Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ruh Roh

Posted 1 year ago on April 8, 2013, 4:58 p.m. EST by Nationwide (-93)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Obama Administration tells us that the unemployment rate has declined from a peak of 10.0% all the way down to 7.6%. And they tell us that in March the unemployment rate fell by 0.1% even though only 88,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy. But it takes at least 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So how in the world are they coming up with these numbers? Well, the reality is that the entire decline in the unemployment rate over the past three years can be accounted for by the reduction in size of the labor force.

In other words, the Obama administration is getting unemployment to go down by pretending that millions upon millions of unemployed Americans simply do not want jobs anymore. We saw this once again in March. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 600,000 Americans dropped out of the labor market during that month alone. That pushed the labor force participation rate down to 63.3%, which is the lowest it has been in more than 30 years.

If things were getting better, there would not be more than 101 million working age Americans without a job.

157 Comments

157 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are a fukin idiot. YOu are clearly taking your 63.3% out of the population as a whole - which means you expect every child in America should both WANT and HAVE a job.

fukin R.E.P.E.L.I.C.A.N.S.

End the sequester and see how many jobs we add.

I hate lyin partisan hacks.

[-] 3 points by grapes (2652) 1 year ago

Does payment of unemployment insurance explain why people are unemployed? Now that people have lost their unemployment insurance payments, we have 'lowered' unemployment. Yea! It works like a charm -- it just takes imagination for a new creative perspective.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

the real number is 90 million.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is not what I get, even when the entire sum of college kids are added back in.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its based off of the BLS. The labor force is around 220 million I believe.

Voting for Dems and Reps for around 100 yrs straight will go down as the dumbest and most apathetic display of democracy the world has ever seen.

From 1st to worst faster than any nation on the planet, and still begging the very same two companies to save us.

[+] -4 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Nice language. The percentage has been calculated the same way for years and now that you point it out that we have less children now, the results are even worse than first thought.

You have gotten everything you wanted. I thought the increase in tax rates was suppose to fix everything. Now it is the sequester. Please learn economics and forget your zany ideas.

[-] 6 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

You have gotten everything you wanted.....

  • I assume you are talking about the jobless ... and those who are trying to help the middle class recover...
  • I find it very unfair to bail out the upper class... while abandoning all efforts to help the remaining 95+%.... don't you ?
  • the original plan was to bail out the banks and in return the banks would invest in rebuilding our industries....
  • yet instead ... once the banks recovered... they used their new profits to give themselves bonuses.... and take the rest overseas....
  • do you see that as right ?
  • do you not see that that type of actions will force the country to centralize banking? .....
  • how long do you really think that any of the wallst banks could survive if they didn't have access to virtually free money from the US ?
  • the only thing they know how to do anymore is organize schemes that rob from those unconnected... not very impressive .... disagree ?
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Who do you think "nationwide"is? I mean their main ID?

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

I am and was completely against the bailouts. I think they all should have gone into reorganization. The only way to help people is get them a livelihood and we need growth. This does not come from govt spending.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Bailing out the top while cutting services to the bottom is perhaps one of the sickest things this country has done in the last 50 years - or up until dropping two nukes on Japan.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

From an economics point of view federal revenues are quite low as a percentage of GDP, an adjustment to revenues would seem to be in order.

Low income wage earners have been carrying the federal government for the past couple of decades as Congress issued bonds and spent the Trust Funds to avoid letting the American people know how much the tax cuts were costing our children and grandchildren. Now that it is time to cash in those bonds some would tell us there's no money to do so, perhaps we should tell that to private trust funds holding government bonds first, as they have more to fall back on, socioeconomically speaking I mean.

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Revenue as a percent of GDP is below the historical mean but this dependent on growth not tax rates as the number has been remarkably constant through history.

I am not sure how you can make your second statement as since 1980, the top group of income earners are paying a larger and larger share of the budget. The big change over the past 10 years is that more and more people are paying no federal income tax.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Top income people pay far less to the federal government than the percentage of the country they own, the top 5% own about 80% as I recall and pay in much less than 50%, because payroll counts too after all we do have an entitlements problem don't we? So that old trick of talking just about income taxes then telling us it's an entitlement problem don't work if you look at all revenue the wealthy pay very little compared to what they own.

