Louis J;

Nice way to end the week. The unemployment rate went down to 9.4% let's see what those that yesterday said it would be 10% have to say today. The 112th Congress only in full session one day and already they have broken at least 2 promises and are now going to score their own bills. The fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.

Any one interested in place a 'friendly' wager on how MANY times we see the 'usual right wingers' that lurk around here trying to take credit for the improved job #'s?

Wait for it.... lol

Constitutional Smorgasbord:

Yesterday, the House controlled Republicans wanted the entire Constitution read aloud for all to hear. I have no problem with that as perhaps we all should be reminded that the Constitution is the foundation of our laws and we are, indeed, a nation of laws.

Republicans have long claimed to be the party that believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but I'm not so sure that claim is still true. Republicans are looking more and more like patrons going through a smorgasbord line. You know, I would like a little of this, but I don't like that. For example:

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) had some constitutional issues with the federal ban on white-only lunch counters. Owners rights were more important than civil rights.

Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK) believes federal education programs, including Pell grants. are unconstitutional. He wants no part of that.

First Amendment language allowing Americans to worship as they please were just fine as long as Muslims are not allowed to build a Mosque near the Twin Towers or in Tennessee.

Fourteenth Amendment allowing all children born on American soil to be American citizens is not favored, especially if the children are born of illegal aliens i.e. Latinos.

Seventeenth Amendment is not liked by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Judge Scalia as it allows voters to elect their own Senators.

Speaking of Scalia, he has said that the Constitution has nothing to say about discrimination against women. You have to wonder if the Constitution is mute about discriminating against men, gays, wealthy bankers, or has discrimination become an acceptable practice?

Then we have the Tenthers who believe that all powers not specifically given to the federal government belongs to the state. Republicans in Texas and Alaska still think states have the right to secede but that was resolved 150 years ago.

While we are at it, conservatives believe as per the Tenth Amendment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are unconstitutional. But the Second Amendment is a conservative favorite. It allows individuals the right to carry guns in public.

Maybe it really is a good idea for all elected Republicans to read the Constitution. Then when they are finished, they need to be told this is not a smorgasbord, you have to eat your spinach as well as your ice cream.

My thoughts exactly but would add...

Children do not listen to their parents and pick and choose thinking the old dog "Cronus" will eat the spinach. HAHA! SMH.

The "old guard" GOP at the end of the table doesn't like the greens any longer, he just wants the Quaker Oats.

Excellent summary Ron...

These 'modern' day Constitutional Conservatives remind me a lot of 'Bluto' - John Belushi at the University cafeteria in Animal House!

'I'm a zit'! lmao

Feisty:

I know the twins will. Besides it was reported that the 9.4% (down from 9.8%) has to do in part with the under reporting from the previous 2 months. So in event, the 9.8% number has been a tad high do to the mis reporting and this number is more of a correction in part. But, it does show when you couple it (connect the dots) with the 17 month increase in Manufacturing, construction increases, one of the best retail seasons in years and the hoarding of 1 Trillion Dollars in cash of the major corporations things are moving forward.

The republicans always try to hope on the bandwagon. They have no new ideas and the ones they have suck as we all know looking back over the last 10 years. So they try to lie their way to the credit.

Remember "figures do not lie, liars figure" and "facts do not lie, liars factor". They will spin it no doubt, but ask them to show the proof of their statements. There is none. The economist of note all give the credit to President Obama's agenda and even say the numbers will be better in 2011. That assumes the
"Obstructionists" stop their gridlock and hostage taking.

Good Morning Feisty:

Thanks for the shout-out. And Navy, please forgive me for cutting in. For some reason the computer did now want to behave this morning and it sure can be frustrating when it decides to misbehave.

Well done, Louis. Yes, President Obama has turned the country around and it is unfortunate that he gets little credit for it. Those who worked in the WH in the early days of the 2008/09 economic crisis, said that by preventing a second great depression, they would be graded a "C" for "A" work. I think that is exactly what we have seen.

Ron:

You summed it up better than I ever could. Great weekender.

The only cuts the republican/tea party are interested in are those to the Middle Class programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Education, Science, Infrastructure Programs, Teachers, Retirement and Disability benefits to Civil Servants, Coast Guard and the Military. All programs for the Middle Class.

With no outside validation on the costs of bills (GOP will not let CBO score them, they are going to do it themselves) I bet the deficit goes through the roof, just like when Bush hid cost in his administration. Year from now they may come to light. Hard telling.

Feisty: My bet is that they will tell us why the unemployment drop is actually BAD news.

I am trying to come to understand the rationale of those who belittle the ideas of those they oppose. What ever happened to reasoned dialogue?

What purpose is served by demeaning those with different ideas than your own? Does it actually advance your argument to refer to people as "tenthers", when those people are pointing to the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution? It was put there for a reason, and, yes, that reason was to put a brake on the power of the federal government.

I will admit that, while I have not yet solidified my opinion of repealing the fourteenth amendment, (though I am inclined toward leaving it as is), I was interested to learn that its original intention was to protect the rights of freed slaves. Is it germane to today's discussion? Maybe not, but when is a history lesson ever useless?

We are all given to snark at times, and certainly lose patience with the perception of intransigence from the "other side", but we can all learn something from reasoned argument- even if it does not change our positions.

LouisJ

I'm sure all the media will report the authenticity of Republican desire to understand the Constitution as genuine empathy of the American public. I would go so far as to say that the media will make an argument of amending the Constitution as a needed "change" thus further emboldening the Republican battle cries of a country the TEA party no longer recognizes.

LouisJ

I appreciate your efforts to expose the corporate media and its proclivity to succumb to their retarded notions that advance that the 2010 midterms were a mandate against President and his imaginary huge deficit. However, I'd rather we don't feed the trolls.

Right wing media wants to say any and everything about the President without consequences. Birthers and rabid right wingers have this stereotypical concept of blacks being more morally corrupt, uneducated, lawbreakers, lazy and receiptentss of entitlements which black people don’t deserve. But it’s okay for the banksters to get entitlements and not poor people. See the illogical thinking. So, since they have these thoughts; what do they do? since they can’t find (truthfully) any of these applicable to President Obama; they make things up about him like a fake birth certificate, Muslim, Marxist, Communist, terrorist, the meaning of the 14^th amendment as well as other .amendments , and even the anti-Christ.,Blacknes is not criminality. The right wing wants progressives, blacks, whites, yellow, brown, red, women and gays to feel guilty of anything they can conjure up. Franklin Delano Roosevelt whom IR has mentioned said .. “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself” All the rabid right’s lies, fear, hate and distortions do-- is give us another bump to keep leaning forward.

Any how if President Obama is the Anti- Christ it won’t matter because the world as we know it, the world will end on May 21 2011.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon

So let’s partaaaay. But some people already act like they are already dwelling in the "Twilight Zone. Seriously as they keep on living La Vida Loca with their heinous actions towards others!!!

Birthers need to stop crying they no longer are babies. Their fears defy belief.

The United States Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, is the world's longest surviving written charter of government.

Article I, Section 2 clause that classified slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of congressional apportionment and taxation was not read. Given the struggle of African-Americans, given the struggle of women most definite it should have been read.

Black Caucus member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said--."We fail to show the American people that imperfection is not to be feared and that our ability to constantly improve on what the Founders gave us is a blessing, not a reason for divisiveness”.

Um, the way I read it read white voters don’t want people of color women, and gays to have any rights.

What do Tea Baggers and Darrel Issa think about the 2 new House members who voted on the House rules package but they hadn’t been sworn in yet? I think Darral Issa needs to address this action as corrupt.

Again the GOP/TEABAGGERS showed a real irreverence for the Constitution, they so love; yet, failed to uphold “We the people”.

What else can I say except the GOP/TEA BAGGERS ARE a bunch of hypocrites?

Republican house stripped Washington D.C, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton District of the one few voting rights it has in Congress. Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen was sworn-in to the 112th Congress on Wednesday, she and her fellow delegates lost their right to vote in the U.S. House of Representatives' as well as the five delegates representing the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas Islands and American Samoa and the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico. All Republican voted “No”

Hey, let’s get to a more perfect union.

What ever happened to reasoned dialogue?

OHHH NOW that's RICH - Our resident fake PHD calling for reasoned dialogue after we've endured 3+ years of daily I HATE EVERYTHING OBAMA rants...

And when that no longer worked started posting 'rumor's and trying to pass it off as fact because a British tabloid 'said so'!

There are many word that can be used to describe NJNB - however, reasonable doesn't come to mind!

Yeah... NJNB - We'll get right on it! lol

Day one of Pelosi being gone and unemployment starts down!

Is this a great country or what!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Ron. Enjoyed your post, well done. The ice cream and spinach sums it up nicely. We cannot ignore those things we do not like. The GOPTP embraces the Constitution but yet they are busily trying to amend it and not in a good way but a way that would take us back to the late 18th century.

Damn, if only we could have a do over on the November elections, since the voters were obvioulsy sooooo wrong. Yeah, right.

No Joe, I planned to just read and not respond to anything you say today but you speak about belittling those with whom we disagree and yet every day, you post belittling and outright nasty comments about OUR President, about liberals because you disagree. That is the pot calling the kettle black. You cannot have it both ways. If you do not wish to be "belittled", then do not "belittle".

Thank you Mr. President for agreeing to the tax cuts. Looks like they really helped!

Bravo, Jody. A fine, reasoned, non-snarky response. Which is why I wish I were more like you.

No Joe---for as long as I've been following you on FR you have had nasty, hateful things to say about liberals in general and President Obama in particular but now you want reasoned dialogus and no belittling? Is that what you were thinking the other day when the headline was the Vice President Biden's chief of staff had resigned and you wondered if it was because of the stress of muzzling the VP every day? Is that the kind of respect you are looking for?

lucysaf- The smiff woman is not on this thread. Please look elsewhere.

Yes yes, good week of cutting and pasting all around!

No one mentioned seasonal with regard to jobs...interesting.

But the jobs numbers are better. A .2% drop in UE is good. Go America!

Why is it that within 2 responses to louisj's initial rambling do the responses turn to 'f*&k the republicans'? I like to think that being an independent means I am not tied to any one concrete philosophy, but making the country better has to be more than a screw-the-other-side mentality.

Addendum: I just went back to re-read louisj's initial diatribe...it was all 'f#&k the rebublicans', no wonder the responders, as USNDV-R put it, hopped on the bandwagon.

The drop in the unemployment rate unfortunately masks the fact that we are still in serious trouble. What we saw is basically a hiccup thanks to seasonal employment and some minor increase in genuine demand elsewhere.

