good for the economic conditions is good for the economy as a whole.

If one believes that demand drives the markets, and that demand cannot be artificially created, then the idea that a mortgage-interest deduction influences home ownership is absurd. If people need a home, they will buy one or rent one regardless of whether the interest is deductable. If they do not need a home, the existence of a mortgage-interest deduction will not make them want one.

However, if one needs a home, the existence of a mortgage-interest deduction might encourage one to borrow more money, and thus buy a more expensive house, than they otherwise would borrow. That is to say, since the interest is deductable, they might view the overall impact on their finances caused by borrowing to be reduced, and thus be willing to increase the borrowed amount based on the perceived savings in taxes.

Additionally, the mortgage-interest deduction might encourage one to own, rather than rent, because the mortgage-interest deduction will theoretically lower their overall tax impact in a way that rent will not. Again, the theory is they will view the overall costs of home ownership - mortgage, taxes, upkeep, equity, etc., and see weigh them against the benefits of renting. The reduction in taxes brought about the mortgage-interest deduction will perhaps push them towards ownership.

But, why concern the government with ownership? What benefit is it to them? Do they obtain more tax revenue from a resident-owned home than from a landlord-owned home? Is there some revenue-enhancement obtained by compelling residents to stay locked into a locale, as ownership does, rather than haveing a society more freely capable of moving about?

Clearly a person will need a roof over their head, it should be of little concern to the government whether that roof be owned or rented by the person needing it. Nor does the building trade likely care much whether they are building resident-owned home or landlord-owned homes, as long as they are building homes.

I realize, at the municipal level, a homeowner will likely take more pride in his property, and thus retain his property values (and thus tax rates) more than a renter. But, at the same time, landlords seeking higher rent income will tend to maintain the property (and thus the tax value) of high-rent properties in order to extract higher rent. Well-to-do persons will either rent higher-quality homes or build them if satisfactory rental units do not exist, deduction or no deduction. There were high-rent districts and low-rent districts before there was an income tax from which to deduct, and there was home ownership, as well.

I can't see the motive for retaining the mortgage-interest deduction, except to keep bankers happy. The recent recession has left many of us wondering if happy bankers are really good for the economy.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:40 AM

I can't see the motive for retaining the mortgage-interest deduction, except to keep bankers happy. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 11:40 AM

I agree and support a repeal of it - if they lower my taxes by the same amount. Otherwise it's just another money grab and an assumption that my money - hard earned income - is somehow theirs for the taking.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 1:03 PM

This is what he said. This is what Barack Obama said:

"To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?

"Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit.

The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring; a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries."

This is what he said. This is what Barack Obama said:

"Through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years.

And this is what he said. This is what Barack Obama said:

"We'll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest."

And that was just in one speech...

__________

The tax code didn't get to be as complicated as it is by accident. Every complication; every loophole; every deduction, exemption, and credit got there because some elected official had a clever idea. It got there because someone dreamed up an innovative scheme to use the tax code as a way to encourage some sort of behavior.

"The code is the way it is because politicians who decry loopholes and special-interest privileges can't see that their own clever schemes are part of the problem."

http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/...

______________

This is not unique to Mr. Obama, mind you. Back when Mr. Clinton was in office, Dick Gephardt was on television stating that the flat tax was winning over a recalictrant Congress, and that it only needed to be resolved as to how flat it would be. While claiming to agree with the flat tax, he began to expound on the nature of that 'flat tax' as he saw it, and it contained higher levels of taxation for higher income earners, and included certain deductions, such as the mortgage-interest deduction, which were necessary to retain 'fairness'.

In other words, he was all for a flat tax, as long as it wasn't a flat tax.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 2:21 PM

I see I left out a quotation mark at the beginning of the paragraph that begins with "the tax code didn't get to be..."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 2:23 PM

"No matter which type of taxing system is used , some wise-guys will eventually find ways around them to get more then their fair share."

What, exactly, is their 'fair share'?

I keep asking this question, and no one gives an answer, except me.

