Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, May 17, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Why should anyone ever believe what President Barack Obama says regarding any social or political issue?
I ask this with great concern, for the current hot issue is the definition of marriage. The dictionary defines marriage as between a man and woman. In fact, Obama had it right in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” saying that society had the right to “carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”
Is not Obama’s current announcement on same-sex marriage a complete reversal to his book statement on this issue? Will the real Obama stand up?
Who know what Obama stands for whether it Gitmo will close or Marriage.
Obama said he would cut the deficit in half and keep jobs below 8%
He murders civilians in the dead of night using drone. So he does not have to interrogate the terrorist
He promised We could keep our healthcare under Obamacare -wrong
The list of flip-flops does not end
WHERE THIS CHRISTIAN GIVES THE GAY COMMUNITY CREDIT
I stand by my statement yesterday that sparked such outrage in the Sun discussion room.
In the aftermath, I gave this issue with gays having the right to marry some serious thought. You might find surprising what I ended up with. It was all positive.
At least there are many gays who believe in the sanctity of marriage. That's a heck of a cite better than the exorbitant totals of heterosexuals who produce scores of children out of wedlock where the biological father does not even bother to recognize the child, much less raise and support the child and or children. The results of this are, is a national economic burden of single mothers who receive long-term public assistance. Even a bigger tragedy is, statistics clearly prove that children who go without a father figure is much more likely to become a problem to the community in years to come.
My research also showed me that many gay couples want to adopt children. This same research showed that most gay couples who have adopted are excellent legal guardians and or parents and provide a loving home environment. In actuality, this makes gay couples who are married an extreme asset to not only our economy, but tempers the national disgrace of unwanted children born out of wedlock from that of heterosexual couples.
I cannot and will not change my religious beliefs. In my Christian religion I will always maintain that homosexual relationships and gay marriages are unethical. However, I have changed my personal opinion. Couple this with my firm stance on separation of church and state, and my vote for the right of gays to marry is now without prejudice.
To answer your question posed in the article's title. He's likely on the greens playing golf. His favorite place and past time.
Carmine A. DiFazio
This was yet another Obama Flip-Flop.
The New York times conducted a poll after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage after years sitting on the fence on the subject. 67% felt Obama supported same-sex marriage for political reasons while only 24% felt Obama did so because it was the right thing to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/pol...
Many seem adamant that marriage vows should be between a man and a woman. Yet, statistics tell us that too many are much less persistant in keeping those vows. Often, what is promised "forever" does, instead, have a finite time span.
Perhaps heterosexuals should get their relationships in order before they decide the proper expression of gay relationships.
The real Obama is "Evolving".
Dip I own part of GM, since they still owe me money, I don't consider them alive.
"The dictionary defines marriage as between a man and woman."
Lanzrath -- as if any of us should let some etymologist define our intimate relationships for us. Obama's oath of office, like all government officials, is to support, protect, defend, etc., the Constitution. That includes protecting the people's civil liberties, separation of religion from government, and equal protection of the laws. So what part of "equality" don't you understand?
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." -- Democritus (460-370 B.C.E.)
"bin laden is DEAD, GM is ALIVE!"
Dip, GM is alive and still owing us tax payers $40 billion in bailout money.
So Mr. Lanzrath believes that people can't learn and grow. If you agree, stop reading now.
According to conservatives and echoed with each breath, Obama only makes decisions for political reasons.
But the facts show this to be patently false. Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by stating his support for gay marriage. GLBT voters weren't going to vote for Romney. However, many voters in the middle and most religious conservatives who would otherwise vote for Obama were going to be upset by his growth and change of belief on this one issue. Conservatives touted the polls showing Obama lost support after he expressed his OPINION.
I am impressed that the conservatives are trying to spin Romney's ever-shifting views - his flip-flops - into a problem of Obama's. Romney's views evolve and devolve at a rate Darwin never could have imagined.
Perhaps we could use the definition of marriage as understood by people in earlier centuries where women were considered property? Or how about that crazy marriage in the bible where King David had how many wives? What about the rights of Kings to deflower women before those women's own marriage was consummated? Gee, it is almost as if conservatives don't know any real history at all.
