Does that mean you'll start REALLY ignoring me now?? :D

Michale

Either your memory problems are coming back or you are too lazy or dishonest to recognize that we were addressing different aspects of the unemployment numbers.

Go seek false validation from someone else.

Once again, this shows the wisdom of taking *EACH* and *EVERY* claim/accusation of racism with a HUGE grain of salt...

The problem is that the majority of "racism" claims are made by people with an agenda and a vested, often FINANCIAL interest in perpetuating the racism myth and rumor...

Michale

Thanks for detailing some of your objections to TPP (and NAFTA). I'll pay more attention to/research the specific points you've made so that I'm not just naively believing "it'll all work out someday"...

Principle and theory is fine, but as you say, it's the practice that matters.

Richard

"I agree, the sky is green.
That's what I've been saying all along."

Talk about re-writing recent history.. :D

Suffice it to say that I have been saying the EXACT same thing you have said regarding employment figures..

The only difference is, I have been saying it for years as anyone here can attest to..

You have only been saying it for a couple weeks.. :D

I'm glad even a wingnut troll such as yourself can admit it finally.

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response to my position and must, therefore, resort to immature personal attacks and childish name-calling.

Your concession of my superior argument is appreciated, albeit not really relevant to anything save your own damaged and disturbed ego..

:D Have a happy... :D

Michale

Thanks for your response.

Always nice to find some agreement with others.

As for the rest of your comment, in theory, I agree with you mostly, but in practice our free trade agreements have been hijacked as vehicles to impose regulations favorable to certain corporate interests and as vehicles for corporate interests to avoid existing regulations.

These clauses that allow for extrajudicial "arbitration" for corporations by lawyers with inherent conflicts of interest to demand damages for regulations that have been deemed desirable through the democratic process are particularly offensive.

I also have issues with the notion that the race to the bottom in wage competition internationally has created net positives for our economy, rather than just the 1%.
Sure, helping other countries expand their economies will likely in the long run create opportunities for more trade and better jobs here, but the disruption is not being offset currently.

Right now, a handful are getting better jobs while millions are left twisting in the wind...

... and not only are the affected Americans not getting assistance in retraining and education, the offshoring has been corrupted by crony capitalism (not fair competition) with tax benefits and other subsidies.

The free trade benefits of the TPP in particular were kind of a joke from the beginning because the tariffs imposed by the 12 countries were negligible already.

Getting away from American interests, I have moral qualms with forcing our patent system on poor countries... particularly in regards to prescription drugs (movies, books and software aren't necessities).
If drug prices in our trading partner countries are forced higher, with the exclusion of competition from drugs from India for example, many people will lose access, many will suffer, and many will die needlessly.

If you look at the effect of NAFTA, farmers in Mexico were devastated by the competition with subsidized American corporate agribusiness.

So, I think we need to consider the effects more carefully, because the acceptable disruptions (according to those writing these pacts) are not in line with American values.

I also have doubts about your faith in pressure being applied on economic, labor and environmental reforms by our trading partners. We not only get a lot of lip service in that area, we're also getting currency manipulation going unchallenged and other shenanigans to prevent the desired effects from occurring... with no small amount of complicity and profit by and for a small segment of Americans.

A

So, let me try to explain it for you.
In reference to your response to comment 12...

I said the sky was blue.

In a desperate quest for validation, your response was-

"I agree, the sky is green.
That's what I've been saying all along."

So, no, I don't have a problem with you agreeing with me... but you weren't agreeing with me.

You misunderstood the English.
You read what you wanted to read, instead of what was written.

Then you misunderstood a simple comparison of reality to the policy here (#29), that exposes your claims to be false, as wanting to change the policy... so as much as you want to laugh at me, you are just laughing at what you want to believe, rather than the truth... in other words, at yourself.

So, to take a page out of your book...

... I agree with you. Your reading comprehension skills really blow. I'm glad even a wingnut troll such as yourself can admit it finally.

Obama is NOT going to be able to take hostages...

Because the legislation has a VETO-PROOF majority!!!

hehehehehehehehehehe

SUCK IT, Obama!!!! :D

{{deep breath}}

OK, OK.. I got that out of my system...

Michale

Now we'll see what's more important to Obama and the Democrat Party...

The safety and security of the country??

Or their own partisan agenda..

And I am SURE ya'all will jump right in with the claims of "hostage taking" directed at Obama and the Democrat Party.... Right?? :^/

"In a pig's eye!"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Amok Time

:D

Michale

As an educator, I would be very interested in your opinion of the article mentioned in comment #41..

Am I truly off base to think how whacked some of these want-to-be-coddled "students" are??

Michale

Michale

Appeals court rejects Obama plan to shield 5 million illegals from deportation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/9/obama-plan-shield-millions-deportation-rejected-ap/?page=1

Mr President, what part of "NO" do you not understand???

You are NOT allowed to mint millions of fresh new Democrat voters..

It's not allowed...

Michale

Very interesting article...

It's long, but well worth the read..

It's a fine expose on the Political Correctness that is making American life a living hell...

Somewhere along the line, the Left Wingery has decided that they have a RIGHT never to be offended by anything. And anyone who DOES "offend" must be destroyed.. Completely and utterly destroyed..

It's a sad country we live in..

Not because of the alleged "evil" or "greed" from the Right..

But because of the complete and utter intolerance from the Left...

Michale

Twice, even... :D

J/K couldn't resist... :D

Michale

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_s_candidacy_doesn_t_have_democrats_excited_president_obama.html

But if yer people aren't excited about the criminal Queen Bee, then 2016 will be a replay of 2014....