The reality that we refuse to accept is that the economy will never again return to what it was. Huge amounts of consumer goods now come from other nations. Our manufacturing has taken a monstrous hit because we flatly refuse to understand (or cannot understand) that foreign labor is far, far cheaper than American labor. Take a look at what I call the "Plant Manager Syndrome". "Why are you out of work?" "I'm a plant manager, and I can't get that kind of work right now." "That's because there aren't any plants to manage. In fact, they're closing them down. Perhaps you may have to retrain." "I don't need to do that. I'm a plant manager."

For American consumers its all about price. We know that oil is a shrinking resource, yet we demand low prices. To hell with the Law of Supply and Demand - gimme cheap, cheap, cheap. So we fuel with coal, a filthy energy feedstock, at the expense of the air, the water, and the soil. But it's cheap, cheap, cheap. We get our goods from China and Viet Nam and other nations. The goods are cheap, cheap, cheap.

The new economy, like the old, is going to be based on energy, but we cannot produce that energy as we have done in the past, pretending externalities do not exist. It is embarrassing and unseemly for adults to pretend this isn't happening.

We must invest in new energy sources, methods of energy transmission, and energy storage. That is where we MUST go to get out in front of the pack. That is going to be our new source of employment and income. To get there, we will require a massive investment in education - BUT no greater than today. We simply have to stop insisting that everyone belongs in college or even in high school for that matter. Yes folks, some people really are dumb, and giving them a piece of paper does not make them smart. We have to target our education money wisely.

Do we need more money? Yup. Get it from the military budget. Complex military weaponry has incredible down time because we don't have parts or we don't have enough skilled technicians to handle the problems. Talk to any military commander - off the record - and you will learn that gangs are making serious inroads into the service, that many enlistees are barely literate. Saying we have a highly-trained military does not make it so.

Really, it's time to grow up. The fantasy world is fine for little kids, but we're adults........Aren't we?

Third day of the new House of Representatives, already it's becoming clear that the new GOPTP isn't what it was represented to be. Sure enough, it's the same, old GOP of subservience to the wealthy elites. It's the same old GOP of saying one thing, doing another. It's the same old GOP of trying to evade responsibility for things they've done, claim credit for things they didn't do. It's the same old GOP of wanting to change the rules of the game just because the Speaker's gavel is in a different hand.

Meet the new TP, same as the old GOP.

old fat guy

"Day one of Pelosi being gone and unemployment starts down!

Is this a great country or what!"

Boy, I'll say. All those jobs opened up, all those people applied, all those people got hired, and all those filled jobs got reported to Uncle Sam, and those results all got published in the media on THE SAME DAY!! Wow- I wonder how that works???

Just Yesterday, the usual Racist Liberals on this page that hate the Fact of a White man Sitting in the Speakers Chair in the House of "representatives were asking where the Jobs where... well.. since it is a Republican house when the U E rate went Down. It has to be their Fault.. I mean. I predicted this a month ago that we would see a Drop in the UE Rate because of Christmas.. YES. i said that Bad Word.. Christmas... ..

While December’s jobs report is going in the right direction, it’s not that great either. From the MSNBC.com story:

The December job gains were enough to drive down the unemployment rate to 9.4 percent from 9.8 percent the previous month, marking the largest one-month decline in the nation’s unemployment rate since April 1998. December’s jobless rate was the lowest since May 2009.

Another key reason for the drop in the December unemployment rate was that the government no longer counts people as unemployed when they stop looking for work.

_____________________________

Meaning that if a large number of the unemployed people contacted by the USDOL BLS in the survey used to calculate the unemployment rate say “I’ve given up on looking for a job”, the rate goes down even though all those people STILL don’t have a job. Yeah, the unemployment rate went down, but, for the wrong reason.

Also from MSNBC.com:

Over the past three months, the economy has added an average of 128,000 jobs. That's just enough to keep up with the population growth. Nearly double is generally needed to significantly reduce the unemployment rate.

___________________________

Treading water is better than immediately drowning, but, if you don’t get rescued pretty quick you will get real tired and end up drowning anyway.

Worse is the fact that the underemployment rate went UP in December:

From Gallup.com:

Underemployment at 19.0% in December

The increase in Gallup's U.S. unemployment rate and the worsening in the percentage of part-time workers wanting full-time work combined to raise underemployment to 19.0% in December from 18.5% in mid-December and 17.2% at the end of November.

Wow, glad to hear unemployment dropped several tenths of a percent. It makes good political news for Obama but it won't matter. Why? Because 46 out of the 50 States are in fiscal straights. The States will run out of stimulus money by this Spring. At a minimum our Federal Government will need to bail out California, Illinois, and New Jersey with money we don't have. Either borrow it (if they can) or print it. In either case, expect prices to continue to rise due to the value of the dollar dropping. We can cheer about unemployment numbers dropping, but the big story is right around the corner and it is going to be bad. When Municipal Bonds are no longer a safe investment due to the threat of States failing, you know we are in for an economic disaster that will make the housing market crash look like child's play.

1,2,3,

Where are the birthers? Teleprompter anyone? Nazi? Communist? Anti-colonlialist Kenyan?

Everytime the President and his adminstration demonstrate their ability to get some things done around here the nabobs of negativity raise their ugly heads so it will only be a minute until the MSM gives them a platform.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Any one interested in place a 'friendly' wager on how MANY times we see the 'usual right wingers' that lurk around here trying to take credit for the improved job #'s?

You laugh. I have seen teabagger posts claiming just that: this is happening because of the Republicans taking over!!!!

I guess it's because they read the Constitution out loud.

Birther's to the left of me...

Tea Bagger's to the right...

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Any one interested in place a 'friendly' wager on how MANY times we see the 'usual right wingers' that lurk around here trying to take credit for the improved job #'s?

bayllie

You laugh. I have seen teabagger posts claiming just that: this is happening because of the Republicans taking over!!!!

I guess it's because they read the Constitution out loud.

Actually it was due to small businesses hiring because Congress finally gave some kind of certainty regarding taxes for the next several years. I am still waiting though for Obama's guidance to get unemployment numbers back down below 8%. You know, that magical number that Obama promised America wouldn't exceed justifying a huge stimulus that ultimately did nothing. Correction, we gained 4 tenths of one percent reduction in unemployment for a bargain price of 787 BILLION dollars. Sweet!

Dude,

Actually it was due to small businesses hiring because Congress finally gave some kind of certainty regarding taxes for the next several years.

Since Dec 25, small businesses advertised jobs postings, interviewed, hired and reported to the government all these jobs?

Correction, we gained 4 tenths of one percent reduction in unemployment for a bargain price of 787 BILLION dollars. Sweet!

How much did we get from the Bush's TARP? Besides the record bonuses to the very people who got us into this mess? How much were those blank checks?

DUDE-875416

I am still waiting though for Obama's guidance to get unemployment numbers back down below 8%

DUDE

After that Big @ss tax cut those top 2%ers got it better go down!!!

The 'DUDE' resembles more of a 'Dud' if you ask me!

Like I said above... wait for it... and they NEVER fail to disappoint! lol

Steve, So when was it said that liberals hate Christmas or people talking about it? I for one love Christmas and I am also a Christ follower.

Why do the racist liberals on this page hate Agent Orange? Well to answer the first part I don't like him and I am a middle aged white guy so I guess I must hate my self also. How ludicrous. I personally don't like him because he is against almost everything I believe to be right.

Now if you don't like what we liberals stand for fine if you are looking for like minded people I suggest you find some right wing blog to whine on.

lt.jdangle

It seems that obama has to start acting more like a republican to get the economy back on track. He also has to behave like a republican to get reellected. In 2012 we will ellect the real thing, a real republican.

so he's no longer a Muslim, a Nazi, a Socialist, a Kenyan?...now he's a Republican? When will the insults stop?

On the surface this would seem to be some good news in an otherwise dismal economy. However, considering the way these metrics are contrived and/or manipulated, the apparent drop in the unemployment rate may or may not have actually occurred.

No Jo wrote:

What purpose is served by demeaning those with different ideas than your own? Does it actually advance your argument to refer to people as "tenthers", when those people are pointing to the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution? It was put there for a reason, and, yes, that reason was to put a brake on the power of the federal government.

I will admit that, while I have not yet solidified my opinion of repealing the fourteenth amendment, (though I am inclined toward leaving it as is), I was interested to learn that its original intention was to protect the rights of freed slaves. Is it germane to today's discussion? Maybe not, but when is a history lesson ever useless?

Jo, here's some perspective on Amendments to the Constitution that are presently either challenged or used to challenge legilsation and programs:

1. "Tenthers," to me, is not a penjorative term. It's a handy short-form to identify people who by their strict interpretation of the Constitution think that anything not specifically called out in the Constitution must be the sole province of the states, rather than the Federal government.

The 10th Amendment has an interesting history, and has been the subject of bitter contention for well over 175 years. It was added, as the last element of the Bill of rights, not so much as a brake upon the central government but rather to fill in blank spots of authority with a blanket assignment, thus reducing the potential for contention. Of course, instead the Amendment had the opposite effect.

The first truly serious conflict (there were some conflicts earlier over aspects of taxation and regulation of commerce) over the 10th amendment was when South Carolina in 1848 provoked the nullification" crisis. it involved Federal tariffs which largely agrarian South Carolina found detrimental and unfair, as the excise taxes favored Northern interests. The state legislature passed an ordinance delcaring that the state was "nullifying" the Federal regulations, under authority of the 10th Amendment. This went to the Supreme Court and South Carolina lost.

The "nullification" crisis set alight a long-smouldering fuse that eventually exploded in the Civil War. Today, some states are again attempting exactly the same thing - primarily over immigration law. The matter has been settled, however, in courts and by trial of combat.

Over the many decades, numerous areas of Federal activity have been challenged as unconstitutional in light of the 10th Amendment. These include food and drug regulations, agricultural regulations, financial institution regulations, and much more. The Supreme Court has found that the Fedeal government, under the Constitution, may conduct such programs thanks to several different grants of Constitutional authority: Interstate commerce; promotion of the public welfare; and other clauses. One of the points of contention before the courts now in relation to Health Insurance Reform is whether the legislation assumes too broad a value for one of those clauses.

For the most part, those "tenthers" who assail almost every Federal program and department, especially Education, Labor, Energy, the EPA, he SEC, the Federal Reserve Bank, and others, are re-plowing old fields. The Constitutional authority for all of those has been tested and accepted.

2. The 14th Amendment: Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment addressed much, much more than merely citizenship. The citizenship aspect was not only important to firmly establish the civil rights and standing of former slaves, but also for the huge number of immigrants to the United States. Leading among those at the time were the Irish.