So Ref, You in favor of liquidating GM to get pennies on the dollar? Travel to Michigan and see how well that viewpoint goes over there.
Victor,
The letter writer and many others believe Obama changes his views based on politics and the desire to get re-elected. Obama can say one thing today then turn around tomorrow and support the opposite view depending on who his audience is. The flip-flopping combined with the fact that he and his fellow democrats refuse to run on his record makes voters feel hollow about Obama. Obama is basically the kid who wont show his report card to his parents. Every month that goes by Obama has to create headlines on anything that will distract voters from his record. Contraceptives? Rush? Martin? Same-sex marriage? Everything but a plan to create jobs and boost the economy. He's talking past concerned Americans with his talk designed to distract from his poor record on jobs and the economy. Americans deserve better.
It's a flip flop, but not all flip flops are created equal. There is an enormous difference between the President's change in position on same-sex marriage after years of consideration, and what we see from Mitt Romney, which is an overnight reversal on any issue in the name of political expediency.
Emthree,
Obama is fooling no one. GM is alive yet the company owes tax payers over $40 billion dollars in bailout money. The private sector created too few jobs to maintain pace with new entrants into the job market. He's mismanaging our nation's finances. Obama represents unions and Occupiers, not tax payers, not businesses, not hard-working Americans nor the jobless.
another piece of garbage letter designed to incite published by the las vegas sun...
clearly changes need to be made at the sun...
Actually Dip, Bush maintained 62%-63% of our American population employed throughout his Presidency. Obama? 58.5% with 12 to 14 million jobless Americans for three straight years now. Bush's $4.88 trillion federal debt was caused by $1.8 trillion in increased cost of entitlements, a $1.6 trillion dip in tax revenue caused by the 2001 recession and the rest was an increase in discretionary spending due to the 911 military response. Obama? He's eclipsed Bush's $4.88 trillion deficit mark in 3 1/2 short years. At this pace, Obama will easily double Bush's national debt if Obama gets re-elected. No job growth and big debt. No wonder Obama distracts, huh Dip?
"Perhaps we could use the definition of marriage as understood by people in earlier centuries where women were considered property? ... What about the rights of Kings to deflower women before those women's own marriage was consummated? Gee, it is almost as if conservatives don't know any real history at all."
mschaffer -- good history lesson! The ancient Romans had two forms called "with manus" and "without manus." In one a couple just moved in together and announced they were married. When it was time to split they did the reverse. How incredibly civilized. Your other example was portrayed in "Braveheart" -- prima noctis, and was exercised by nobles, not just the king. How incredibly despotic.
"It was the same with those old birds in Greece and Rome as it is now. . . . The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." -- President Harry Truman on the insight "Plutarch's Lives" gave him
For some reason, according to this letter, President Obama is not permitted to change his mind regarding an issue like this. And if he does, HE MUST BE OSTRACIZED AND CRUCIFIED UNTIL HE IS DEAD!
On the other side of the aisle, his opponent doesn't change his mind. Especially about this issue. I give him that.
But everything else? Hell, he changes his mind faster than an oscillating fan.
Obama for another four years. AND a Democratic Party majority in both the Senate and the House.
President Obama has come out in support of same sex marriage. Big deal.
As everyone knows, Mitt Romney changes position on issues by the day. But to his bigoted credit Romney has been steadfast in opposition to alternative marriage lifestyles despite the fact that his grandfather had six wives and moved the family to Mexico to legally practice polygamy, and continue a practice that Brigham Young (35+/- wives) and LDS founder Joseph Smith (also 35+/- wives) made standard church doctrine in the mid 1800s.
The American Taliban (many but not all Christian denominations) want to shove their fundamentalist beliefs on everyone. I say they can shove it where the sun don't shine.
RefNV said: "Victor, The letter writer and many others believe Obama changes his views based on politics and the desire to get re-elected. Obama can say one thing today then turn around tomorrow and support the opposite view depending on who his audience is."