To me, one's 'fair share' is the amount required by law. Thus, as long as you're paying your taxes in accordance with the tax code, you're paying your 'fair share'. If the tax code includes a deduction, an allowance, an exemption, a credit, or a loophole, one must assume it was put there because the legislature, sometime, considered it 'fair' to those whose income fell within the requirements stated, and subsequent legislations have not seen it as sufficiently unfair that it needs to be changed.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 3:10 PM

"...sometime, considered it 'fair' to those whose income fell within the requirements stated..."

I think it's much more likely that politicians reacted to lobbyists in response to campaign contributions.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 5:43 PM

From Shapley's post,

"However, if one needs a home, the existence of a mortgage-interest deduction might encourage one to borrow more money, and thus buy a more expensive house, than they otherwise would borrow. That is to say, since the interest is deductable, they might view the overall impact on their finances caused by borrowing to be reduced, and thus be willing to increase the borrowed amount based on the perceived savings in taxes."

I think that says a lot. I remember being tempted to borrow against my house after it was paid off for reasons of tax deductions. It may have worked out fine but we heeded our elders advice of never morgage your home.

Somewhere in the Texas Homestead Act is a provision that prohibits any liens against a house other than remodel or add-on. I think that's a good law.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 7:05 PM

"It may have worked out fine but we heeded our elders advice of never mortgage your home."

And they would be right. There were a lot of people that are still paying for that mistake.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 7:41 PM

"I think it's much more likely that politicians reacted to lobbyists in response to campaign contributions."

How it was sold to them is immaterial. The fact remains that they put it into the tax law, and subsequent Congresses have not removed it from the tax law, ergo, abiding by it is 'fair' under the definition I propose.

Have you any formulation for what a 'fair share' is?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 8:14 AM

"Have you any formulation for what a 'fair share' is?"

My concept envisions tax rates from approximately 18 to 28%, with limited and capped deductions, and all income (regardless of source) taxed at an equal rate.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 8:29 AM

What deductions would you permit, and where would place the caps?

Would you tax all income from $0 up, or would you have a 'floor' (i.e., a base deduction) which is untaxed?

I envision a flat-rate tax on all income above a certain 'floor' level - the floor to be determined by the averaged cost of living nationwide - housing, food, clothing, etc.

No other deductions would be permissible.

Methinks the tax rate could be considerably lower than your 28% max if this were done.

The BEA puts total personnal income at about $13 trillion (2011 numbers). 28% of that would be about $3.6 trillion, or about our total federal spending. But, if we deduct the basic allowance, that cuts total personnal income significantly, though I can only guess by what amount. Let us assume that 40% of the income will be lost through the base deduction deduction (many people will earn below or only slightly above the base deduction). I could probably nuke out a more accurate figure, had I the time, but I don't.

The budgeted 2012 reciepts are identified as about $1.4 trillion, with another trillion from FICA taxes. The remainder comes from excise taxes and other sources. If we assume that we need to get our receipts up to about $2 trillion, then we have about $7.8 trillion in taxable income (60% of $13 trillion), which would need to be taxed at an average 25% in order to achieve our $2 trillion target.

But we shouldn't need that much if we'd cut spending, as we seriously need to do. Since, as you claim, we all agree that cuts need to be made, what is your target amount of spending cuts?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 9:33 AM

A "green" investment of $530 MILLION US taxpayer dollars may now have it's technology purchased by a Chinese firm. Another Obama screw up with our tax dollars. And of course we have a "revenue" problem - we can't cut any spending. The story:

"Republican senators complained Wednesday that U.S. taxpayer dollars could end up boosting the Chinese economy, following reports that a Chinese firm is leading the pack of companies bidding for a majority stake in government-backed Fisker Automotive.

The troubled California-based electric car maker, which was backed by U.S. taxpayers to the tune of nearly $530 million, for months has been looking for a financial partner. Reuters reported earlier this week that China's Zhejiang Geely Holding Group is favored to take over, though Fisker is also reportedly weighing a bid from another Chinese auto maker."

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 11:51 AM

Shapley, What you envision sounds like it may be of the same projected result as the Fair Tax.