But the Amendment also set firmly in law the principles of equal justice for all, and the obligation of civil authorities to employ due process. These protections have been tested many times, and have proven valuable in a vast array of conditons.

Attacks on this Amendment have been based largely on a much-overblown, and frequently falsely stated, fear that "anchor babies" fuel illegal immigrations, entitle illegal immigrants to expensive public benefits, and worse. While in a select few cases "anchor babies" have provided undocumented families of the children opportunity to remain in, or return to, the United Staes, for the most part that is untrue. Yet merely raising the fear of it inflames those whose true worry about immigration is dilution of the steadily-diminishing majority of whites in the U.S. The entire debate about immigrants is now more hysteria than reasoned discussion and serious effort to resolve a very large dilemma.

Very little would be accomplished by attempting to repeal the 14th Amendment except to foster yet more vitriol, and put at risk other valuable protections under the law. This issue long ago went beyond merely protecting the recently-freed slaves.

3. The 17th Amendment: Jo, you did not bring this up, but several members of Congress have done so. The 17th Amendment provides for direct election of U.S. Senateros, rather than the cumbersome and corrupt practice of having Senators chosen by state legislatures.

The Senate is one of the more important institutions of the entire Federal government. Members, elected for 6-year terms, hold more power by virtue of their long tenure than even the President. Their service supplies vital continuity to the overall process of governing. Election to the U.S. Senate is an achievement of great status.

When the Constitution was written and the indirect method of fuilling Senate seats was established, conditions were far different from even the mid-19th century. Population in the United States was sparse, and distributed between a few urban centers and a vast range of countryside and over-the-hills backwoods regions. There was no railroad. There were no steamships. Few of the people were literate - and sometimes only literate to the point or reading a nearly-memorized selection of bible passages or signing a name. there were few nespapers, and of course no telegraph, telephone, radio, or television. Everyone still lived, in the words of William Manchester, "in a world lit only by fire." Overland travel was by foot, horseback or wagon, and covering 15-20 miles a day a feat of strength.

That is the context of the entire Constitution, which in many ways acknowledged then-current conditions influencing elections, sessions of Congress, and the choice of Senators. State lawmakers were considered representatives of the people who were at the time best-equipped to name a Senator every six years.

When the Constitution was drafted, there were no political parties. Elections, as per the prior custom in the Colonial era, took place sometimes over a span of days, to accomodate people coming some distance to vote. They were usually gatherings in a major town or village, or at the estate of the most prominent landowner around. Usually the leading light of the community, generally a landowner or successful merchant, hosted out-of-town visitors and provided food and drink as necessary. It was a somewhat genteel affair and people usually voted the way the local leadership pointed. (CF. Michael Schudson, The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life) Considering these circumstances, too, the use of state legislators for choosing Senators seemed practical and appropriate.

Well, that system was a built-in attraction for corruption and deal-making of the worst kind, and it came true, every bit of it. Even so, the Senate managed to hit some brilliant high points. In 1913, direct election of Senators was finally ratified, both as a recognition of a more democratic process, and as an apparent reform to eloiminate corruption in the process.

While today the influence of money and unrestrained spending in elections is a subject of universal concern in america, the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment to return state legislatures to the task is such a naked political power play it should never be taken seriously. If anyone thinks there's some slime in today's Senate elections, just watch what happens if state lawmakers get their hands on that pot of gold!

All right, No Jo, here's your thoughtful and rational discussion, no name calling. Ball's in your court!

lt.jdangle:

Does the "lt." stand for lightweight?

Do a bit of homework and lighten up on the dogma food and fool-aid. Enforcement of immigration laws has dramatically increased under the Obama Administration.

Beverly in Chicago

DUDE-875416

I am still waiting though for Obama's guidance to get unemployment numbers back down below 8%

DUDE

After that Big @ss tax cut those top 2%ers got it better go down!!!

Yeah, I know. That whopping 800 Billion (OVER TEN YEARS) which amounts to 80 Billion per year. The amount Congress spends on earmarks annually. As much as I agree the rich shouldn't get additional breaks, I also believe that whole topic was blown out of proportion. Also, I am a proud Independent, not a Republican or Democrat. Both parties suck. After all, it seems no matter who is in power, Americans get screwed.

I still don't understand why Liberal Democrats feel the need to name call or personally attack fellow posters for no other reason then they don't agree with them. Certainly illustrates the level of maturity some posters have, or don't have. I expected better from you Feisty, at least, prior posts lead me to believe it until now. You're no better then those that hate Obama.

?

John A, thank you for your response.

As I said in mynpost, I am inclined to believe that the fourteenth amendment should be left alone. There are much better ways to address immigration,(such as giving those who are here cards other than green, but denying them the right to seek citizenship unless and until they go back and start the process legally). I do find some of the arguments of those for it interesting, but, so far, nothing has changed my thinking on the subject.

As to the Tenth amendment, well, let us just say that the stretching of the Commerce clause to ridiculous lengths leads me to believe that it should be invoked more, rather than less, often. I did remember the tariffs that began the smoldering between the states, but my belief was that the congress should have had more regard for the impact of those tariffs before enacting them.

As to the seventeenth amendment- no, I have not weighed in on that, because I see it as a nonstarter of a proposition. Yes, the Constitution called for the appointment, by state legislatures, of two Senators, and yes, direct election was done by amendment. Has that changed the way that senators act? In some cases, I can say that it has. Senators were meant to represent the interests of their states as part of the United States, while representatives the rights of the people in their
districts.

However, changing the rules by having them directly elected has, for the most part, created a distinction without a difference. Should it have been done in the first place? Probably not- but I was not there to know what led to the move. I am sure that there was corruption in the process, or dealmaking that upset the electorate. Still, I think that having to campaign the way that they do has a deleterious effect on their function.

However, the idea of changing it back is patently ridiculous. This is the system we have now, a system that functions, and changing it does not seem feasible or desirable.

Does it sound like I am taking both sides of the issue? I am not, really. I can see both sides of the argument, agree with some points, disagree with others, and come down squarely for leaving the seventeenth amendment intact.

So, I guess that leaves me squarely in the middle. Leave 14 and 17 alone, and start having some respect for number 10.

Again, thanks for your post. It is nice to have a rational discussion.

Joe in Albany,

I suspect the the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually derives its "no longer searching for work) category from state unemployment offices lists of those leaving their rolls for the following reasons: got a job, failed to report, or exhausted benefits. If we compare New Job Growth to shrinking unemployment, there are substantial numbers who are either failing to report or exhausting benefits. Keep in mind also that those entering the labor market (new graduates, drop-outs, mom/dad returning to career after child-rearing, or illness) are not counted as unemployed. There are many reasons to fail to report: arrest, illness including depression, family issues, relocation are just some. Others, the 99 weekers and others, who have simply exhausted their UI benefits without securing a job. Even though they may remain unemployed and actively searching for a job, they are not counted as unemployed since they are no longer "in the system". It supposed takes about 150k new jobs each month to break-even, that is to balance new jobs to new job seekers. If we had 250k new jobs, it would take over 10 years to fully employ the estimated 12.5 million currently unemployed. Note new jobs are not necessarily "new", but are new openings from whatever reason: new business, expansion or ordinary employee turn-over. Part-time workers are also not counted, unless they lost a full-time qualifying job and their part-time income is less than their benefits.

Regarding the reading of the Constitution,

Couldn't the Constitution have been read in whole by one skilled and experienced reader. I know more than a few had suggest Morgan Freeman, as an example. What about the Clerk of the House? Or one Representative? The dog and pony show of the various Representives processing to the podium to read a phrase or sentence was nearly as disrespectful to the document as the unwarranted iinterruption by the woman in the gallery. I've seen better coordinated elementary school recitations. If the purpose was to impart direction or remind the Representatives of their role in government, it got lost in the parade.

Let's see now. There are about 155 million workers in the labor force, and the unemployment rate dropped from 9.8% to 9.4%, which would be a drop of over 600,000, but only about 100,000 new jobs were added.

What this means is that over 500,000 workers just stopped looking for work in December, while only 100,000 actually found a job.

And this is supposed to be 'good news'??????????????????

Give us a break.

When companies actually start hiring again, the 3 million people who stopped trying to find a job will start looking again, and the unemployment rate might go up to 12%, thanks to the crazy way the government calculates the unemployment rate.

Roy,

You forgot to take into account the over 100,000 jobs that were added via adjustments to the October and November numbers.

I follow the “underemployed” number which better reflects the real unemployed number.

Most the experts say that when real hiring begins the unemployment number will only go to 10 – 10.3% but we will see the underemployed number fall.

David Walker. if the goods you refer to are so cheap...how come I have not seen them in stores as yet. A thirty to fifty dollar shirt is still that amount even though it is made with this so called cheap labor you refer too. What you are really seeing is companies wanting all the profits while sticking someone else with low wages. These other country's that furnish this cheap labor control those same people big time..you do what they say or else...Its not like people have a real choice when buying anything today..very very little is actually made in the USA no matter what our congressional folks claim...and notice they claim it while accepting money from the lobbyist of these businesses that have left thisa country to manufacture elsewhere...and get huge tax breaks to do so.

Fiesty Redhead

Are you assuming that the Dec. numbers have anything to do with either party? If you do you are definitely in need of a reality check. It was Dec. Christmas. It was and always is the month that every retail business adds people to help during the holidays.

Michael,

Not correct – please see: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/07/5784466-first-thoughts-unemployment-rate-drops?last=1294509416&threadId=1158387&sp=50&pc=25#c20277613

Ivan, NC:

If you're looking for a point-by-point argument/rebuttal, you're looking in the wrong place. I will stand by the points I made, all the while understanding that they do NOT provide a perfect picture of what we are seeing. However, if you have not seen the low prices, it is because you are not shopping at Wal-Mart, K-Mart and a host of other similar stores. Prices are very low. You would be hard-pressed to find any goods at Wal-Mart that are NOT made in foreign countries.

Regardless, your underlying point is, in my opinion, correct. Corporate America, in full collusion with the Congress, which they own, is running America......right into the ground. However, you cannot avoid the fact that a great many American "workers" have failed to grasp the fact that they are going to have to work at a reduced wage.

What is really missing from the picture is the entrepreneurial spirit. Workers could get together and produce goods at a lower price, simply by eliminating the white shirt and wingtip crowd that skims the profits and directs them to their wallets for performing little more than two-bit clerical work. (See, now you've got my dander up.) However, those same workers do not understand that they can live as fine a life as that to which they have become accustomed, but they are going to have to learn how to be efficient.