Obviously they believe that Re (belief <> fact), but can you provide me some examples (with links please) where Obama said one thing yesterday and turned around and said the opposite today? You've strongly implied that Obama said A on Monday, B on Tuesday, and C on Wednesday and will say A, B, or C, or D today. And please don't dredge up Gitmo and Bush tax cuts because they don't support your statement.
I'm also curious how these same people can support Mitt Romney whose positions change each time he runs for office. In other words, if you can't vote for Obama because he changed his position once on X, how can you vote for Romney when he's changed his position four times on X and Y and Z? I believe the term of art applied to doing that is bulldookie.
mitt romney is the greatest flip flopper of all time!!!
ladies and gentlemen...
boys and girls...
make no mistake...
this crap is straight out of the karl rove playbook...
project your greatest weakness on your opponent...
pure crap...
seems to me...
mitt romney has sold his soul to the devil...
he will say absolutely anything to win election...
mitt romney is a chameleon!!!
So now I get it! When liberals change their minds they are "evolving" and when conservatives do it it is considered flip-flopping. I get it.
Victor if you would like to see how the MSM can flip-flop consider the high price of gas. When gas prices went up during the Bush years the cry was that Bush was "ruining he country". Now with high gas prices they have actually come out and said that it is a good thing. Now that is evolution.
Victor,
Obama was against the healthcare mandate before being for it. See Youtube clip below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwzYVEunP...
Obama stated that deficits and debt under Bush were unpatriotic. He said in the Youtube clip below he would cut the deficit in half. What did he do? He doubled the deficit. Does that make Obama unpatriotic Victor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6...
John,
It depends on the reasons for changing your mind. Without understanding the context for such changes your statement is the opposite of getting it.
Speaking of saying anything in order to get elected, Victor, can you explain why Obama stated his Uncle liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp in WWII when, in fact, it was the Soviets who liberated Auschwitz?
Again, just another example of Obama saying anything in order to get elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mq...
Mark thank you for your clarification. Now I really get it.
Cheers.
KillerB - "Obama's oath of office, like all government officials, is to support, protect, defend, etc., the Constitution. That includes protecting the people's civil liberties, separation of religion from government, and equal protection of the laws. So what part of "equality" don't you understand?"
Exactly! That is what some of these people conveniently forget. There is a separation of church and state and you can't cherry pick parts of the United States Constitution and disregard the rest. Equality is for ALL not just a few. We've recently had a judge in the south refuse to marry an interracial couple. Should we bring back Jim Crow laws because it suits the needs of simpletons?
jrtsr - "So now I get it! When liberals change their minds they are "evolving" and when conservatives do it it is considered flip-flopping. I get it."
That's the problem, today's radical conservatives don't evolve. They are stuck living on a 10,000 year old flat planet.
JahReb,
But it's Obama who's up for re-election. Obama must now defend his record and words. Wouldn't you agree?
Okay Re, let me take these in order:
You provided a link that starts with Obama disagreeing with Hilary Clinton. Since I don't have a clue what he said before that, I can't address it. It's not like the political right hasn't shown video of Obama that was completely out of context before and I'm thinking specifically of the Romney ad that shows Obama quoting McCain but doesn't include the beginning where Obama says he's quoting McCain.
Auschwitz? Perhaps he got his concentration camps mixed up or his family did when they told him the story growing up. Have you checked his uncle's military history? If he liberated Bergen-Belsen instead, would it matter? Didn't everybody who served in Europe liberate the camps? Didn't Rosie the Riveter liberate the camps? Wasn't it a team effort including between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.?
In either case, you haven't addressed either the claim you made or provided the proof I asked you for. It gets tiring when you guys on the right repeat claims you get in your daily Rush briefing email and then can't support it.
If you had the skepticism for conservative pronouncements that you have when Obama says the sky is blue, we'd all be better off.
You've provided a clip prepared by the right that lacks context and a clip that shows a misstatement of one fact (Auschwitz) and then proclaim that Obama will say anything to get elected.