Dug, Maybe they can get Fiat to partner with Fisker. I think that's the norm concerning a failed car company that is not too big to fail. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 9:58 PM

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 9:58 PM

True!

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 10:16 PM

Why can't republicans put forth a plan to cut a bunch of goverment spending less important than stuff like the federal programs Obama touts as can't do without?

Maybe because nothing is less important?

Since when are first responders, local police and fire, etc a federal government responsibilty?

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 10:44 PM

He wants it all to be "federal". Then states like Texas, etc. can't opt out or ignore him. You can't control your state education if all your teachers are federally funded. You can't control your own health care if you let the federal government fund it all.

Look at the medicare decision facing many states. It's tough to turn down 100% "free" federal funding of medicare. It's "free" after all, right? Then it goes to 90% federal funded after the first year.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM

More from Obamacare as companies prepare for 2014. Employers are cutting spouses off the insurance plans.

"By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 "per life" covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees' dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. "The question about whether it's obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before," says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 8:25 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...

"As Investors Business Daily (IBD) responded on January 23, "But that's precisely what's happened over the past four years, as Obama's economic policies left the majority of Americans falling behind while the wealthy few got further ahead."

"The Census Bureau publishes the Gini Index, which is the official measure of income inequality. That index has climbed every year President Obama has been in office. It was flat during the 8 years under President Bush (which means inequality did not increase).

"Inequality is increasing under Obama because the incomes of the top 20% of income earners are increasing, while the incomes for everyone else have been declining. That is right, Progressives, what all your huffing and puffing has achieved is the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. That didn't happen under Reagan, where the rich got richer, and the poor got richer. After 1983, the poverty rate declined every year under Reagan, and incomes grew for every income quintile.

"Quite to the contrary, Census reports that in 2011 the average incomes of the top 20% of income earners rose, while incomes for the bottom 80%, declined. Under President Obama, as IBD reported on January 23, "average incomes among the poorest households fell nearly 8%, back to levels not seen since the 1980s." Real median household income, reflecting the incomes of the middle class, has declined throughout Obama's Presidency, totaling a loss by now of one month's income a year. You see what I mean when I say that economic growth is far more beneficial for the middle class and the poor than redistrubution?

"IBD adds, "[T]he only ones doing well in Obama's economy have been the 'shrinking few' Obama complains about. Wall Street investors have benefitted from a rising stock market -- with the Dow now at 5 year highs -- and corporate chiefs have seen profits climb 58% since June, 2009."

"cCann concludes,

"Barack Obama and the Democrats have signaled they intend to do nothing to alter the course the nation is on; in fact they intend to accelerate it. Without any firm and viable political opposition, wealth and job creation will further deteriorate with the second term implementation of Obamacare, higher taxes, ever increasing government expenditures, and the mushrooming debt, continued erosion of the value of the dollar and its potential demise as the world's reserve currency, as well as a Niagara Falls of new regulations. The American people...will be worse off in four years than they were at the end of 2012...and a majority of the citizenry will increasingly experience the malaise and suffering of those who lived through the 1930s...."

"Congratulations, Progressives. You have proven the truth of Winston Churchill's observations, "The great vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The great virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery," and, "If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. And if you are not a capitalist at 40, you have no brains"."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 8:55 AM

"When a person's house catches on fire , do they call the White House for assistance??"

The Consulate in Beghazi tried that, it didn't work out so well for them...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:26 AM

"The Consulate in Beghazi tried that, it didn't work out so well for them..."

Who would have been able to call the White House, and why?

The Information Office (it was not a consulate) received reinforcements from the CIA Annex within 20 minutes and the CIA Annex received reinforcements from Tripoli within 4 hours.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:40 AM

"The Information Office (it was not a consulate)"

It is regularly identified as a consulate. It was first referred to as an embassy, which was not correct.

Why the constant need to rename it?

"... received reinforcements from the CIA Annex within 20 minutes"

Not according to the 'official' timeline released:

"9:42 p.m. -- Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

9:59 p.m. -- A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.