We are not efficient. We waste energy in copious amounts. We throw things away that have not outlived their usefulness. For example, I could go out on virtually any Saturday and buy a fine 19"-TV with a remote control. But hell no, that's not good enough. Gotta have a 42-inch LED back lit LCD, 240,000 MgHz refresh rate and 1080 res. I need that TV right this freaking second, and I need debt, and I need to get that TV from China, which will also finance the debt. I'll text more on this subject later on the cell phone that I so desperately need.

Fact is Ivan, I'm a screaming, flaming liberal, but that doesn't mean I'm bereft of good financial sense. I'm not into that magical thinking, and I gather from your post that you aren't either. Fact is, being of a liberal mind doesn't cost any more than being of a conservative mind. What does cost is wasteful spending, and in that regard, the Congress is a mirror of the American voter.

Boehner says he and his fellow Republicans understand the message of the last election. Well, yeah, he does. We say what we DO NOT mean. Boehner's interpretation: "I'm going to follow the Constitution. No, I'm not. I'm going to balance the budget. No, I'm not. I'm going to cut programs by a hundred-billion-dollars. No, I'm not.

And you know what? That's exactly the message of the American people who "shellacked" the Dems. "Cut every single program that affects SOMEONE else. Balance the budget on the back of SOMEONE else. Raise taxes on SOMEONE else."

I'll tell ya Ivan, if I was a drinking man, I'd need a drink.

Aside from the typical vague response about the Birther lies, Boohoo Boehner further undermines faith in data, evidence, and facts when he says this:

The day began with the news of the independent Congressional Budget Office declaring that the House GOP effort to repeal the health-care law would add $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years. (House Speaker John Boehner’s response: “CBO is entitled to their opinion.”)

It's not to say we should all blindly believe everything government tells us, as even science is subjected to peer review and testing. However, the numbers from the CBO are not just a subjective "opinion." The numbers are based on something concrete.

What is sujbective is all the chicken crap coming from Opinion Editorial (FOX), commentator (Glenn Beck) or entertainers (Rush Limbaugh) so-called "news" that is not subjected to facts and journalistic standards of any kind. But to have a "leader" of one of the parties in our congress be just as much a tool is a sad commentary for our nation.

Since the CBO was told by the Democrats to "assume" that there would be $500 Billion in 'savings' from cutting Medicare as part of their 'analysis' of achieving a $145 deficit reduction, I suppose that the reality is that rescinding the HCR bill will actually cut the deficit by $355 Billion if we just make the "assumption" that we can still cut the $500 Billion from Medicare without HCR.

Since cutting Medicare does not require HCR, why not eliminate HCR and cut Medicare?

People seem to forget that the Democrat's plan to cut the deficit by $145 Billion over 10 years required $500 Billion from Medicare cuts (lol), and about $700 Billion in tax increases to get a 'deficit reduction' of $145 Billion. Without HCR but with the money 'saved' from Medicare and the money collected in new taxes, we could actually have a deficit reduction of aboutv $1 Trillion, without HCR.

PS - It also had to make sure not to count the 'Dr. Fix' of about $240 Billion in the CBO's calculation.

ROY WILSON-336103

Since the CBO was told by the Democrats to "assume" that there would be $500 Billion in 'savings' from cutting Medicare as part of their 'analysis' of achieving a $145 deficit reduction, I suppose that the reality is that rescinding the HCR bill will actually cut the deficit by $355 Billion if we just make the "assumption" that we can still cut the $500 Billion from Medicare without HCR.

Since cutting Medicare does not require HCR, why not eliminate HCR and cut Medicare?

People seem to forget that the Democrat's plan to cut the deficit by $145 Billion over 10 years required $500 Billion from Medicare cuts (lol), and about $700 Billion in tax increases to get a 'deficit reduction' of $145 Billion. Without HCR but with the money 'saved' from Medicare and the money collected in new taxes, we could actually have a deficit reduction of aboutv $1 Trillion, without HCR.

PS - It also had to make sure not to count the 'Dr. Fix' of about $240 Billion in the CBO's calculation.

Exactly Roy!

TruePatriot-445959

Aside from the typical vague response about the Birther lies, Boohoo Boehner further undermines faith in data, evidence, and facts when he says this:

The day began with the news of the independent Congressional Budget Office declaring that the House GOP effort to repeal the health-care law would add $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years. (House Speaker John Boehner's response: "CBO is entitled to their opinion.")

It's not to say we should all blindly believe everything government tells us, as even science is subjected to peer review and testing. However, the numbers from the CBO are not just a subjective "opinion." The numbers are based on something concrete.

Any questions TP? Also, the numbers that are given by the CBO are for "budgetary" purposes only. They are as concrete as the information provided to them by our politicians. Let's not be naive.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

After the first full day of the 112th Congress more broken promises.

And how!! Excellent Navy

Wake up Navy just proved the GOP TEA/ Party does lie.

Navy, It's really incredulous the GOP TEA/ Party say that Democrats cannot be trusted. The GOP TEA/ Party have shown one day of power for they can't be trusted; which is something most Americans already knew.

JUST IN:

The Unemployment Rate is 9.4% this morning as reported on MSNBC, CBS, etc.

Yes, the Unemployment Drops To 9.4% will the GOP TEA/ Party claim credit for their one day of power?

Speaker Boehnor can you bring the rest of the jobs from offsouure?

The Republican party go from "No" promises to "Broken" promises and the TEA Party will continue to cave to their "Con"promises.

But I'm glad President Obama knows "Com"promises.

Bev;

The handwriting is on the wall so to speak. All the people have to do, is read it and connect the dots. There are a lot of dots so used a new pen.

Also, they are now going to score their own bills. That means, in just like the Bush Administration the republican/tea party will hide the true costs from the People (just like the previous administration did) How can we even begin to trust a party that continues to say one thing and do the opposite, break promises as if they were just cooking an omelet, and in some cases, just outright lie. That does not give me any faith in whatever numbers they present will be accurate at all. Spin baby Spin is what they will do.

"Did I say 100 million savings? What I really meant was 30 million. You must have misunderstood me. Silly you."

"And what? You say I was going to allow the Democrats to give their impute and add amendments to my perfect bills? You must be crazy. Why would I say such a stupid thing. You must have a hearing problem. Silly you."

Looks like Navy only reports out numbers that suit his narrative.

The employment numbers were disappointing, as the economy only added 103,000 new private sector jobs. Economists had been expecting closer to 150,000, and the ADP numbers offered hope that the number might have been much higher. The problem seems to have been that ADP included a lot of temporary jobs in their data. The larger reason for the drop in the unemployment rate was the moving of 260,000 out of the labor force.

In other words, there was not a lot of good news in the report, although it is better to add private sector jobs than to lose them. Still, we need a lot more than that in order to actually shrink the unemployment numbers to full employment.

It will not happen until we have GDP of between six and eighth per cent growth, which is typical at the end of recessions. That we have dragged along with anemic growth for so long is discouraging, to say the least, and more proof that Obama's economic plans have failed.

"Whatever happened to reasoned dialog"...I think it stopped when you started posting your daily "I hate Obama rants" and made up reasons for that hatred.

Order NOW your copy of 'Economics for Dummies' and you too can come to FR and play a PHD!

I do believe that it is nice to have higher employment, but the fact of the matter is, about 500,000 people were needed to bring down the unemployment rate by .4%--only 103,000 have jobs, what happened to the other 397,000 people--that many quit looking, their benefits expired,--so even though those numbers are better than what they were. Will it continue next month when seasonal jobs are over? I pray it does, but doubt it.

But hey, some good news is better than bad news--and trashing each other.

Let me echo NoJo's sentiments above:

"Yeah- where's all the jobs???"

Wasn't it just yesterday someone here was claiming that Democratic bills should be audited by Pricewaterhouse Cooper? Now today Republicans are going to make up their own numbers?

Consistency of thought or principle is of no consequence to Conservatives. The only thing that matters is coming up with a good narrative for the task at hand.

See people, NoJo says one thing and then does just the opposite. And she wonders why she gets the responses she does.

NoJo, last time: I do not believe you have a PhD in anything. And you lady have no credibility is asking for a civil dialogue .

Looks like Navy only reports out numbers that suit his narrative.

The numbers I reported are facts. You should try using them sometime instead of your daily repeated hate rants of President Obama. His plan is working.

Simply put, NJ is a fraud with zero credibility and no class. She has no Ph.D.

Hi,

LouisJ,US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired, Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL, Ron Indiana, Jody, Iowa, Steeler Fan-380417 and Beverly in Chicago. Also, let’s not forget for Drive By, Independent Redneck Va. and John.

I wanted to thank all of you for your GREAT Posts that I read and enjoy daily. Reading your “First Read” opinions are a real bright spot of the day and I say keep up the good fight.

Thanks again,

Job 1

I wanted to thank all of you for your GREAT Posts that I read and enjoy daily. Reading your “First Read” opinions are a real bright spot of the day and I say keep up the good fight.

Thanks so much for the kind words! I can't tell you how encouraging it is to know people are reading and paying attention!

Have a wonderful weekend and look forward to seeing you around more! :o)

Job 1:

Thank you for the shout-out. It's comments like yours that keeps us writing. Looking forward to reading your comments as well.

Job1 What Red said from the Hill folk too

Thanks Job1.

Thanks, Job 1----glad to know you are reading. Keep posting, too---good to have you here.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Order NOW your copy of 'Economics for Dummies' and you too can come to FR and play a PHD!

OK Fiesty, where did you order your copy? Was it through the Daily Kook? I profess that my understanding on economics may be limited, so I am curious where your intelligence on the issue comes from......

Shes a lib SC...they know everything!...with all the "lols" she post, I think shes drunk most of the time...:p

IR:

WOW. Great job.

A little intercession with the Man Upstairs and a lot of Good Thoughts going out this morning for our Friend and fellow Poster Clara KCMO and her family for a favorable outcome on her Back Surgery this morning from the Hill Folk.

Get well and get back among us as soon as you can K.C. Ace

AWESOME work IR!

Clara & her family are in my thoughts & prayers!

Knowing her she'll be up and running in no time! She's a 'tough' cookie! ;o)

*HUGS* GF!

I haven't been around much so I didn't know that Clara was having surgery. If anyone is in touch with her, please pass along my sincerest wishes for a successful surgery and quick recovery. Will definitely keep her in my thoughts and prayers! :-)

Sending "gentle" hugs to Clara and her family and hopes for a speedy recovery. And I hope a speedy return to posting at FR---we miss her wisdom. Hope a victory from her Chiefs cheers her up, too.

What a great post, IR---timeless points and a reminder that our elected representatives should take to heart.

Let me add my good wishes for Clara's speedy recovery as well. My candle is lit, I will be thinking of her today.

Thanks, IR, for reminding us of one of the greatest speeches given by an American President.