For the past few decades the federal government has levied a low income tax and a high payroll tax causing the working class to carry the wealthy.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Whoa, are we discussing income or wealth?

The top 1% earned 22% of the national income and paid 40% of the Federal tax revenue.

Wealth is completely different than income as the money used to purchase wealth is after tax money.

Are you discussing the full payroll tax that the employee pays, the employer or both? The employee payroll tax is much lower than the income tax.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Oh and "Federal tax revenue" includes payroll tax but your numbers don't.

Or do we not have an "entitlement" problem after all?

Do you have any ideal how many people are being 1099'd in this economy?

People are getting 1099s for customer service like making appoints and collecting money for Christ's sake.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Well if you own a business among a few people and there';s an expense you share that according to how much of the business you own, so yes I'm talking wealth or in other words How much of the country do you own and are you paying your fair share?

Most people pay most of the money they send to Washington through the payroll tax.

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

When you own a business and you receive $10 of revenue and have $9 of expenses then there is $1 of profit which is distributed to the shareholders (assuming a simple pass through corp) and then they pay taxes as that money is considered income. That money is not wealth. You could then take the $1 (or .45 cents after tax) and reinvest back into the company by buying shares. What you own is considered wealth.

An employee's payroll tax just increased to 6.2% which is matched by the employer. I don't know what you are paying in income tax but I would love 6.2%.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So you never heard of the concept that all labor costs are born by the worker? How about 1099s have you heard of them? How much remedial economics do I need to go over with you? You do know that if Romney had not paid more than he had too in the years he showed us his effective tax rate would have been less than 5%.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

So employer's don't pay any labor costs?

The cost to hire an employee is born by the employer. When the cost goes up, less workers are hired. I am not sure what point you are making with 1099's.

What's the issue with Romney. He is deferring his income via investments and donating a lot of money so what's wrong with that?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

OK so you have worked in this economy lately? been at the same place for a while? or retire? well that's fine, people got lives, 1099s are the new way to make the employee pay the full cost of Social Security tax, lots of small business people doing that now, and yes the workers do the work and create the wealth, that's why it's called management, all goods come from those that toil, most of the bosses were born that way these days.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

No doubting that there are more 1099 filers. They are now the employers.

If the workers create the wealth and know how to do it then why don't they start their own businesses?

By the way, nice tax rate by your man in the White House. Romney gives back to society and takes care of people while Obama doesn't.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney gives back? Obama gave a third to charity and it wasn't a kick back to his Church when he did it either, talk about a scam, no tax deduction for giving money money to people to spread your version of mythology that's an outrage.

[-] 1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

The outrage is you would even question Romney. I am sure if I compare his accomplishments to yours there would be no contest. Obama has employed nobody. He has lived off affirmative action.

It's a scam to give to your church? So your an atheist. This country was founded by god fearing people. Take your immoral attitude and get out.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney did a good job picking his parents, and has added a little to his money pile, over his lifetime, with a bit better start he has put away about half of what Gore has over the past 12 years, not bad, considering my start in life, I would wager I've done much better than either of them though, but I was born well too, in my way. The thing I don't understand is why should I pay more in tax so you can tell people about how the number of wives God gave you once reflected His love, but now it don't.

[-] 0 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

romney... made ALL his money by buying up businesses .... forcing them into bankruptcy .... firing All the employees ...and selling off the remaining assets..... a Real Leader

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim (-17) 1 year ago

Take a look at Obama's returns before he became prez. He was not nearly so generous. Only when he realized his taxes were now public did he crank up the giving. Hell, the amount he gave to charity was less than 1 hour of flight time on his taxpayer funded pleasure aircraft. Last 2 years he made TWO round trips to Hawaii (about 18 hrs rt @ $180k/hr.)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Hey sounds like you have something to say about how rich people spend their money, I do too, take a look:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-we-give-them-a-lower-tax-rate-dont-we-have-a-ri/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

They have the death penalty in FL don't they? Zimmerman can get justice when they stick a needle in his arm.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I just did the math, fukwad, and I came up with 65 million. That is based on

you fukin scumbag right wing lyin hacks contort all over the global stage to bend shit to your will and I hate you bastards. YOur day is coming to a close.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Who do you think "nationwide"is? I mean their main ID?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm sure there are several running around playin characters from both sides and I really just don't give a shit

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Colonel Saunders.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

so teens and 20 somethings don't work?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Of course they do, as do some among the elderly. Generally it may be said that employment among these groups tends to be optional. And it should be optional.