10:32 p.m. -- The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. "The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey."

11 p.m. -- Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

11:10 p.m. -- The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. -- All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

September 12

Midnight to 2 a.m. -- Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

1:30 a.m. -- A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.

2:39 a.m. to 2:53 a.m. -- The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States.

5:15 a.m. -- Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

6:05 a.m. -- A C-17 aircraft in Germany is told to prepare to deploy to Libya to evacuate the consulate personnel.

7:40 a.m. -- The first wave of Americans are evacuated to Tripoli via airplane.

10 a.m. -- A second group, including those killed in the attack, are flown to Tripoli.

2:15 p.m. -- The C-17 departs from Germany for the flight to Tripoli.

7:17 p.m. -- The C-17 leaves Tripoli with the American consulate personnel and the bodies of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty.

7:57 p.m. -- The U.S. special operations force team based in Croatia arrives at a staging base in Italy.

8:56 p.m. -- One of the Marine anti-terrorist teams from Spain arrives in Tripoli.

9:28 p.m. -- The U.S.-based special operations force team arrives at its staging base in Italy."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:52 AM

Dug: Was reading your 8:03 AM post. I am going to check but I thought the 90% kicked in after the 3rd year. Could it be possible that you could be wrong in your statement? I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I read that somewhere.

-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I read that somewhere. -- Posted by left turn on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM

It is very possible that I was wrong. I've heard the numbers on the radio news and read them and might have either gotten wrong information or misinterpreted it. The last I remember was 100% in the first year and then 90%. Could be wrong.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:01 AM

From another source:

"ObamaCare expands Medicaid eligibility to virtually all legal U.S. residents with incomes under 133 percent of the federal poverty level, around $30,000 per year for a family of four. To make the legislation more palatable to the states, the federal government has promised to cover all costs until 2016 and 90-95 percent of Medicaid expansion costs beginning in 2017, in addition to sweetheart deals for selected states as an inducement to garner their representatives' support."

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:03 AM

"Why the constant need to rename it?"

For the sake of accuracy. Some people seem to believe that all facts with respect to a crisis situation are instantaneously available to all parties and subsequent corrections/updates are evidence of wrongdoing or malpractice.

From The American Conservative...

"Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators."

Nothing in the timeline about calls from Benghazi to the White House.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:19 AM

"Nothing in the timeline about calls from Benghazi to the White House."

I was being facetious.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:38 AM

More Obama accomplishments.

US incomes drop the most in 20 years in January: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Mar 1, 2013, at 10:30 AM

The Dow hit over 14,000 yesterday. The last time it hit this same number was in 2007 under Bush. The numbers then vs. the numbers now under Obama:

Dow Jones Industrial Average: Then 14164.5; Now 14164.5

Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73

GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%

Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million

Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million

Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01 trillion

US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%

US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion

Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion

US Household Debt: Then $13.5 trillion; Now 12.87 trillion

Labor Force Particpation Rate: Then 65.8%; Now 63.6%

Consumer Confidence: Then 99.5; Now 69.6

S&P Rating of the US: Then AAA; Now AA+

VIX: Then 17.5%; Now 14%

10 Year Treasury Yield: Then 4.64%; Now 1.89%

EURUSD: Then 1.4145; Now 1.3050

Gold: Then $748; Now $1583

NYSE Average LTM Volume (per day): Then 1.3 billion shares; Now 545 million shares

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Mar 5, 2013, at 9:25 AM

In honour of Mr. Obama's meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians have launched rockets into Israel.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/21/...

Okay, maybe the two aren't connected. The Palestinians routinely launch rockets into Israel, and the militants may simply have not known that Mr. Obama was in town, so it was business as usual for them...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 21, 2013, at 8:30 AM

Another judgment, leaning more to science and medicine, recognizes that the embryo and fetus are essentially parasitic organisms that over time grow to a viable being that is eventually delivered as a newborn.

And some never grow up and become liberal democrat voters.

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Mar 21, 2013, at 11:26 AM

The president has given his speech to win over the gullible younsters of Israel and inspire them to rally against their elders in what will be another land give away to the Palestinians.