Leaving aside the part where Romney says anything to get elected like he'll increase defense spending and cut taxes and you guys on the right cheer, you haven't provided anything that shows that Obama tells different audiences different things which was YOUR contention initially. That quote is in my 8:10 a.m. post.
So Re, please do one of three things: back it up, retract it, or stop making it.
Vernos: I guess that "radical" is only applicable to conservatives. Flat earth planet? Really?
Mark I have been meaning to ask you. Do you spend your entire day looking down your nose at people or is it just the posters on the Sun and the RJ?
jrtsr: I don't care how the derisively acronymed MSM flip-flops. Your precious Fox News has been documented so many times doing that that the rest of us can see the brainwashing effects.
The reason I don't care is that it doesn't matter. The, as you call it, MSM isn't Obama and my comment to RefNV challenged his assertion that Obama changed his positions with his audiences. I said nothing about the news organizations.
If you guys want to keep making up straw men to support your arguments, please feel free. We all know it's a lot easier to do that than to get the real facts, form an opinion, and then defend it when someone challenges you. In the meantime, it's merger time for me and I have things to take care of.
Victor,
I can understand why Obama, his words and his record are giving backers like you fits. Everyone sees the distraction from stagnating job growth, a slowing economy and out of control deficit spending. Why else would Obama be talking about contraceptives, Rush, T. Martin, same-sex marriage, etc? Even backers like you talk past the important issues concerning Americans. How does Obama, after 3 years of only 58.5% of the population working, get the other 12 to 14 million jobless Americans working again? Or should the jobless construe Obama's willingness to talk about contraceptives, Rush, T. Martin and same-sex marriage, anything but a plan to grow the economy and create jobs, as an indication that Obama has no plan to get the 12 to 14 million jobless Americans working again? Until he discusses his plan I'm sure that is all the jobless can assume.
Victor,
I gave you examples already of Obama flip-flops. The mandate, cutting the deficit and now same-sex marriage. Don't you think Obama should address why he's flip-flopped on these issues? Or is Obama too arrogant feeling he doesn't owe the American public an explanation?
You mean Obama is a POLITICIAN!!!! My goodness gracious. If you look at the various fact check organizations Romney and Obama are running neck and neck in terms of truth telling. About 20% of what they say is true.
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServ...
Take the above chart back to 1948. Employment increased when women entered the work force. It peaked in the mid 1990s when the baby boomer retirements began.
http://www.bls.gov/jlt/
In terms of creating JOBS. There are currently millions of them. Listings are at the highest level in years. Almost 4 MILLION jobs available.
Victor I don't watch or listen to Fox News. NEVER! I was just pointing out that flip-flopping is not exclusive to politicians. I was not attempting to throw out a straw man argument but I can see how it would look that way. That was my mistake.
I just cannot understand how people can look at a Dem or a Repub and say that they are always correct not matter how stupid their comments or actions may be. I am more conservative that liberal but I recognize that not everything that Republicans say or do is correct and I should defend them at all cost.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/...
You think Romney will get into flip flops..give me a break. 23 out of his last 100 statements are true. They are both up to their asses in false statements.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
In terms of his uncle liberating Auschwitz....It was Ohrdruf 40 miles outside of Buchenwald. Big deal he got the camp wrong..long time ago and the uncle is dead.
Gerry we don't always agree but you are 100% correct. They are both rife with false statements. This will be the case from now until November.
To be honest with you I wish Hillary were running again.
Dennis with 4 more years of Obama we may not make it intact until '16.
Let's put some of this girl talk into a statistical perspective. My personal favorite! Politicians bend the truth to get votes. They all do it. In these major elections they tell the truth about 20% of the time.
The labor force participation rate has been dropping since the mid-90s because of the 52 million Americans that have retired. Currently Americans are retiring at the rate of 10 to 20,000 people a day.
Manufacturing and housing have been the main unemployment drivers according to the Dun & Bradstreet monthly business trend reports. Millions have lost jobs in these industries. These industries are slowly coming back and as stated above there are currently nearly 4,000,000 jobs available in the United States if people want them. I live up in Tule Springs. There is construction currently going on everyplace I look. Hundreds of homes are being built and commercial construction is picking up.