This of course does not always mean that it is optional.

And indeed, there are those today, who would make it MANDATORY that even the elderly be remanded to the cold, cruel shackles of wage slavery.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

101 million seemed a bit high. 65 million seems about right.

Its still pretty alarming though.

[-] -3 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Free market policies are in place In more than half of the states. And they are the ones growing.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

can you prove that? Why don't you prove that . . . .

and after you do let us examine in depth precisely what kinds of EXTERNALITIES await . . . like the next BP BLOWOUT

you lyin fuks really piss me off . . .

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Sure. Republicans are governors of 27 states right now. The unemployment rate in those states are lower than the Democratic controlled ones. The best example of this is Texas vs California or MY.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

what a crock of shit. here's a list of the top ten which suggests that this issue goes way beyond who is governor.

here's a list of the ten states with the worst pollution

here's one with the worst air quality

now go count your repelican constituents you fukwad

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

This is so much fun because it is so easy. You guys on this board really need to start reading. From CNN:

A quick check of the governors' party affiliations shows 29 states with GOP governors, 20 states with Democratic governors, and one state headed by an independent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' preliminary, seasonally adjusted data for July 2012, 7.84% of the civilian labor in the 29 states with Republican governors were unemployed (6,680,400 out of 85,155,600).

The same data set shows that 8.77% of the 20 states with Democratic governors were unemployed (6,032,500 out of 68,792,500). The national unemployment rate was 8.3%.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

if it's easy... maybe u ain't getting it ....

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

really - you ignorant fuk - so you presume that this data indicates the governorship is the cause of the unemployment rate

  • RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC RESPONSE

how interesting

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Go ahead, run a regression, I have.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

How to get out of the current Great Depression

Before you can do any of these things you will need public campaign financing so that Congress actually reflects the will of the people. State government would need the same. A Constitutional Amendment could enforce this at all levels and guarantee the right to vote.

1 - Immediately raise the minimum wage to the level set in 1938, adjusted for inflation, about $11/hour. Over the next five years raise it to reflect real worker productivity of about $22/hour. Increase all government benefits to reflect the true cost living. Repeal all 'right to work' laws.

2 - Ramp up infrastructure spending until we reach full employment.

3 - Reinstate tariffs on anything we still make here and gradually reintroduce them on everything else.

4 - Make all higher education free and forgive all outstanding loans.

5 - Nationalize the Federal Reserve & seize all the 'too big to fail' banks. Establish a plan to replace all commercial banks with credit unions.

6 - Begin enforcing anti-trust laws. No national chain stores, period. No conglomerate companies. Make 80% of what Wall Street does illegal. Ban retirement money from being 'invested' in Wall Street Ponzi markets.

7 - Ban 'for profit' energy production. Put big Agri-business companies out of business. Introduce land reform and government support of small sustainable farming operations. Require farmers to join organized price contracting groups and put real teeth in them.

8 - A one time wealth tax on estates over a billion dollars. Reinstate inheritance taxes. Ban paying CEOs in stock, require boards to include workers.

There are a lot of other things to be done of course, but a real Congress that is elected by the people, not by lobbyists and big money donors could easily tackle these problems. When enough people know what the real questions are, then we can get real answers. http://www.prairie2.com/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And SPECIFICALLY how would YOU create more jobs?
Obviously, we need to cut taxes for job creators like bain capital and nra lobbies.
What else would you suggest?

[-] 1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Very simple. The Fed needs to come out and state what their process for money creation is be it a price rule, constant growth or the more recent GDP targeting. This would eliminate all of the currency games.

The best system would be to flatten the tax code, eliminate or cap all deductions and treat all income, w2, dividend, corporate, and cap gains the same. This would eliminate the corp subsidies, the NRA, the private equity and hedge funds but alas this will not happen.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

alec & koch want a flat tax

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They want things to stay right as they are: 76k pages of loopholes.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

So. Do you want to help people or wage an idealist war.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Nationwide, I used to also believe that a flat tax would be an easy fix....