What constitutes being a Palestinian?

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 21, 2013, at 11:35 AM

So the presidential limo lovingly reffered to as "The Beast" was filled with the wrong fuel and laid down on the job. That's OK for those kinds of things are always considered with contingency plans to keep things running smoothly. A replacement limo was only a cargo plane ride away.

Obama even brought his own hecklers! :)

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 21, 2013, at 7:10 PM

Where is Common? Hiding? He/she defended Obamacare to the death with all kinds of numbers despite warnings that Obamacare would be a huge deficit program and a huge INCREASE in health care. A story today from the Wall Street Journal on the huge INCREASES in health insurance coming next year says:

"Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could MORE THAN DOUBLE for some consumers buying their own plans.

The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year--a subject of rigorous debate.

The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration (and Common) says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost. "

The full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Mar 22, 2013, at 8:50 AM

Wheels, We were warned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=P3hY...

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 22, 2013, at 11:24 PM

Wheels, Some think he is rooted in anti-colonialism.

I think he has no loyalty other than to his own idealism.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 12:27 AM

Narcissistic Personality Disorder - "A personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population."

"Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:[1]

Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation

Taking advantage of others to reach own goals

Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents

Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

Becoming jealous easily

Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others

Being obsessed with self

Pursuing mainly selfish goals

Trouble keeping healthy relationships

Becoming easily hurt and rejected

Setting goals that are unrealistic

Appearing unemotional

In addition to these symptoms, the person may also display dominance, arrogance, show superiority, and seek power. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. However, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth"

From wikipedia. Unfortunately our president falls into the "1%" of the population with this disorder. Describes him to a tee!

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 8:12 AM

WOW !!!! What a great self-analysis, Dug. I wondered when you would wake up and look in the mirror. Being a charter member of the pi** and moan club must be quite a badge of honor. Have a nice weekend.

-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 8:23 AM

Have a nice weekend. -- Posted by left turn on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 8:23 AM

You have a nice weekend too sock puppet! Go run and hide now until another posting comes up against Obama. All you seem able to do is defend your "man" on these threads at all costs. Keep marching with him like a lemming right off that cliff.

How's your Obamaphone working today? Got good reception and 250 texts a month? You know, that phone that all the 80 year old retired people pay extra fees on their bill so you can get a "free" phone?

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 8:31 AM

Wheels

What would happen if you divided your workers and praised everything half of them did, while the other half you constantly berated and said they were ruining the company? If you did you would still be at the office since retirement wouldn't have been an option.

The great campaigner doesn't know how to work well with others.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Mar 23, 2013, at 8:39 AM

Today's economic news:

"WASHINGTON * U.S. employers added just 88,000 jobs in March, the fewest in nine months and a sharp retreat after a period of strong hiring. The slowdown may signal that the economy is heading into a weak spring.

The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate dipped to 7.6 percent, the lowest in four years, from 7.7 percent. But the rate fell only because more people stopped looking for work. People who are out of work are no longer counted as unemployed once they stop looking for a job.

The percentage of Americans working or looking for jobs fell to 63.3 percent in March, the lowest such figure in nearly 34 years."

Over 4 years into the Obama/democrat plan to turn the economy around with a $1 TRILLION stimulus the country is worse off. He's a failure.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 9:59 AM

"...because more people stopped looking for work."

You still don't understand. It is probable that there are more people retiring at the high end of the workforce that are entering at the low end. It a simple matter of population distribution.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 7:08 PM

Of course more people are retiring than are being hired. There are no jobs that the majority of US citizens looking for work are qualified for. Government has done a fine job of chasing the blue collar jobs overseas. They've done an even better job of creating a business environment whereupon companies are not comfortable filling the positions vacated by retirees. Too bad our education system isn't capable of producing graduates with the high tech and scientific skills needed to fill the jobs that companies do wish to fill.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:02 PM

You still don't understand. It is probable that there are more people retiring at the high end of the workforce that are entering at the low end. It a simple matter of population distribution. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 7:08 PM

It is "probable"? You keep laying this talking point out every time the number of unemployed grows. It's not retirement common. How about this fact - there are over 300,000,000 Americans in this country and it's growing. Of course that would have nothing to do with the work force.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 10:23 PM

Retiring at the high end? Maybe you did but a lot of folks retired and are retiring at the middle and low end. And we are watching our savings devalued by inflation and wondering what other new mandated tax is to be upon us.