Steeler Fan...

Watch it there buddy!! Ravens fan here!! What if I just promise to root for her Royals next season?? ;-)

Hey Grimey Still following the Caps? Maybe we'll get a chance to beat up Steeler this year.

newdayDAWNING10

Let me add my good wishes for Clara's speedy recovery as well. My candle is lit, I will be thinking of her today.

Me too, newday

Get Well Clara

I add my thoughts and prayers for Clara, and her family. Hope she is up and around soon.

Amen IR.

Thanks

IR, history is the great teacher. Terrific post.

Prior to Reagan, the American people grumbled but republicans and democrats alike knew when taxes were needed to pay for wars or the needs of the country--everyone shared in the sacrifice. Today there is no sharing, selfish and self-centered has taken center stage.

IR, brilliant speech, it says so clearly what it is to think as a Liberal. Not the caricature that's painted by Conservatives, but a real Liberal, one who cares about society and others, realizes the interrelatedness of all of us. Someone in touch with his/her humanity.

Get well soon, Clara

Hey IR...

Yup...still follow the Caps every chance I get. They play down here on Tuesday and I've already got tickets to see them smoke the Panthers!!

Hoping the Ravens get a shot at the Steelers in the playoffs!

Have a great weekend!

It was not self-interest for my Steelers that has me rooting for the Chiefs---it was entirely to lift Clara's spirits!! Actually my preferred outcome is for the Ravens to take out New England!! (sorry Pat).

IR---didn't know you were a Caps fan---you got the best of us in the Winter Classic but it was a fun game, wasn't it?

Get well soon, Clara. Thoughts and prayers to you and the family.

Steeler Fan...I know...just gotta give you a little bit of a hard time, given our team's rivalry!! ;-)

Yeh Steeler I'm one of those funny people down here that aren't a Redskin fan.Been Watching Hockey since I since I could go see some Minor league teams cheap when I was in school down in Carolina. Nat's, ACC Basketball, W.V. football and the Caps fill up my Fan card. I was kind of glad that the Winter Classic was postponed till the evening because otherwise I'd of had to miss it. It was a lot of fun to watch and I and I'm hoping that when they meet back up in the playoffs we can see some more games like that one.

BTW Grimey was that you that emptied the entire Margurita supply down at the Dew Drop Inn Saturday Night. Have a good weekend and rest assured some of the crowd will pass on your wellwishes.

Thanks IR, thanks FDR (and John B for your comments on FDR)

All the best, Clara. Hurry back.

thank you, IR. A very very good post.

IR...I'm invoking my rights against self incrimination. :-)

FDR one of if not the Greatest President of our beloved country. Great post.

fielden, nightwalker, wakeup Thank you for the kind words and for taking the time to wade thru my Southernisms this morning.

Hoping that you’ll will take time this year to join us more often. Happy New Year to you’ll belated

Grimey if you’re going to plead the fifth I’m assuming you got the Tattoo sandblasted off somehow

Not sure how I missed this post; but thank you all for your well wishes. I am doing quite well and have happily returned to the fray!

Chandeliers,...not just a 'lofty' goal,...ha ha!

drive-by-observer

Unemployment rate improves. Many on the right will start to claim it's because of Nov 2nd, but then will realize that if the numbers continue for the next two yers......gasp...... on OBAMA'S watch....Well, you see the problem, right?

In fact, Fox noise started it yesterday.

Wouldn't you agree that the tax cuts will have had a lot to do with the improvement? That is something the President can and should take credit for, as can the conservatives. It's a win for all. Plus with Daley on board there is someone in the inner circle who knows about business. Again a win for all

Everybody gets credit. And now we can get past all the silly comments about "where's the jobs?" The here and more are coming and it's because of economic compromises by both sides.

DBO

We'll just have to see who has the better spin doctors in the next election, but I will wait and see how the next 2 months unfold for jobs increasing. Whether or not this was just seasonal hiring. But I pray that it is the start of something good. And then DBO--the better spin doctors will win the 2012 election.

Either way, Bear- More jobs are better. On that a whole mess of us can agree.

Bear,

Won't the next 2 months numbers be chock full of seasonal tax preparers as well?

Chef,

That could be a point, but if you go to the department of labor stats, many of those types of people, tax preparers, are usually college graduates--not all, but most. According to labor stats, the unemployment rate for college graduates has been holding steady over the past few years at 5% or less. Now that doesn't mean some are out of work and retirees won't get back in to help their income. But over the next 2-5 months if employment continues to grow then we could be coming out of our recession.

And besides, how many tax preparers are needed when you can do it all online by yourself. Shoot, about 10% of population shouldn't have income should they?

muffintop. The tax cuts had little to do with the economic improvement; if that were true, why did those same cuts create so few jobs for the 8 years Bush was president? Bush created only 3 million job (Clinton created 23 million and he raised taxes) and 2 million of the 3 M Bush created were lost before he left office. As for the "Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs"--it is sarcasm because from the day Pres Obama was sworn in as President, the conservatives asked that question and asked if repeatedly here, on FOX, and the GOPers in Congress participated.

Seasonal jobs or not they still provided much needed cash to those who where employed. I am surprised that no one has brought up the increase in consumer spending.

Keep trying to spin it witt, people know better.

Frank,

Good Friday morning - It should also be noted that October and November numbers were adjusted up by over 100,000 jobs. This may account for part of the drop from 9.8 to 9.4%. The underemployment is at 19.1% per Gallup – not much change in the last few months which would imply that jobs are only being added at the rate that keeps up with population growth, at best.

Dennis...good point my friend. I always forget to check the prior months' revisions. Certainly good news there.

I'm guessing here, but I think the economy is going to start rebounding soon. Just cyclically speaking, it really is due. So when that happens, I think we'll see the jobs added number increase and we'll also see a temporary increase in the unemployment numbers as people who gave up looking for work start to look again.

Frank,

The 4th quarter and 2010 were both the best for job growth in 4 years.

I believe your guess is accurate and unemployment could easily hit 10% as real jobs recovery gets up a head of steam. Most economists also suggest that unemployment will hover around 8% for the next 5 years.

I believe the new full employment for the next decade will be about 93-94% thus unemployment at 6.5%.

I was thinking about your post last night, Frank (I know, I need to get a life!) especially how the economy is cyclical. I think you are right that it is but I also think that over the last 10 years, the nature of the cycles has been impacted by the party in power. I think Republican policies (unfunded wars, tax cuts, Medicare changes) worsened the recession and Democrat policies (stimulus, unemployment benefits) kept the recession from becoming a depression and hopefully enhanced the recovery.

First margarita is on me!!

Good thought, Frank "Grimey". I think the economy is somewhat better than the numbers tell but the hole was deep and people are still tentative; that could be why we see the estimates higher than the actuals--the economy is better but employers and consumers aren't quite ready to believe it. We'll see you at the Dew Drop Inn for that margarita, sounds good even this early.

Steeler Fan. I agree; much is cyclical but a lot has to do with policies. I think it goes back 30 years to when outsourcing and deregulation began; wages flat-lined for middle and low income earners making their purchasing power less and wealth has increasingly become concentrated to 2% of the population--it finally caught up to us in Dec 2007 and collapsed in 2008.

Dennis. That sounds reasonable. 6.5% may be the new normal unless we start "insourcing" jobs again from overseas. There is no reason US businesses cannot manufacture products overseas for overseas markets but why not manufacture here for North America. The unemployment number will likely fluctuate up and down probably through the summer as more people who stopped looking, start again. 9.4% is a very positive sign.

Geekers, Bill- will you get over it? Do the rest of us care??

But- Speaking of smoke and mirrors, I'm guessing you ain't seen anything, yet.

Funny when the CBO gave the republicans favorable numbers they were God. When they give President Obama favorable numbers they become Satan? Spin anybody.

Letting the House score their own bills is not a good idea. The republican/tea party do not exactly have a great record on coming forth with the truth lately.

"The bottom line is that HCR was structured on the basis of smoke and mirrors budgetary gimmickry."

Which contradicts this statement: "I have every respect for the professional analysts who work at CBO."

So, you want us to buy the idea that the professionals at CBO wouldn't protest if they felt the Congressional Democrats were giving them cooked numbers to work with? You don't think the CBO has enough pride in its reputation it wouldn't push back, or leak a protest to the papers, stage a sit down strike or SOMETHING to indicate they were being manipulated into giving the Democrats a positive assessment? C'mon.

@DBO

A number of posters seemed to care yesterday when they gleefully leaped on the CBO's assertion that HCR repeal would add 230B to the deficit.

@Amy

Read any CBO projection and it will contain the assumptions they MUST use. For example, the number of people joining the high risk pools are actually under the projections used by the CBO but the amount of money they cost is higher. Also, there are number of questions as to how many low paid employees who currently have employer insurance will be moved to the exchanges if their employer drops coverage. The CBO were told to use a figure ranging between 2 to 3 million where as other estimates project that a total of 19m could go into the exchanges if employers (including the state of Tennesee) decide that it cost beneficial to pay the fines rather than health insurance.

"The bottom line is that HCR was structured on the basis of smoke and mirrors budgetary gimmickry."

Which contradicts this statement: "I have every respect for the professional analysts who work at CBO."

Good grief Amy, can't you read or do you just have a problem with lack of gray matter between the ears? CBO didn't structure HCR using smoke and mirrors, the Dems did that. What CBO did was analyze the junk the Dems gave them. The proposition that CBO did a respectable professional job in analyzing Democratic junk is not a contradiction. Get a grip.

Amy, think of the CBO as the government answer to Price Waterhouse. If a business gave PW records that showed profit, but hid the data that would deflate those numbers, whose fault would it be that PW showed a profit?

That is what happened to Arthurs Anderson and Enron, by the way. It is not unheard of- the difference being, when a publicly held company does it, it is a criminal activity, while, when the congress does it, it is politics as usual.

Maybe that is the answer. If the rules were changed so that deliberately giving CBO insufficient data were an impeachable offense, neither side would engage in that particular subterfuge.

Any takers?

Health reform cuts the deficit. No amount of spinning is gonna change that! :o)

It seems the CBO is about as likely to get the numbers right on health care as any governmental agency on any budget. Not for nothing, but the is a basis for the old saying "good enough for government work."

They just never seem to come close on their estimates. The bigger the project, the further they are always off.

And I used to work for Arthur Anderson. If anyone thinks the CBO is infallible, or that it's numbers are not based upon assumptions that are contrary to GAAP - generally acceptable accounting principles, you are in for large disappointment.