  • but honestly I kindda now believe that the greed has become so in-festered... and the real demand for new job opportunities world wide has become so great....
  • that we really need a new, more modern, & younger system....
  • one that takes the best from all systems... whether capitalistic, socialistic... communal... or whatever
[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

3000 years of experience is hard to refute. There is no new paradigm.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

There is no new paradigm.

well... stop fucking off... and help us build one

[-] 2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

It's coming. Follow the discussion on GDP targeting as a rule for monetary policy.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The foxes aren't going to lock themselves out of the hen house on their own. It's up to us to install the lock.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

What jobs??

Really. What jobs?

You did gloss over that whole sequester thing too.

Just glossed it "right" over like it didn't matter.

[-] 1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

That's the point, there are no jobs.

The sequester will help us as it will send a great message to investors that there are sane people in Congress that will limit spending. There is still concern over the tax side and people are nervous.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are a goddamned LIAR.

Jobs numbers were steadily IMPROVING until the sequester kicked in. NOW they will STAGNATE.

You fuking morons should all be lined up and shot. You can't even read a goddamned newspaper and discover what day it is. YOur kind are a burden and a drag on the economy as a whole.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Sorry Charlie. The sequester lay offs don't actually take effect until 30 days after. The truth is that the rate of job growth has been anemic. Why? This is your economy. You got your tax increase, healthcare, more regulation...

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

fuk you it isn't my economy, for if it were there would be no sequestration, the buying and selling of wealth as if it were any other commodity would be taxed the banking system would become nationalized the conservative wing of the Supreme Court would resign or be shot - not literally of course, but rather accidents and ill health would prevail . . .

I'm sure you get the picture - my economy would look much different.

And the only reason you can get away with downplaying the impact of sequestration on hiring is because the conservative movement is more than ready to push back against any credible analyst who dares draw conclusions on the jobs numbers from March compared with several previous months in light of sequestration.

But the plain fact is repelican scum have engaged in a concerted effort to sabotage economic jobs growth ever since the President was elected - creating phoney TARP fears, refusing to raise the debt ceiling, refusing to deal with the debt in a practical, realistic, and historical manner.

The fukers lie and then expect respect and negotiation when in fact there will be no negotiation

only more sabotage of the American economy

and the bastards should be rounded up and shot

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Your man in the WH has had every chance to get his plans passed and he can't do it. He doesn't know what to do. You can't accept the facts that economies have to grow and government spending doesn't work. You can throw all of the profanities around that you want and get angrier but it doesn't change the facts. Your far out ideas don't work.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

read your history you dumbfuk. the middle class saw unprecedented expansion in the wake of WWII when TAX RATES WERE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

And at the end of the war there was no other manufacturing competition. What happened as ssinclair as German and Japanese providers came back on line?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are sssssttttuttttering - what's your point? that you are nervous? ONe potential solution: DON'T LIE SO MUCH

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Oh my you are so funny. Do you honestly believe that I get nervous by a weak bully like yourself. You can't debate a point so you resort to vulgarity and name calling. Reminds me of Obama.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Most of 'em went away during the Bush administration.

The sequester has fucked us.

It's actually killing people.

So fuck your bullshit.

People are nervous about feeding themselves and having a life.

So TAX the fuck out the people that are and have been ripping us off and shipping out jobs over seas.

WALLSTREET!!!

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

So the federal budget is $3.6 Trillion a year (or $3,600 Billion). The sequester cuts are $88 Billion this year.

That's LESS THAN a 1/36 cut in federal spending and it's killing people? Really?

My God man. T H I N K for yourself.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Yes, the sequester WILL KILL people.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/americans-for-prosperity-sequestration-will-help-e/

Try and keep up if you're going to pretend to be thinking for yourself.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Yes it will. So will voting in either of the war parties.

So I guess both of you two knuckleheads are guilty.

Obama and Romney supporters duking it out, while the entire thing goes to shit.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Being political, insulting and changing subjects, yet again??

That's your MO alright.

While we're changing subjects.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/08/people-are-being-physically-beaten-so-we-can-save-money-at-walmart/

BTW, buying stuff from the Kochs makes you a warmonger too.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You sound like Republicans that tell me driving a car means you are against the environment. Dumb and desperate.

Deal with it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

another subject change???

While you pretend you're not a house flipper who buys stuff from the Kochs???

While we're changing subjects, here's another issue your good friends the (R)epelican'ts created.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/08/1834261/mentally-ill-americans-medicaid/

They emptied out most of the State run facilities years ago, Reagan liked the idea, so Engler did it.