I'm not big on politics but looking at the numbers it's likely to play out this way. Intrade currently has Romney running 38% in terms of his chances of being elected. In my view if Romney can take Florida and Ohio he's got it in the bag. If he can't he's got big problems.
Zip: Tule Springs. You mean Floyd Lamb State Park? What an insult to Tule Springs that was(is).
Talk about off topic, eh? Moderators be kind...
Cheers
What Gerry is trying to say is that you should ignore the fact that our economy is growing at an estimated annual rate of 2.0% of GDP when we need a growth rate of 3.2% just to supply enough jobs for new entrants into the job market. See the table A-1 link below. What Gerry wants you to ignore is the 12,500,000 million currently looking for work. In 2007, we had 146,047,000 Americans working and now we have 141,865,000 Americans working. Gerry wants you to feel good about that. He would also like you to ignore the fact that our average yearly federal tax revenue collected during the last 50 years is 18% of GDP. With fewer people employed now its estimated to be 14.5%. Our government spending is around 24% of GDP, approx a $1.3 trillion deficit gap. But, hey.....life is good! Not to worry!
http://bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
The author is complaining about Obama but he needs to ask, is Mitt Romney delusional or just plain crazy? He claims he knows how to create jobs, but while governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007) the state declined in job growth from thirty seventh to forty seventh. Only three states, Ohio and Michigan which suffered the auto industry failure and Louisiana from the effects of Katrina were worse. Romney wrote an op-ed in the N.Y. Times condemning government loans to the auto industry but now claims he saved that industry. He wrote another op-ed in 2009 for USA Today, clearly stating that a mandate was a necessary part of controlling health care costs under a bill he implemented in Massachusetts. He was for raising the minimum wage before he was against it. He supported Planned Parenthood before he opposed it. He defended the right to have abortions and was pro embryonic research, now he is anti abortion. Romney said, "We have a president who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard." Has Mitt Romney forgotten he acquired two degrees while attending Harvard? This is the man who said he wouldn't go after Bin Laden because it was too costly but nows says any president would do so. Remember people, Romney believes we are fighting a cold war against the Soviet Union.
Forget shaking an Etch a Sketch, Mitt Romney can spin faster than a top on steroids in an attempt to appeal to the radical right of his party.
Vernos needs to be honest. The Northeast and in particular the New England region, has not been the growth area of the country. The migration has been to the midwest and southwest states for the last 20 years. Consequently, job growth will be higher in the midwest and southwest.
Gerry states "The labor force participation rate has been dropping since the mid-90s because of the 52 million Americans that have retired."
Gerry, when you get a second, please see the link below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's the Labor Force Participation Rate table. At the top of the page, enter under "Change Output Options" the "from" to the year "1990" then press the "Go" button on the screen. In 1995, the participation rate was 66%(66.8%) in January. Now look at the year 2008. The participation rate continued to be 66%(66.2% in January) all the way through August of 2008. Based on this data, can you please explain where you derive your premise that "the labor force participation rate has been dropping since the mid-90s"? Clearly, the participation rate did not drop from the mid 90's to 2008. Please explain. Thanks!
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS113000...
The Obama bumper sticker reads GM is alive but at what cost - directly $114 billion from the Feds
- $61 billion was TARP money
- $45 billion was provide by the IRS as a loss credit against future taxes
- $8 billion was gifted from the DOE to develop the Electric Volt
Indirectly hundreds of thousands of employees were laid off and paid no taxes and got entitlement checks.
- 2600 dealerships were closed
- 17 factories and parts centers were closed
The bankruptcy filing showed $172 billion in debt to Bondholders and $82 billion in assets. Obama wiped out the Bondholders in the settlement
Obama gave GM immunity from future lawsuits for defective product liabilities like punitive damages from a accident.
Obama made the Federal government assume the backing of product liabilities.
Obama virtually gave the Hummer division to China.