Not all that long ago, retiring with a quarter million portfolio meant living well. Now even those folks aren't spending but for the necessities.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Apr 5, 2013, at 11:41 PM

Here's something most have already seen. Could it hang on a whitehouse wall someday?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVe...

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 8:27 PM

"You still don't understand. It is probable that there are more people retiring at the high end of the workforce that are entering at the low end. It a simple matter of population distribution."

You still don't understand, those who reach retirement age are not counted in the workforce numbers. Unless they are forced into early retirement due to lack of work or the high cost of insuring them...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 12, 2013, at 7:07 AM

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"The civilian labor force comprises all civilians 16 years of age and over classified as employed or unemployed. Employed persons are (a) all civilians who, during the reference week, did any work at all as paid employees, in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or who worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family, and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of illness, bad weather, vacation, child-care problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management disputes, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.

"Unemployed persons are all persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

"The unemployment rate for all civilian workers represents the number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 12, 2013, at 9:09 AM

"How do the multitudes of people who have totally given up and no longer file for un-employment figure into this equation?"

Unknown, Captain.

There is also a guage which measure total employment as a percentage of the population, and another which measures total employment as a percentage of the 'working age' population (usually 16 thru 65). Those are not used by the BLS, and thus I do not know how they derive the sources for those figures. I would gather they use the Census data and extrapolate it for the current month by some birth rate/death rate formula, but it could vary based on the specific data (and desired outcome) of the organization producing the figure.

I prefer to use the BLS data. It's not perfect (none is), but it uses consistent formulae and defintions for making its calculations. Yes, those who 'drop off the grid' have to be guessed at, but that would seem to be case regardless of which data is used.

You can probably find both the total employment data (historical) from the BLS, and the total population (historical) from the Census and run your own numbers. You could compare those to past reported numbers to see how they compare, and probably devise a multiplier by which you could compare current data to past, known entities. But that's more of a project than I'm willing to undertake at this time.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 12, 2013, at 10:05 AM

From the NY Times today. This is what you get when you publicly announce a detailed withdrawal schedule to your enemies. Our troops are also being told to "dismount" without ammo in their weapons as we speak. They are in one hell of a position with a "community organizer" at the helm.

From the NY Times article: "KABUL, Afghanistan -- One of the closest-kept secrets in Afghanistan these days is data about how active the insurgents have become in their spring offensive this year. The American military, which last year publicized data on enemy attacks with meticulous bar graphs, now has nothing to say. "We're just not giving out statistics anymore," said a spokesman, Col. Thomas W. Collins"

The entire story out today is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/world/...

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Apr 21, 2013, at 8:37 AM

Add the recent convictions of voter fraud in Indiana and good reason to believe Obama would have not been on the Ballot without it.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 28, 2013, at 11:49 AM

http://mercatus.org/publication/long-ter...

"We are now a full three years from the labor market trough of the Great Recession. Job creation has been relatively steady but modest since 2011. We averaged about 175,000 new jobs per month in 2011; 183,000 per month in 2012; and 168,000 jobs per month so far this year. While this job growth is welcome, it is far short of what we need to achieve a full labor market recovery. Two significant problems have become evident through this lengthy period of slow job growth. First, there has been an unprecedented disengagement from the labor force with current participation at its lowest level in almost 35 years. This means there are currently 102 million jobless people in the United States, but less than 12 million are still actively looking for work and therefore counted as unemployed. Second, the number of long-term unemployed is at a record high. They currently represent over 4.6 million people, and the long-term unemployment rate (the share of the labor force unemployed for over six months) remains well above historical levels at 3.0 percent.