Which one did that in Florida?.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You're a mess dude.

One war loving hack arguing with anther sequester loving hack.

Exposing hypocrites is a full time job with you.

" I'm not running for anything, but if Murdock wants to give me some cash, I'll take it."

You are disgusting. Go vote for more war, more zionism and more globalism. They will hire you in a second.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Oh boy an insult!!!!!

You're the WAR loving hack that posts from the John Birch Society.

You bitch at me and ignore ALEC, Haliburton, Carlisle Group and so many, many more.

You are the ultimate political hack in fact.

You like the Kochs, for their wonderful products that help you flip houses.

Where were you in the days around here when your friends were blaming the crash on house flippers??

Oh yeah. You were bitching about the RNC not picking Ron Paul.

You really are disgusting all around disgusting.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

??? Go drink your Metamucil, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

You've created fairy tale in your head, and chased off god only knows how many people who were looking for something a bit deeper than DailyKos.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

You mean like stuff from brietbart?

Like you post?

Or is it the stuff from the John Birch society??

Alex Jones perhaps?

You never did say what you think he is unassailable on, and you did say that he has important stuff on his site. Or did you forget you said that too.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Keep reaching you angry old bastard. That keyboard likes the abuse.

Some of us are active, some are just angry.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Still being insulting? It's all you've even had.

Besides, you did post that shit and you did say that.

So I guess it's you who's an angry something or other.

[-] -3 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Why are you sending me that link, cut and paste queen? It does nothing to refute my position that the sequester will kill no one.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Yes it will.

You just have to actually read what 's in the link.

Are you afraid?

Chicken perhaps?

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

Read it, there's nothing there. Get a clue.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Short reading span then?

I'll hold your tiny little hand, just this one time.

After this, you can go puck a rubber.

And just for your sorry ass?

I'll even give to you from FLAKESnews. There's some things too obvious even for them to lie about.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2013/04/05/cancer-clinics-turning-away-medicare-patients-thanks-sequester

Death by cancer.

[-] -2 points by eviltrillionaire (-146) 1 year ago

How is medicare affected when BY YOUR SIDE'S OWN MANTRA, medicare isn't in the GENERAL FUND ?????????????????????

[-] 2 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

You're still not READING.

But I'm done holding your teeny, tiny little hand.

Read some more and don't post another thing until you do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/03/cancer-clinics-are-turning-away-thousands-of-medicare-patients-blame-the-sequester/

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/04/1819811/sequestration-cancer-clinics/

http://ehrintelligence.com/2013/04/08/cancer-clinics-denying-medicare-patients-due-to-sequester/

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/297447.html

Since I know you won't actually read any of it, that means I should never again see any posts from you.

Have a nice day...................:)

[-] -2 points by RwOrn (-290) from Berkeley, CA 1 year ago

the dems have their mantra, and they're sticking to it.

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

5 years under Obama and things are not getting better. Take your looney ideas and put them in the trash. They are not working.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

It takes an economy 10 years to recover from a banking crisis. Every recovery on record has been led by a strengthening of the housing sector. This crash was the housing sector. Suck on it dumbass.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Not when they are further deregulating and consolidating it doesnt. It just doesnt happen.

And its getting worse.

MFGlobal, LIBOR, JP White Whale, Unlimited Bailouts, etc... Its happening more and there is nothing being done about it.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Brown-Vitter 99-0. Bernanke agreed with Warren that Wall Street banks are a problem. Holder admits the banks are too big to prosecute. Fed Pres. Fisher spoke at CPAC that TBTF banks should be broken up.

The bank lobbyists are reacting. They smell it in the air. They wouldn't be reacting if they weren't worried.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Obviously they are worried, the entire thing is collapsing. Only a fool would not be worried at this point.

Worrying isnt a substitute for action, though, I think we both agree on this.

As it further breaks down, look for the holy trifecta of the Fed, Wall St and DC to get even more attacking.

Attacks and finger pointing will increase, but action wont, because in the end they will be fine, and it will be people like those on this forum that get the shit at the bottom of the hill.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I hear ya. But the Fed is getting more vocal against Wall Street. Fisher has been at it for years. Now he's taking it to CPAC. Of all places. Now Brown has some bipartisan support for something he's wanted since Dodd Frank. Which Dems were wary of at the time and Republican's were going apeshit against. I'm not saying it's enough. It takes time to build support. I think LIBOR and the Whale scandal contributed.