The UAW now owns 20% of GM and did not lose anything in work rules
But Future, GM is the No. 1 car maker. I know because the libs have said so right here many times.
BTW, can someone explain to me why all of those dealerships had to close? Same for Chrysler dealerships. It is not like the car manufacturers were somehow subsidizing them. Unless I am mistaking GM or Chrysler should benefit by having more dealerships. But, some have said that this is politically motivated because a majority of them were not Obama backers. That cannot be true can it? Can it?
Dennis I don't care about Bin Laden. He is old news and meant nothing in present day discussions. Yes it would have meant something had Bush done something about him but he did not. That is another item that we can add up to 43's failures.
GM would not be dead and that is the problem you libs seem to cling to. That is what structured bankruptcy is all about. They would still be in business and we would not be on the hook for billions. Your argument about consolidation is BS. If a dealership cannot make it on their own they go BK! It has NOTHING to do with he manufacturers.
Dippy get real there was no combining of GM product and Italy's Chrysler products
Jeep are not sold on the same lot as Gmc, or Buick or Cadillac
Dennis says "john; tell that bs to wall street!" Please tell me what that means! Did Wall Street close those dealerships? No. Did financial instability close those dealerships? No. Obama closed those dealerships. Why can you not realize his failure? How can you continue to support a failure?
Bush was a failure. I admit it. Clinton was not a failure and I also admit that. Yet you and many others continue to support this FOOL and when someone points that out you continue to support him. Dennis I am sorry but that just makes you look the fool as well.
Cheers.
Ref.. Using your graph which I believe is the same as my graph and changing the date to 1990. The labor force participation rates peaked in the 1990s and have been declining ever since. As I see it the rate has dropped from about 67% to about 64% today. Maybe I'm missing something.
Regarding your other points I'm not asking Americans to feel good about anything. The country is growing old, people are retiring, our birthrate is at an all-time low and this will put a drag on economic growth going forward. Keep in mind when you look at the average 3.2% post-World War II GDP growth there were years where we had economic growth in the 15% range. We didn't have competition from Asia, Europe and India. Plus we had a very young population.
In terms of 12.5 million Americans looking for work. Baloney! The frictional or average unemployment rate in the post-World War II years is about 5%. That accounts for over 7 million people. In addition as stated above there are currently close to 4 million job openings. When you factor in the normal unemployment rate and jobs that are available that leaves about 3 to 4,000,000 people that legitimately need work and can't find it. Much of this is in construction as I have also stated above.
I'm not saying any of this is good or bad. It's just the way it is. Every country in the industrialized world is trying to deal with the headaches of having to care for aging populations.
A bigger concern of mine is not the absolute growth rate in the economy or the current unemployment rate. These things will level out over time. The number of people who are working who also need government assistance to make ends meet is a bigger concern. This country doesn't create high-paying jobs anymore except in a handful of industries. Medical costs, education costs, housing costs in many areas of the country have exploded to the point where upward mobility has become nearly impossible.
A couple days in the hospital cost more than a house. A good college is $50,000 a year plus, and in some instances homes on the East and West Coast cost millions. Try to be the $50,000 median income family, pay for all of these things and fund retirement.
I can't wait to see Obama and Romney squirm when they try to explain how to correct these gross imbalances. Half the country can come up with a grand.
We've had the real Obama since he took office, that's why he's getting booted.
Gerry,
Honestly, I have no idea how you can look at the BLS Labor Force Participation Rate table and claim a decline since 1995. I'm sorry but when in January 1995 the rate is 66% then in January 2008 it's still 66% that is not a decline.
Gerry, you ignore those who are frustrated and stopped searching for work. In 190-81, the participation rate dropped to 63.8% due to the severe recession. People got frustrated and stopped looking for work. As the the economy got better, those frustrated job seekers started looking for work which caused the participation rate to go back up to 66%. Today, the participation rate has dropped to 63.6% which means millions of Americans have stopped looking for work and are not recorded just like in the early 80's as noted above. What you're attempting to do is claim it's due to retirement. You tried to suggest a retirement trend line since the mid-90's has caused a drop in the labor participation rate but I clearly showed you that premise is false. The number of new job entrants into the job market is approximately 180,000 per month. What has happened is that job seekers recorded by BLS have stopped looking and is estimated to be 10 million Americans. The current jobless rate is 12.5 million Americans recorded by BLS. The estimated jobless Americans is actually between 15 to 22 million. Why? Because you have to account for those who stopped looking for work due to frustration. You claim these people do not exist. We have 17% fewer tax filers and tax revenue is down 23%. That does not equate to only 4-5 million people out of work.