"Comparing the current situation with that of October 2009 helps put the effects of the disengagement from the labor market into perspective.. In that October, the unemployment rate was at the recession high of 10.0 percent, and 41.5 percent of the working age population were without jobs. Today, the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.6 percent, but labor force participation has declined so much that the jobless rate remains the same 41.5 percent. By this latter measure, we've made little progress towards a full labor market recovery. I estimate that there are over 5 million people missing from the unemployment rate because of the disengagement from the labor force caused by the Great Recession and slow recovery.

"The other significant problem is that we currently have 4.6 million long-term unemployed. Although the long- term unemployment rate of 3.0 percent is down from the record high of 4.3 percent from early 2010, it remains well above the previous record high. Furthermore, two-thirds of these people have been jobless for over a year and might be classified as very long-termed unemployed. Large as these numbers are, they dramatically underestimate the long-term jobless problem. The same disengagement from the labor force that has driven down the unemployment rate without reducing joblessness has led to a serious underestimation of the problem. To be counted as long-term unemployed (as opposed to long-term jobless), an individual needs to:

"Have no work whatsoever for at least six months

"Want to work and be nearly instantly available if offered work

"Be actively looking for work. By "actively" looking, I mean that every month this individual must send out a resume, contact an employer directly, engage an employment agency, or engage in some other sort of activity that, by itself, could result in employment. Checking for new job openings on the internet or in the newspaper alone does not qualify as active job search.

"This sets a high bar for someone to remain "unemployed" for long enough to be considered as long-term unem- ployed. In 2007, the average unemployed person who eventually exited the labor force looked unsuccessfully for work for just under nine weeks. In 2011, this had risen to over 21 weeks. That means the average person that left the labor force did so before even being classified as long-term unemployed and almost certainly could eventually be called long-term jobless. Consequently, millions of people have dropped from the labor force over the past five years who perhaps should be counted as long-term unemployed but are not."

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/...

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/...

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/...

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM

"In that October, the unemployment rate was at the recession high of 10.0 percent, and 41.5 percent of the working age population were without jobs. Today, the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.6 percent, but labor force participation has declined so much that the jobless rate remains the same 41.5 percent." -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM

That statement says it all. Thanks Shapley for digging this up. It's what we've suspected all along but never had good numbers. 4 years of Obama and we are no where but Trillions more in debt.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 30, 2013, at 11:32 AM

-- Posted by Dissident. on Tue, Apr 30, 2013, at 12:35 PM

Excellent question. Never thought of that and I'm sure it's a big number if I had to guess.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 30, 2013, at 12:38 PM

Today:

"The White House, via the pool reporter, has revealed that the president today didn't win in golf. The President enjoyed the chance to spend some time on the golf course with the Senators. Most of the talk centered on the round of golf and not the latest round of legislative negotiations in Congress. The President was pleased that the rain held off, despite the damp forecast."

Meanwhile, 2 years after Osama bin Laden was killed 8 Americans were killed with small arms fire and IED explosions in 1 day in Afghanistan. They leave behind numerous sons, daughters and wives in this one day death toll. From Maj. Joe Buccino "We are more aware of the war in Afghanistan than most of American society. I think the El Paso community is too, but losing five soldiers in one IED strike is extremely rare. The fact that we're still losing soldiers in these IED strikes is certainly not a good feeling for us. Everybody was upset, and there's still this sort of dark shadow across the installation today. We've been getting calls from all over the community, supportive calls, and we do appreciate that."

Obama is so "in touch" with Americans isn't he?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, May 6, 2013, at 7:11 PM

I think that Obama is trying to outdo the second most liberal president in American history, George W. Bush. He adopted the most liberal Marxist Abraham Lincoln as his favorite American president, which should give him the edge.

That leaves Jeb Bush with his favorite president, LB Johnson far behind, if he should ever run for president. I believe that Republicans will not settle for a presidential candidate that chose Johnson, who was even less liberal than Nixon as their candidate. Remember, Romney chose FD Roosevelt as his favorite president in order to gain the nomination.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, May 7, 2013, at 12:02 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.