Most Republicans in the House are Tea Shitty Libertarian's now though. So they'll be all - let the free market take care of it.

Quite frankly, I think the Fed is getting more vocal against Wall Street because they know they can't keep subsidizing them like the welfare queens they've become, given that the money is not finding it's way into the productive economy as the Fed intended. However cozy the Fed and Wall Street may be, at some point it must become mano a mano. The only way to save their skin is to throw Wall Street under the bus.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont hear any of them making noise about the bailouts though, which is central planning at its worst.

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/goldman/adbusters-tactical-briefing-42.html

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Sorry about that. I wrote another paragraph after my reply so we probably crossed paths.

Look. The bailouts are past history. It's done and over. I'm not sure your point.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Since September, they have doubled it to 85Billion a month. Its about to get bigger by the end of the summer.

Unlimited bailouts. Thats the response to us chanting week after week about "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/13/fed-announces-unlimited-qe3

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

What did you expect? Instant gratification? Because some people got a little noisy in the street one time? I don't think it works that way.

Another way to look at it - it's a testament to our social safety net that change may take longer than it otherwise might. If more people were starving and living in the streets. If there were no foodstamps, unemployment insurance, housing assistance. It's a tradeoff.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Anyone who thinks that these huge issues like banking will simply self regulate themselves is out of their mind. Im all for making the SEC a democratically elected body. Although Im not sure the public would do much better than that than they do with other elections.

I wasnt expecting instant gratification but I wasnt expecting such a blatant slap in the face either.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Those are two very good points. All though I think "their" goal is not a safety net, to bounce people back up, but a net to keep em down.

Horribly racist people run this country.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

The goal of current Republican's, who aren't Republican's at all, but economic Libertarian's, is no safety net at all. Ayn Rand is their economic Jesus.

Not saying racism isn't a problem. Not saying the Dems are perfect. But Ayn Rand as economic Jesus - is a much bigger problem.

[-] -3 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

This has been the weakest recovery of all financial recoveries. Who is the dumbass?

Housing did not lead the recovery in Canada ten years ago and did not lead the US in the early 90s

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

OMG you're stupid. Read the white papers. Reinhart and Rogoff. Regarded as accurate by the vast majority of economists and academic experts.

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Read Taylor at Stanford. If you are so smart how come your policies aren't working

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

goddamned repelican scum have stalled, delayed, and now sequestered government spending all in a deliberate effort to portray the economy as failing under current leadership which takes much of its economic philosophy as it regards government spending as a whole, from the left.

LIARS

The fukers deny that government spending is a sure method of economic recovery as clearly demonstrated by the massive government spending that underwrote our victory during WWII.

Why?

Because . . .

They are all a bunch of fukin tax cheats . . .

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Great. Our plan is to start a world war

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that's not my plan, fukwad, that is the repelican plan, the PNAC plan, and they launched it over a decade ago - or as near enough to a world war as you can get while still confining the violence itself to a localized geographic area.

I guess you've been asleep for the last ten years

The main difference this time is that there have been no efforts put in play to pay for this global military extravaganza . . . the pnac plan calls for the elimination of all social services and the diversion of these funds to the war effort, and thus no sacrifice on the part of the one percent scum of the earth.

you ignorant, blind, lyin fuk you

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Trenchant - but very informative...about pnac that is. Thanks Zen.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

a bit speculative on my part, I confess - the reality as far as social security is that they have been much more focused on privatization rather than its complete elimination, turning it all over to the stock market, where it may be stolen via hedge funds and derivatives - but as for funding the rest of social services?

From their behavior I think it is clear - and thus quite sound, even if lacking in direct evidence.

Deregulate, defund, and thus eviscerate every function of government that inhibits the flow of wealth from the vast majority, regardless of the consequences.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Ha ha, you are the one saying we need a world war to grow the economy. You have been in office for 5 years and your plan has been implemented and it is not working. Nice language by the way. Are you in high school.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

no I did not say that, fukwad that is simply how you spun what I said. Dizzy yet? All you fukers do is sit'n'spin and fondle your peckers

I'm sure you can read what I said - but in case you missed it . . . .