Nashville_fan

Health reform cuts the deficit. No amount of spinning is gonna change that! :o)

It's OK Nash reality will. :o)

Nashville,

I am really going to have to disagree with that point. How can mandating people purchase something decrease the deficit--with the fines people have to pay. They keep talking about cutting medicare and using that to pay for HCL--well people on that are a majority elderly, and the elderly take and use healthcare more than younger people do. And health insurance premiums are rising. So where does that cut the deficit and the put money in the people's pockets? They said Medicare wasn't going to rise either, now is soaks up a lot of the budget.

And this is from the letter to Speaker Boehner from the CBO

Honorable John Boehner
Page 4
Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the
2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion, plus or minus the
effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include
in the forthcoming estimate.

And yet the media says it will cost $230 billion--well I disagree with that number, because to keep the HCL-it was going to increase the deficit by $145 billion--So I would think that it would only increase the deficit by $85 billion--over a 10 year period--which averages out to about $8.5 billion a year--easily able to cut that much spending in a year in our sleep.

Interesting that a new Conservative war on the CBO would begin JUST as Republicans take the budgetary reins. They're using it to justify cooking their own books instead of having them looked at by an independent auditor.

Don't worry, those foxes will take good care of the henhouse.

Bill, Fairfax, VA.

Hey, I waded throught the CBO letter First Read so kindly linked to yesterday, I may not be as gifted as you are, but I do try to educate myself and think about the issues.

Reading this letter, I see plenty of caveats from the CBO, but those caveats seem to be around not being able to project the exact figures resulting from HCR or its repeal, not in the general costs. The general direction of the numbers, seem pretty certain: without the Healthcare Reform bill , costs will go up and fewer people will be insured, with the Healthcare reform bill, more people will be insured and costs will go down. Amounts to be determined in the future.

On page 8, the CBO says that repealing HCR would leave 54 million non-elderly citizens without health insurance. It says health care costs overall would be higher if HCR were repealed, as people with coverage would be sicker, and administrative costs for insurance companies would be higher. (HCR brings large numbers of healthier, younger people into the insurance pool.) The letter ends by saying premiums would go up for employment - based coverage obtained from large companies if HCR is repealed, and possibly go up for those insured through small companies.

Truthfully, I don't understand the Republicans problem with HCR. Do they just not care if 54 million people are uninsured? Do they not care that healthcare costs and premiums are going up and up for companies as well as individuals? Boehner said yesterday this bill would bankrupt America, but it seems to me the current situation is bankrupting us, and HCR will lower costs and most premiums. What's the problem?

I don't have any problem with the CBO...but unfortunately, they can only do so much and have to make A LOT of assumptions. I think they do the best with what they are given, but as with any computer model or simulation, the results are only as good as the underlying data and assumptions. Given the economic realities of the last few years and the magnitude of the change represented by HCR, I think those assumptions and data may have lower confidence than normal. (OK...I should stop now before I start boring people to sleep with Statistics speak!) Just my $0.02 folks.

Amy,

I will agree that there are parts of the law I can live with, but others that I don't think should be in there. I do believe that we should find a non government sponsored way to get people insurance. But in our HCL--there is no regulation for controlling costs of the insurance premiums, and if you haven't noticed, they never go down. I would have agreed with having a regulation on insurance companies that keep them from rising premiums by more than 3% per year. I know they are in business to make money, but raising rates by over 30% in most places--that is not right.

But my biggest problem with the entire thing is the government mandate to purchase a product--from a company who makes a profit off it--and if I don't, then I am fined by the federal government. So either a big corporation--which many on here hate--makes a profit, or the government gets more money to spend. Not good choices in my opinion.

I may not be as gifted as you are

Amy my dear, finally something we can agree on.

Reading this letter, I see plenty of caveats from the CBO

You continue to miss the point. Yes, CBO clearly states there is uncertainty in theirs (or any) cost projection regarding HCR. But that's not the issue, the issue is the legislation that CBO was given to work with by the Democrats. And what the Democrats did was to deliberately structure that legislation in a way that would enhance getting a favorable score from CBO. Not including the $200B doc fix is a prime example of this strategy. How can the Dems maintain that HCR is budget nuetral when they deliberately ignore a huge expense that everyone knows must be paid? And how can they deliberately not include substantial sums of money that will be needed to implement the law? And how can they take $450B from Medicare to fund other provisions of HCR without making some provision for reforming Medicare in way that would actually save $450B?

On the issue of providing insurance coverage to those many millions who don't have, there is no dispute from the right that that's something that should be done. The question is, what is the best approach for doing it? More to the point, what is the most cost effective approach that the country can afford? The answer is not HCR as the Democrats have crafted it, that approach is a bigtime budget buster at a time when we can't even pay the bills we already have. And that's a key reason for the opposition from the right: the Democrats passed a costly and massive new entitlement at precisely a moment in our history when we can least afford it.

The insurance companies are required to spend 85% of what they take in from premiums on actual healthcare expenditures. That doesn't leave much room for profits. If they have excess they will have to lower their premium rates.

I understand the problems with the CBO numbers. However...

First, the current health care system is not working. It is costing us more that it should. That's why everyone, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, from many different administrations realizes we need something different.

Second, the legislation necessary to effect these changes has become unnecessarily complex due to the many demands it has to satisfy.

Third, I think everyone agrees that there is cost involved in setting up such a program. Why would there not be cost involved with dismantling it? And yet even more cost involved in setting up a replacement program?

This would seem to be a given regardless of who uses what numbers and how they might have been manipulated.

Bill, thoughtful post with some good points. I disagree with some of it. Both parties complain about the CBO but only if it is on something they don't like. If you recall, the HCR was repeatedly amended, changed, things added and deleted to achieve the goal of cost savings; the CBO also could not "score" the intangible savings you referred to. The CBO scored the entire final bill which was why it did not come to a vote until Christmas Eve, 2009. Every piece of legislation of this magnitude will have flaws; the idea is when those flaws are revealed, fix them. The CBO's job is to give the best cost scoring they can based on the facts within the bill--they do not score the intangibles nor can they score the externalities that occur.

If you want to talk about "smoke and mirrors", go back to the Bush/GOP Medicare Part D, Rx plan which was passed without funding adding to the deficit and further burdening the Medicare Trust. The Bush WH deliberately hid the CBO's final score in order to get the bill passed. Once the real score was leaked and the true cost revealed, even republicans were angry at the deception. The democrats did not try to hide the CBO score; if HCR didn't meet their intended goal--they did their best to fix the problem areas.

Republicans are making a huge mistake to declare themselves capable of cost scoring legislation; I do not have much faith that John Boehner's accounting skills are better than the nonpartisan CBO.

True, the CBO is required to give assessments based solely on the data they are given. HOWEVER, they are also allowed to issue an assessment or analysis based on actual numbers and other data not given to them, if they so desire. They have done this in the past to specifically address the credibility issue.

Nice to read a good discussion of the issues here.

Paul, the number the insurance companies must spend on actual health care is 80%. All this bill did was limit their profit margin to 20%. CEO's are paid an average of $12 million per year, some as high as $23 million. Back in the 1990's insurance companies spent 93% on actual health care.

Big Bear. I think the question we should ask is why do we believe that a for-profit business which is traded on the stock market with the goal of making money should be in charge of our health insurance system? The highest rated, most efficient, and best quality US health insurance system is the VA, a government nonprofit organization. I am not saying that doctors, hospitals, clinics, nurses, etc. should not make a profit but rather the system which pays those entities should be nonprofit. Right now our insurance premiums pay multi-million dollar CEO salaries, shareholder dividends, advertising costs, cost of lobbyists who want to prevent HCR from happening, and for political campaign contributions. That does not seem smart to me.

Big Bear. Forgot to say I agree about the mandate to buy from a for-profit group.

Big Bear:

If you are just going to reject the fact that health reform reduces the deficit out of hand because you don't understand how it works, makes it difficult to "discuss".

Believe what you want . . . the actual facts say that health reform cuts the deficit.

Here is a link that explains how . . . read it if you dare! :o)

P.S. It is interesting how the semantics of something can effect how we feel about it.

Our entire country is owned by corporations. They own literally everything down to our little league teams.

To reject a workable health care plan because we don't want to be mandated to buy things from a for profit company presents the illusion that we aren't forced to buy things from for profit corporations on the daily.

I suppose the illusion of having a choice is very powerful. Having 3 for profit gas stations to choose from charging the exact same price for gas is viewed as a choice.

Having to buy the insurance offered by your employer or being uninsured is viewed as a choice. The reality is, in most states, one company controls more than 50% of the entire health insurance market.

This just in America - you haven't had many choices for a long time.

For some reason, my link keeps disappearing . . . weird.

So, am I to infer that links are no longer allowed?

Bill, Fairfax, VA

Paul Krugman has already debunked the right wing talking point regarding the 200 billion "doc fix." I discovered by googling it. I hope you passed that misinformation along in error, and weren't deliberatley trying to mislead me.

And besides, I thought the problem with HCR1 is that it will kill jobs, as in "HCR2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care LAw Act. " In what way does getting everybody covered, lowering premiums and reducing the federal deficit kill jobs?

This is how Republicans are losing America's trust. Every time I seriously consider the "conservative" point of view, it turns out to be based on spin, misinformation and fear tactics.

Jody,

Not that I disagree about the VA--being non-profit, but it is paid for by the American taxpayer. And as with any health care program, it has its share of problems. And it gets increases each year from the federal budget, in 2011, they are asking for another 10% increase. It is one of the programs that our government has that I don't mind as much paying for. Because those who have served our country, to protect our rights, such as speaking on this forum, deserve the best care. And I would bet, you could use a scalpel and cut 10% easily from the waste in that program.

These folks have earned their insurance through the VA--they served their country through the military, and many other people serve this country by working hard and paying their taxes. Does that mean everyone should get the same type of insurance? We already have a huge deficit, why not add a little more to it?

Nash,

What don't you like about having choices?

I prefer to pick the company I choose to purchase from, especially gas stations, I prefer to purchase from companies that I own stock in, or are more American owned than others. At least given the choice to purchase the same product, but different companies is a choice. It might come down to which one is on the right side of the road on the way home. But it is still a choice and the government did not make if for me.

Health reform might bring down the deficit, I am just wondering how. If everyone is healthier, maybe costs go down in the long run, but I don't see our society becoming less obese. I know that losing 60 pounds will make me live longer, and be healthier, less doctors visits, but that is my personal finances that I am saving, not the federal deficit. All federal programs look great when they are on the chalkboard, but they never seem to work out.

Social Security could have been a great program if done correctly, but it will never survive in the state that it is. But when you keep adding people to the rolls, just to get votes, it'll go broke, there just aren't enough workers to provide for the amount of retirees we are going to have.