Never believe what he says! Obama walks the slippery slope of intentionally misleading the citizens. He does this consistently. Obama is a well oiled mouth of misleading statements. There is no reason to rely on his statements--follow his actions,not his words. Calculating and immature are his actions. Entrenched liberals are tone deaf for the most part. They wallow in the koolaid of Obama, having no alternative to look to in their poliical quest--that's a shame.
Over the last 30 years or so the middle class has been taking a financial pounding, losing income while the fat cats got fatter. Our economy shifted from manufacturing to banking. American manufacturing lost 40,000 plants in 2008 with hundreds of thousands on the unemployment line. At that time the six largest banks controlled 60% of the American economy. Since the election of Obama we've gained a little over 4 million jobs but the "too big to fail" got bigger. Now five American banks controll about 57% of the economy.
Does anyone else see the economy tanking in the near future leaving the middle class to bail out banking again?
Vernos,
You mention stats but fail to link an argument to any. Are you saying that if Obama were to get his tax wish by moving tax rates on the top 1%, who make 17% of total US income, that the $4 billion per year from the top wage earners will somehow float into everyone else's pocket? Divide $4 billion(4,000 million) by 140 million workers and the result is just a few dollars for everyone. Prove that those stats somehow are caused directly by top wage earners.
"Since the election of Obama we've gained a little over 4 million jobs but the "too big to fail" got bigger."
Vernos,
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2009, we had 139,877,000 employed compared to 141,865,000 today which is a difference 1,988,000, not quite 2 million. Where are you getting 4 million?
http://bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
We have to agree to disagree on labor participation. In terms of your 22 million jobless number. It has taken almost 20 years to increase the workforce from 135 to 155 million. I don't know how long it will take to get to 175 million but I doubt I will live to see it. I am 56.
In terms of the tax on the rich. It's a joke. It wouldn't cover those retiring in the next few days.
Wealth creation by generating paper is a huge problem. I was involved In years of litigation with Schwab over this issue. 516 trillion in derivatives going out 75 years is causing nothing but problems and severe losses across the board.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/emps...
That's where the 4 million comes from.
You can have job creation and at the same time have a shrinking labor force due to demographics. The Japanese people are going extinct. Their labor force is going to shrink over the next several hundred years if they don't start having lots of kids. Yet every year the Japanese industrial machine creates a lot of jobs.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics tabulates their data they have many filters that factor in people coming into the labor force, people leaving the labor force, death and other variables. There are a lot of jobs being created but the numbers of people retiring dwarf the job creation.
With the endless attacks on immigration you're going to see countless job openings in the food sector and no one to fill them because we are all to old to pick lettuce for a few bucks a day.
RefNv, You forgot to include the illegal's
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/lab...
The above is going to be a massive problem countrywide for people that want affordable food.
Gerry,
Your link was a PDF file of the month to month comparison of job data from March to April. It did not reference anything about the 4 million jobs Vernos is referencing. His 4 million number must be job adds but not net jobs, the plus and minus of created and lost jobs. By this measure then Reagan added 18 million jobs during his two terms in office. If Obama gets a second term then at this pace he would add 8 million jobs to Reagan's 18 million.