  • you ignorant, blind, lyin fuk you
[-] 2 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

They haven't "done" my idea, so what the hell are you talking about?

Bush FUCKED this country up BAD!!

He even kicked the family dog on his way out the door.

The shit he fucked up, is still in the process of fucking up.

He's now a FUCK UP that paints naked pictures of himself.

Were you really asleep all those years? No one was going to flip a switch and fix all the shit he FUCKED UP.

It will take decades.

Cheney's happy though, as are all his buddies in the munitions industries.

Contracts, you know.

http://www.zcommunications.org/cheneys-halliburton-made-39-5-billion-on-iraq-war-by-angelo-young?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Obama=Obama=Bush=Bush=Clinton=Clinton=BushSr=BushSr=BushSr.

Perhaps the reason Carter only lasted one term was because he wasnt willing to play ball?

We have effectively had 33 years of the same people running the show. And it shows.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Changing subjects AGAIN???????

At least there's fewer insults.

Here some of that smaller is better stuff for you.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15617-seven-state-keystone-xl-resolutions-where-are-the-environmentalists

Yes those tiny insignificant, impossible to corrupt States will see to it the XL gets installed as ALEC has already paid for it.

and they don't give fuck who is the President.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If you had any depth to your views you would realize its an extension of what you said.

You really like standardized testing dont you?

"and they don't give fuck who is the President." Exactly, they are all the same.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Changing subject again??/

Why yes, you are.

HEY!!????

You never did comment on this.

You are after all pro gun.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/09/loaded-gun-on-bed-check-4-year-old-kid-check-another-gun-tragedy-check/

Who should go to prison on this one?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Fuck you. Youre an angry old man behind a computer. Go get a fuckin life or try to help organize something via internet but stop being a pain in the ass to this entire thing.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Fuck me??

You don't have enough money or sense.

You insulting hack.

Yeah right, OWS should adopt John Birch Society positions like YOU do.

Fucking hack.

They should call the 99% asses, like YOU DO.

Fucking insulting hack.

They should ignore what's happening in the States like you do.

Fucking hack.

They should just bitch and insult people incessantly, like you do.

Fucking hack.

and you do community outreach??

Fucking useless hack.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Let er rip, there will be plenty of other thinkers that you chase off in the future too.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

" I'm not running for anything, but if Murdock wants to give me some cash, I'll take it."

This event was about people like you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBxgmEJxHo0

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

I didn't hear that guy quote me out of context.

That's what you do.

Come to think of it, I didn't hear him call the 99% asses either.

So about that stuff on Alex Jones you say is so very true.

What was it?

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Ha Ha, still blaming Bush. Your wacko socialistic ideas don't work and the unemployed of America are paying for you and your rookie president.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Employment fell for all 8 years of Bush'o'mania.

Manufacturing jobs left during all of those years too.

What the fuck do you think folks are going to be employed at now anyway?

Office squatters??

Fuck that.

there's no fucking decent jobs. WallStreet threw them all away during the Bush years.

You might not like it, but.

That's a simple fact.

No one is going to pull a switch and bring them back overnight.

And it's the (R)epeplican'ts that won't let us build anything.

Are you really this stupid?

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Facts: the average unemployment rate for George W Bush two terms was 5.3%. So no, employment did not fall for all 8 years of his term. Where do you guys get this stuff from You are so easy to refute. Come on you guys have to be tougher than this.

Ha Ha, the Republicans won't let you build anything. It's not your money so you don't just get it. That is the way life works. You don't always get what you don't deserve.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Notice I didn't mention"unemployment". A stat that has been easily manipulated over the years.

I said JOBS were leaving and at one point it was sustained at over 700,000 a month, for months on end.

So pull your out of the fucking sand.

Not my money???

Unlike the corporations that whine and cry all the time, I pay my taxes and have for over 40 years.

Teabagge(R)s even raised them 100%, the lying assholes.

I got NOTHING is return. They did it to fund a yet another tax break for corporations.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Are you creating a manufacturing company and hiring those people?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

WallStreet won't loan me the money.

How about you?

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

What are you putting at risk?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Everything.

How about you?

Of course not one thing you've said has negated what I said originally.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Anything of value.

You don't know enough economics or business to know if you have been negated. "Employment fell for all 8 years of Bush'o'mania" Sorry this has been refuted by the same government run by the rookie.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

Sorry your highness.