I guess we could all just get our checks from the government, and hand them all back to pay for all the services we have to have to keep us alive. Gosh, then I wouldn't have to work so many hours a day.

Big Bear:

I tried to leave a link, but apparently that's not allowed anymore.

Put this in Google:

How Health Care Reform Reduces the Deficit in 5 Not-So-Easy Steps

Does a pretty good job of explaining how Health Care Reform works in relationship to the deficit.

Bear, I love having a choice. My point is that 5 companies selling the same thing at the same price ain't a choice. Those who profit from the status quo are doing everything they can to make you cynical about government so you will keep accepting the "choices" they offer you.

You already don't have a choice Big Bear, and it wasn't the government who took it from you. I'll let you figure out who did.

witt21

The Republican talking point that revenues are collected before money is spend, thus skewering the costs, has also been debunked by Paul Krugman. He even has a chart. Google Paul Krugman Healthcare Reform and see for yourself.

Significant improvement in the jobs numbers benefits all Americans.

As a purely political matter, such improvement benefits politicians across the ideological spectrum, and both sides will claim credit.

President Obama and the Democrats will insist that the President's economic policies were correct all along; the GOP will point out that meaningful sustained expansion of the economy and substantial increases in private-sector employment occurred only after heavy Democratic losses, including control of the House of Representatives, in the midterm elections.

Whatever...if unemployment is going to continue to trend downward at an accelerated pace, it's all good as far as the American people are concerned, isn't it?

As far as scoreboard watching goes, Nash...I like these results too:

Obstructionists-87

Democrats-9

:-)

Happy Friday, Nash. I like how President Obama just keeps facing forward and taking on the next tasks. He is like a chess player, always thinking many moves ahead and he doesn't take his eye off of the ultimate goals.

Happy Friday to you too Steeler Fan! :o)

P.S. Mixed Bag, now you and I both know that the economy ain't rebounding because of the midterms! lol

Don't be so sure, Nash...

It's fairly safe to assume that any business seriously considering expansion and hiring regarded the outcome of the midterms as a good reason to proceed with such plans for reasons that would be obvious to most. (Although, perhaps...not to most here at First Read. lol!)

The overwhelmingly positive reaction to the outcome of November's elections by the business media substantiates this.

There is consensus that the election results are, if nothing else, good for economic growth going forward.

Mixed Bag:

The business media is owned by business and so their objectivity may be just a tad compromised, no?

Trust me, saving GM, providing a safety net for the unemployed and uninsured, and stabilizing the rogue banking industry is what is impacting the economy - not empty talking points from politicians.

Have a great weekend Mixed Bag!

Nash-

While the items you listed all have had varying degrees of impact on the economy, the midterms resulted in President Obama's compromise agreement with the GOP to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.

The removal of the uncertainty about tax rates for the next two years will have a far greater positive impact on business expansion, hiring, and overall economic growth going forward than any other Administration initiative.

And lastly...

Enjoy your weekend as well, Nash!

Mixed Bag,

How do you feel about this position regarding Tax Cuts? Higher taxes moves people to find write offs and deductions (e.g. New Equipment). Lower taxes results in more profit of which is kept not reinvested.

My company (private) is reporting 17% growth whereas our competitors are experiencing negative growth. We are hiring because there is work/orders. Your belief that extending Tax Cuts for millionares caused the unemployment rate to fall is, in my opinion, naive for lack of a better word.

Consumer confidence is up. Retailers had a good Xmas season. Therefore employer forecasts are more optimistic. IMO that is why employers are hiring.

http://thebusinesstimes.com/consumer-confidence-slips-but-2011-growth-still-forecast

Then witt, how has the economy already been recovering for 17 consecutive months of GDP growth?

Sorry Conservatives, while you were busy trying to torpedo the President he was busy getting things done.

John B-

Perhaps if the voters had noticed the impact of that stunning statistic in the course of their daily lives, they wouldn't have tossed out 53 Democratic House incumbents (a modern day record for defeated incumbents, and by a wide margin) and decided to place their bets on President Obama working with a Republican House instead.

The electorate (go figure) thought the economy was lousy...

Again, for the slow learners:

Obstructionists-87

Democrats-9

Whatever President Obama gets done from now on, the electorate made it clear that bipartisanship is (finally) going to be involved.

Let's hear it for the voters, First Readers!

Enjoy the latest permanent Republican majority, MB. I look forward with interest to the reaction of voters once they see their chosen representatives in action.

They will expose themselves as con-men and saboteurs so inartfully that the electorate will recoil in horror. Obama has nothing to worry about, except Iran.

"Truther" Paul-

Thank you for coming to my assistance.

Though...

Not intentionally, of course.

It never ceases to amaze me that we have reached the point in human history where "Truther" is considered a negative. Orwell would be proud, and horrified at the same time.

I'm afraid that the term "truther", in its present day context, has far more baggage than Orwell could ever have imagined.

That aside...

Thanks, Paul.

x

Navy

Letting the House score their own bills is not a good idea. The republican/tea party do not exactly have a great record on coming forth with the truth lately.

That's because if the CBO scores it it would make the Republicans look even more like like liars.

It get's worse.

Republicans have another trick up their sleeves.

So since they know their smoke and mirrors is suspect, what do they do?

They want to push a proposal that would require every bill that comes before the House appropriations committee to exclude any funding for implementing or enforcing the federal health care law.

By the way, insurance rates are going up 50% in California, if I'm not mistaken it is California.

"This positive movement in the economy could not be better timed".

For the American people, significant earlier improvement would have been preferrable.

Purely as a political matter, you are correct. The timing is perfect...for the GOP.

For the Democrats, I would say that better timing would have been, say, six months ago...well before they suffered last November's crushing defeat in the midterm elections.

If there is sustained economic growth and a steady reduction in the unemployment rate going forward, the voters will pat themselves on the back for making the right decision at the ballot box in choosing to give President Obama a Republican House to work with.

Timing is everything, isn't it?

Purely as a political matter, you are correct. The timing is perfect...for the GOP

Not possible, since the piece that reduced the unemployment rate was revision of NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER.

Republicans have been denying the gathering recovery month after month. They're just late to the party.

John B-

If you're honestly unable to see how the prospect of real economic growth going forward doesn't politically benefit the GOP (as opposed to the Democrats who just lost 63 seats in large part because of dismal jobs and growth statistics up to last November 2nd)...then you simply need to review my post, because you clearly missed the point I was making about "timing".

Or...you're being willfully obtuse, John.

Can't rule that out...

I suppose that's perferrable to being naturally obtuse.

Yes, I get your argument. You're saying that business everywhere suddenly shook off their chains and started doing business again when they woke up to find a miraculous new majority in one house of Congress.

Now THAT is willfully obtuse.

Very close, John B-

You're very warm, indeed.

But...starting with the midterm elections, closely followed by President Obama's decision to extend all of the Bush tax cuts (the two can hardly be said to be unrelated, eh John?), I'm betting that conditions have been created that will result in greater economic growth and an accelerated pace of job creation.

Of course...you could bet against that.

But I'm afraid that you would appear willfully obtuse yet again.

On the contrary, I've been pointing out since early fall that Economists have been projecting an accelerated rate of improvement in 2011. Spin it any way you want, this isn't a surprise to anyone with a semblance of objectivity.

Really, John B?

You question MY objectivity?

I'm the guy who's always, ALWAYS, John B...here at First Read playing what amounts to an "away"game.

This is your home, John B, filled with your homers.

You really need to be more gracious...

You might hurt my feelings.

Nah...

I'm OK, John B.

Continue to march.

Robert:

The tax cut deal will have a positive impact on the economy, unemployment etc. These numbers though have nothing to do with it yet, but you are right, in 2011 CBPP report of 12/22/2010 said the GDP Numbers and the one above will be better and continue into 2012.

You can see the whole report on CBPP web site. Good reading.

The Republicans did absolutely nothing but obstruct for two entire years, so I don't see where they deserve any credit whatsoever for the economic recovery. As anyone with a 401K knows, the enormous losses in stock market holdings incurred due to the Bush Recession have been steadily reversed for that entire time. Economists warned that the recovery in the job market would lag behind the stock market for a period of years. I can't say for sure, but most people are probably hoping that this is only the beginning of the jobs recovery (everyone except the Republicans, that is, who would benefit politically from continued high unemployment).

Robert,

I agree with you in principle, BUT . . .

For the past two years, the Republican party has basically said no and told lies. Seriously.

They have still offered no alternative plans that will actually control the deficit that the tax cuts helped create.

So maybe we can work toward some "shared victories", but the only reason that we got anything accomplished at all over the past two years was President Obama's single minded focus on getting stuff done, even if he had to meet the Republicans on their front porch (no where near "half way").

Sorry, the Republicans only get credit for confusing the issues and protecting the status quo and their own political careers.

Nashville and USN

I am saying that if you get all the credit for the successes you have all the accountability for the problem.

I know the rhetoric of Bush did this and Bush did that; they just sid No No No; they only care about the businesses and not employees; etc etc etc

I am not a Bush fan and wasn't an Obama fan until he turned a little to the center and made a compromise for the good of the people. And with recent appointments, I thin he sees the need to work with the opposition and the business world. I am liking him more and more.

If unemployment continues to go down it will be because of the parties working together.

Houston

The reason that 401(k)'s and the stock market have regained losses of 2008 and 2009, is because of businesses and certainly not because of the stimulus package.

Face it it is too easy and incredibly naive to try and blame things on one side totally or to take crdit for a modest recovery for one side totally.

Robert,

I agree that no political party is blameless in the mess we find ourselves in.

You say the stockmarket turned around because of "business". What exactly is it that "business" DID to turn it around?

I mean, we had those same businesses when the bottom fell out right?

You may not want to acknowledge it, but the stimulus did work because it stopped us from losed a quarter of a million jobs a month.

That is progress by any measure.

I don't believe that the jobs numbers are a direct result of tax cuts or stimulus spending I believe it was something called xmas. If those numbers continue into jan or feb then i'll believe it. Or I'll believe something. I'm not quite sure which one I believe yet.

Robert :

The reason that 401(k)'s and the stock market have regained losses of 2008 and 2009, is because of businesses and certainly not because of the stimulus package

What you say contradicts the opinions of expert economists, including John McCain's economic adviser in the 2008 election: The stimulus worked. That's not MY opinion, it's theirs. For what reason should I accept your opinion over theirs?

BTW: The first thing that someone has to do to earn credit is to do SOMETHING. What, exactly was it that the Republicans did during the past two years aside from obstruct?

In fact, here is what McCain's economic guru has to say on the subject;

We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.

If it weren't for the blowhards of talk radio this wouldn't even be a question now.