Yes, Gerry, we agree to disagree. In August 2008, the labor participation rate was 66% and had been at 66% for the previous 14 years up until then. All of a sudden, you claim that 7 million people suddenly retired after August 2008 bringing the labor participation rate to 63.6% which is just not correct. In 2008 we had 233 million people age 16 and older available to work in the labor force and now we have 242 million, an increase of 11 million. Actual people working in 2008 was 145 million and today its 141 million. More people available to work yet less people actually working means those frustrated jobs searchers have stopped searching until the job market gets better. We have 17% fewer tax filers and tax revenue is down 23%. That does not equate to only 4-5 million people out of work as you suggest. Again, we agree to disagree. Larry Kudlow, the host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report acknowledges this point as well stating:
"Bizarrely, some 25 million people have vanished from the labor force -- from unemployment, underemployment, or simply dropping out all together. And half of U.S. households are now on some form of federal-transfer-payment assistance."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...
Clarence......
The real Obama already stood up.
President Obama already got Bin Laden, already
saved GM and Chrysler, already created over 4
million new jobs, already passed better health
care for Americans and is now standing up for the
equality of all Americans.
AND HE SAVED US FROM THE BUSH DEPRESSION.
President Obama is already better than any
republican on the face of the earth.
And republicans want Romney, who likes to fire
people, cut fellow students hair off and ties
his family dog to the roof of his car?
Romney will lose BIG TIME.
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
John, You wrote this:
"Mark I have been meaning to ask you. Do you spend your entire day looking down your nose at people or is it just the posters on the Sun and the RJ?"
Why no John I don't. It is just that most of what people write is either wrong on the facts, context, or banal and boring. Take the back and forth about lying for instance. All humans lie but what the lies are intended to do is the more interesting point. Until you begin to understand that conservatives tend to lie in service to selfish ends that rest on a fantasy of self sufficiency while liberals are more likely to lie to help others the argument is rife with incomprehension.
BETTY WHITE INDORSES PRESIDENT OBAMA!
Betty White rocks.
Romney is toast.
Ref...nothing you are putting on the board substantiates anything you are saying but great try.
The Philly Fed does a great deal of work on the employment situation. A report they put out last year states if job creation gets back to pre recession levels it will take nearly 12 years to achieve 5% unemployment if even possible.
Kudlow was one of the guys tasked by Reagan to deal with future baby boomer retirements. He did a great job. Call him and ask him about his love for Vodka in those days. He is a right wing ideolog and drunk.
Kudlow was working on the baby boomers when I was working on medical. We both failed miserably.
http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm
Reagan had his share of headaches his first firm. Without multiple wars, aging people and half the country getting assistance.
Gerry,
You're claiming a great phenomena. Go 16 years at 66% labor participation rate then suddenly, in August 2008, the labor participation rate starts to drop going to 63% today due to 7 million people retiring AND all this with 11 million more people of eligible age for the workforce. We go from 233 million eligible aged workers in 2008 to 242 million now, an increase of 11 million.
We go from 146 million actually working to 141 million, a decrease of 5 million. And you claim the drop in the participation labor rate to 63% from 66%, which coincides with our recession, is due to retirements. Simply put, the drop in the participation rate is due to frustrated workers leaving the workforce.
Jeffrey Klein of The examiner:
" even though the unemployment rate dropped 10 basis points from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent, it is only because so many tired and frustrated Americans left the labor force, thereby reducing the BLS labor participation rate to 63.6 percent, which according to an Associated Press article today is its lowest point in 30 years.
The accurate measure of the true unemployment rate would be 14.5 percent, which does include the 12.5 million workers who remain unemployed or underemployed in the U.S."
http://www.examiner.com/article/bureau-o...
"Romney is toast."
Sure hope you like toast because that's what you're getting after Nov 2012: Romney and alot of him.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Obama is a pr creation, nothing more. He will read whatever comes across the teleprompter. He is not an independent agent but instead little more than the front man for International Banking interests.
The rub comes in when people fail to realize most of the Press is owned by these very same entities. Thus they fool you into believing Obama is not what your gut tells you he is. There is actual reality and the made-up one most people are convinced is real. People are so lost in their heads now they demand the Lies. They have no interest really in the Truth. People demand the abuse continue.
Jim,
What is your source for this assertion:
"The point is that the economy is in worse shape than liberals are willing to admit."
Given your hyperbole in the past why should readers believe you now?