I watched it happen.

You don't anything about making stuff.

I did it for 40+ years.

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Sorry your highness. I watched it happen. You don't anything about making stuff. I did it for 40+ years.

That's the point, you watched it happen so you didn't take any risk yourself or put anything up. You just wanted a job and your salary and your healthcare. Where do I sign up?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26767) 1 year ago

You'd have to actually work.

I'm thinking that's just not your thing.

You could come to Detroit and try though.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Reduced spending won't correct the root cause. Our economic problems are the result of nearly all of the growth in income going to the top 10% for the past 40 years.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

After the collapse in 2008 the lower 90% lost all of their surplus wealth. The upper 10% lost just a small potion of their surplus wealth. The low and middle class need that surplus to grow the jobs. Because all of the surplus keeps going to the top 10%, job growth is anemic, and the only group that will prosper are the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

The only way to reduce inequality is job growth and the only way to do that is solid fundamentals. U

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

fundamentals? fundamentals?

Your entire economic theory is flawed, the mechanisms specifically designed to funnel even more wealth out of the middle class and into the pockets of the one percent by fraud and deceit are plainly evident and now touted as if they were virtues and somehow fundamental to the economy as a whole . . . .

and you fuckers should have your entire theory of economics rolled into a tight cylinder, and shoved so far up your ass it becomes utterly undeniable any longer . . .

  • your fundamentals are full of shit.
[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

After watching the presidential debates, and any state debates if you could even find one, it should be clear that this entire system is fluff, and needs to be abolished ASAP.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Boy are you beliefs on the fringe. Show me where your zany ideas have worked- Cuba or theISSR.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

The US economy has performed extraordinarily well up to the crisis. This has produced an extraordinary level of prosperity for its people. This has been due to its adherence to a free market system. You have yet to show a country where socialism works.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the U.S. economy in the wake of WWII demonstrates the LIE that is conservative repelican economic policy.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Explain. Are you speaking of 46 or 50?

[-] 4 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm speaking of the entire post WWII era when taxation was far higher than it is today ushering in unprecedented prosperity for the entire country you historically ignorant fuk

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Sure, the poverty rate in 1950 was 30% and 14% under Reagan in 1984.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Which fundamentals?

[-] -3 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

Sound monetary policy, low and fair taxation, and limited regulation to spur growth

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Raise taxes on the wealthy, cut forthe working class, Strong regulations in finance and food, and energy, Invest in education, job training, job creation.

Cut defense budget, cut corp welfare, cut deductions for wealthy.

That is sound economic policy

[-] -2 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

No problem cutting spending as this is putting money back to the people.

History shows that raising taxes will reduce activity so not sure how you think this will help do you believe that government should control all spending?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

You're wrong. All wealth is not equally productive to the economy. High levels of concentrated wealth bends towards rent seeking behavior and financialization. This is not productive to the economy. In fact, it's destructive. High levels of concentrated wealth also weakens democratic institutions. Resulting in plutocracy. The fact that you don't know this is the key to the plutocrats success. Good job. Plutocrats love your stupidity.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Raising taxes on the wealthy will not reduce activity cause they are sitting on (hoarding) trillions and their spending will not by diminished.

Govt should increase spending on education, job training, job creation.

[-] -3 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

If you raise the price of an asset you will get less of it. You raise the price of work then peopl will work less and spend their time avoiding the tax.

So you believe government should control all spending?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20559) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Sabotage I said - Sabotage of the U.S. economy - no response.

can you PROVE that? and again - no response - I take it that means you cannot.

you fool

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The people should control govt spending through the peoples representatives in the govt, until we implement direct democracy.

Then we can control spending without representatives.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

You didn't answer my question, so you want everybody to work for the government and have it make all of the spending decisions?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"everybody ...work for govt"? Nope. Never said that.

Try again.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

What are you saying then. "Govt should increase spending on education, job training, job creation". So you believe that government needs to spend money to create jobs and they do it better than the private sector. So why wouldn't we have the government do it all then.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Private sector is best at creating jobs. Govt must spend/invest to help private industry do so.

[-] -1 points by Nationwide (-93) 1 year ago

"Private sector is best at creating jobs. Govt must spend/invest to help private industry do so".

If the private sector is the best then what help does the govt give besides taking assets away from the private sector.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Innumerable.