If America "knows" this it's because the Conservative media has masterfully delivered their lies;

"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

This discrepancy was explored recently in a study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov.

According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

It isn't just the stock market, either;

The data in the above table clearly shows that there is no real evidence that Republican Presidents are better for the economy or your wallet than Democratic Presidents. The data strongly indicates that the opposite is likely true.

True. Over One Trillion Dollars are being hoarded by major corporations. I did see a piece over the weekend that some of the major companies are going to start hiring again. But, it did not specifically say here in the US though.

If corporations are sitting on capital and planning on spending it now that the new tax act makes it easier to deduct the expenditures quickly, that is great. If they are going to spend it on jobs outside of the US---not so great. Worse yet is if they are going to spend it on huge bonuses for top executives while allowing those at the bottom to keep doing the work of their laid-off colleagues. Time will tell.

Corporations have also learned to get by with less, so getting unemployement #'s back to 98 level will be impossible. UE might level out at 7 - 8 % and that will become the new "norm". Like oil has.

superlogi,

He isn’t talking about shareholders he is talking about cash in their corporate accounts. And the amount of cash on hand is actually closer to $2 trillion.

But, superlogi, I thought giving money to the wealthy and corporations meant they would spend it and create jobs, and...

This is why we are confused. Conservatives tend to say one thing but they do something else.

Think how much better the unemployment number would be if the 1.8 million jobs US businesses created OVERSEAS in 2009 had been created here. I believe the unemployment number quoted was 8.7% had this happened.

Good points fielden and Jody. That's because the wealthy elites who fund the Conservative Movement have no loyalty to Americans or America. We're just an overpriced labor pool to them.

witt21 - "The wealthy elites have no intention of sharing THEIR wealth with ordinary Americans."

Houston:

That is what they are going to do. That is always what they do. What can you expect from a party that has no new ideas and the old ones did not work so well. They will grasp at anything, in this case President Obama's success and try to claim it for themselves. Just like they did in the Pledge to America Plan where they copied at least seven (7) of the provisions in the HCR Bill that was already passed and tried to pass them off as their own ideas.

Karl Rove would be proud.

That's the most important difference between the two parties: the Democratic Party has many flaws, but it is reality-based. The Republican Party ignores reality. That's what got us into the disastrous war with a country that had weapons of mass destruction only in the fevered brains of neocons. And we're in for a really bad stretch of road if the Republicans make good on their threat to base all their budgetary decisions on radical rightwing ideology with no relationship to reality whatsoever.

This is what I find funny about the supporters of the clowns in DC. They both think they have the truth on their side. For Example Houston, what is the reality in Afghanistan? I heard (on MSNBC) that the money we're spending there every week could employ 300k teachers. Isn't this a conflict now supported by President Obama and funded by the previous congress which had large Democratic majorities. What is the ideology in support of this? What reality am I missing that supports these expenditures? You tell me what is the end game?

Start being objective in your analysis of both parties and you'll see that they bend the truth to suit their own ends. I am only harder on the Democrats because they were the party in power. Times are changing but I still think HCR is a lousy bill and reforms nothing.

Alan NJ:

This is what I find funny about the supporters of the clowns in DC. They both think they have the truth on their side.

Everybody thinks they have the truth on their side, but some people will change their plans when the evidence indicates that they're wrong. The Democrats generally (but not always) are willing to do that but the current crop Republicans seldom are. They shown time and again that they will ignore any facts that don't fit their nutty ideology, as they've just demonstrated by ignoring all CBO reports they don't like.

This has nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, which I agree appears to be futile.

Well said, Houston. Democrats have flaws, absolutely, but they prefer the real facts while republicans prefer to make up theirs.

The past few weeks, the GOPTP has changed their lead-in talking point from "government takeover" (health care, financial regulation) to "job killing". Charles Grassley was interviewed on local TV yesterday ranting against the "job killing" Obama policies. They'll need a new term since it is becoming increasingly obvious that the fact is those Obama policies are "job creating."

I had a nicotine addiction. Then I quit buying them. Now I have no nicotine addiction.

Maybe Boehner could try that approach.

Obviously I made that one up. :)

That is part of the problem with elevating form over substance, Jody----sounds like a great idea to read the Constititution aloud---but then you have to really do it and they didn't want to actually do it or listen to it. Kind of like Sarah Palin being governor of Alaska---she wanted the title but not the actual work.

They seek positions of power and influence so that they can then sabotage progress and blame it on someone else's incompetence. "Mistakes were made."

Jody -

Looks like we're on the same page once again regarding the "Oops!" for Sessions and Fitzpatrick. Regarding the rest of your post and the crowd disappearing as the reading of the Constitution went on, I wonder how many people know just how commonplace that really is in both houses of Congress? I don't have cable, so I don't get to watch C-Span, but I had the personal experience of sitting in the Senate gallery for a while several years ago, and I've seen livelier ghost towns. Other than the presiding officer at the time, whoever was speaking at the podium, and a handful of aides talking amongst themselves, the chamber was empty for the better part of an hour. We were thinking of leaving, but someone had said there was a vote scheduled at 5:00pm, so we hung around, and sure enough, at about 4:58 the doors opened and Senators started pouring in. The roll call took a while, partly because so many of them were still reading whatever the bill was and partly because some, when their name was called, actually had to go over and check with their party leadership to see which way they were supposed to vote (and yes, that included folks in both parties). It was the same kind of eye-opening experience that actually serving on jury duty the first time was for me - i.e., nothing at all like you see on tv. But in both cases, still something every American should gladly do.

I actually thought the Constitution reading wasn't a bad idea, even if the motives kind of smacked of posturing and pandering, but I guess as Steeler Fan said, it's another triumph of form over substance. Too bad......especially the parts they skipped. A real potential "teachable moment" lost.

I agree with you both JoAnne and Jody.

JoAnne, your experiences sitting in the United States Senate mirror my own. And your comparisons to jury duty are so apt.

I am heartened that we have a system and that it works, for the most part. But I am likewise saddened to see the abuses that occur and to realize that it could work so much better. We must continue to strive for that goal.

neopo,

That is why most interested people also track the underemployment numbers which includes people that quit looking and ones that are working less than fulltime.

There are several tracking companies. I use Gallup @ http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

And http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

The same CBO that said years 11 – 20 would cut the deficit by one trillion dollars.

Years 11 - 20 is still based on the lie of having 6 years of expenses and 10 years of income. Additionally it doesn't include the cost of implementing 100+ agencies needed for big brother to oversee healthcare. Just look how well Romneycare is 'helping' the state of MA: 1. highest average cost of premiums in the country, 2. costing the state more than expected, 3. no decrease in number of emergency room visits, 4. longest wait times to see a Dr. - Boston. Can't wait until the whole country has what MA is experiencing.

Go USA!

You talk as if the current situation was all hunky dory. Do you not know people who are employed but uninsured? I do. Do you not know people who are saddled with huge debts from old medical bills? I sure do. C'mon. The current situation is unsustainable. At least the Democrats are doing SOMETHING to address these problems. In Republican hands, the insurance execs get richer, the middle class goes bankrupt and the poor die.

Go USA,

“Additionally it doesn't include the cost of implementing 100+ agencies needed for big brother to oversee healthcare.”

If those costs aren’t covered then just what is it that the GOP/TP is going to “defund”?

Amy,

The current situation is not hunky dory. The problem is there is nothing in it to control costs. Supply (Dr.) and demand (patient) has just been made worse by this bill - adding 32 million patients and how many more Dr's? More demand same supply, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where costs will be going. My wife has a permanent illness, it costs $ money for prescriptions. I also have kids, how did limiting the amount we can put into a flexible spending account to $2,500/year help me or anyone else in a similar situation? It didn't. The new law also removed some over the counter items from the list of approved items for a flexible spending account. Now you have to go to the Dr. (pay for your office visit) and to get a prescription for that item. How does that help you, me or others? It didn't.

Items that should have been fixed: We need to get away from employer sponsored health insurance & an insurance company should not be able to drop you once you sign a contract with them (the one thing I like about the new law, although it will eventually lead to increased premiums). Do you realize, according to a recent study, that if you have health insurance you only pay approximately 14% of the costs? When there is no incentive to look at medical costs by the insured, how can we expect them to go down (again supply and demand - we want our good health (the demand) and have little concern for the supply when we're only paying 14% out of our own pockets. Insurance companies are also at fault for keeping deductibles too low for too long and not giving us an incentive to purchase higher deductible plans (there was very little difference in premiums) with the results of higher demand of medical services and therefore higher costs.

Dennis,

The 'defunding' will be to the actual programs in the legislation, which did not include the cost of the people hired by the government to administer the legislation.

So the Democrats addressed it by making the financial aspect of it to me and others worse, and I'm supposed to be happy that they did something? Geez! Putting the noose tighter around my neck is not what I call helping. Doing nothing would have helped me financially because I was able to put more $ into my medical flexible spending account.

judging by the november midterm results, very stupid indeed!

Actually the elite are using the "war on terror" to empower Big Brother to protect them, the elite, from the masses awakening from their stupor. When they realize 9/11 was an inside job and al qaeda works for the CIA, you'll need all the Big Brother you can muster together.

Fox really has you brainwashed!

Get this straight, Superloghead: I'm pretty sure I have more pony's in the race than you which is why I do not support the trickle down theory of the Reagan/ Bush administration. A theory that has widened the gap between the poor and the rich and all but eliminated the middle class. A theory that saw GW come in with a surplus and net an 8 trillion dollar deficit by 2006. Dont forget GW issued the first bailout on his way out of office in an attempt to stem the tide of the collapse his administration created. I know who you support and it's not the average American. But you are well trained in right winged jargon and fear mongering rhetoric (to say the least). We're just not buying it...

superilliogi: How about some numbers to back up your financial and economic assertions.

Alan,

The HCR bill was FULLY PAID FOR thus adds nothing to the deficit.

The estimated long-term deficit reduction power of the reform law comes mainly from new tax revenue, and savings from health programs like Medicare. Repealing the law would eliminate those savings, and the agency said it stands by its original estimate that the law could reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years according to a preliminary estimate released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO warns that long-term projections are highly uncertain, but said a repeal would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by around 0.5% of GDP.

Those are the facts from people representing both sides of the aisles. Sorry!

Compare the Republican plan:

The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.

"Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

The analysis shows the Republican plan would do little to expand coverage, which Democrats were quick to point out in a late night missive to reporters.

"Here's the Bottom line - Americans lose and Insurance companies win under the Republican plan," Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent.

The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: #ixzz1AMrmrkoi

No, but I can smell the BS you're shoveling and WE say hell no!

Prove it...