Michale

Particularly since we are talking about future potential risk of inflation, not current, actual inflation.
Throw in the underemployment, discouraged, and workforce participation rate numbers, and there seems to be ample reason to be careful about tapping the breaks right now.

I agree, there's even evidence to suggest that the usual ~5% marker for what is referred to as "full employment" could actually be moved lower (for instance, see the 1990s).

The only way to know that is empirically -- that is, don't tap the brakes and wait for inflationary pressures to rise. If the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, there could be an argument that "full employment" could be defined as a two consecutive quarters of rising inflation (i.e., not just positive inflation, but going up) and that that inflation is because of raising wage pressures.

I'm not enough of an amateur economist to know how much that POV might be considered, but really the management should be more empirical and reactionary than simply getting in front of some historical marker.

I can appreciate that someone minding the boiler room wants to back the pressure off before crosses thresholds and becomes hard to lower, but at the same time, one needs to get a head of steam going (not sure if that's a mixed metaphor...).

So, with regard to the point you raised that I quoted above, I agree with you. Let the wage pressures form and labor shortages occur more before "tapping the brakes" -- prove the "full employment" line is there empirically before acting. Nonetheless, even 2 or 3% won't likely address the kind of stubborn unemployment that occurs because some positions just aren't in as much demand as they used to be.

What I'm about to write will take us further afield from the original employment discussion, but is tangentially relevant (as are most things in economics)...

Where I disagree with many people that vote D, is that I'm sympathetic with free trade agreements. For instance, I generally perceive NAFTA in a positive light and was open to TPP in principle (I haven't examined its terms with any rigor). In general, I know there are downsides but there are also substantial upsides assuming that the manufacturing, labor, and export environments can move toward comparable landscapes among the trading nations involved. Not that they must be comparable or similar before the agreement is in force but rather I expect that having such agreements active will promote more similarity and progress in economic contexts over time.

Further, I explicitly do not mind that some of our workers may experience worse employment because of such agreements -- creating competitive pressures for us to respond to is a net positive (for instance, education anyone?). But that's because I also have faith that pressure will be placed on other participating nations to have to reform and improve their labor and governance practices over time in ways that are unlikely without such agreements in place.

One of the things that the US must address is the income equality problem not simply for ethical fairness of some egalitarian standard, but because of economic prosperity regardless of political and philosophical outlook. The amount of waste in our economy because, for instance, single minority women have to spend additional hours arranging health care and child care JUST BECAUSE of poverty-level incomes instead of going to school or starting businesses is an economic drag and holds us all back. The fact that we incarcerate at some of the highest rates in the developed world is a huge drag on our economy.

Being in trade agreements where we are open to competition from other countries to step up our capacity will, over time, put economic pressure on us to do better in ways that I am hopeful will improve all of our lot and not just the proverbial 1%. And, at least in principle, I consider global free trade agreements consistent with a liberal economic POV even if today's labor unions stridently disagree with that.

And before someone decides to debate the merits of the TPP with me: I haven't read it in anywhere close enough detail to know if it fits my more theoretical general perspective on free trade agreements. All I can say is that in general, I'm glad we pursued a new free trade agreement.

So it's not that I consider those worker populations forced to undergo more unemployment rates as some kind of acceptable economic casualties (some sort of "there but for the grace of God..." attitude), but rather that free trade agreements have a strong potential to create and maintain pressures for the sort of creative destruction necessary for more expansive prosperity.

Good grief, I do ramble on...sorry.

Particularly since we are talking about future potential risk of inflation, not current, actual inflation.
Throw in the underemployment, discouraged, and workforce participation rate numbers, and there seems to be ample reason to be careful about tapping the breaks right now.

I agree, there's even evidence to suggest that the usual ~5% marker for what is referred to as "full employment" could actually be moved lower (for instance, see the 1990s).

The only way to know that is empirically -- that is, don't tap the brakes and wait for inflationary pressures to rise. If the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, there could be an argument that "full employment" could be defined as a two consecutive quarters of rising inflation (i.e., not just positive inflation, but going up) and that that inflation is because of raising wage pressures.

I'm not enough of an amateur economist to know how much that POV might be considered, but really the management should be more empirical and reactionary than simply getting in front of some historical marker.

I can appreciate that someone minding the boiler room wants to back the pressure off before crosses thresholds and becomes hard to lower, but at the same time, one needs to get a head of steam going (not sure if that's a mixed metaphor...).

So, with regard to the point you raised that I quoted above, I agree with you. Let the wage pressures form and labor shortages occur more before "tapping the brakes" -- prove the "full employment" line is there empirically before acting. Nonetheless, even 2 or 3% won't likely address the kind of stubborn unemployment that occurs because some positions just aren't in as much demand as they used to be.

Where I disagree with many people that vote D, is that I'm sympathetic with free trade agreements. For instance, I generally perceive NAFTA in a positive light and was open to TPP in principle (I haven't examined its terms with any rigor). In general, I know there are downsides but there are also substantial upsides assuming that the manufacturing, labor, and export environments can move toward comparable landscapes among the trading nations involved. Not that they must be comparable or similar before the agreement is in force but rather I expect that having such agreements active will promote more similarity and progress in economic contexts over time.

Further, I explicitly do not mind that some of our workers may experience worse employment because of such agreements -- creating competitive pressures for us to respond to is a net positive (for instance, education anyone?). But that's because I also have faith that pressure will be placed on other participating nations to have to reform and improve their labor and governance practices over time in ways that are unlikely without such agreements in place.

What I'm about to write will take us further afield from the original employment discussion, but is tangentially relevant (as are most things in economics)...

One of the things that the US must address is the income equality problem not simply for ethical fairness of some egalitarian standard, but because of economic prosperity regardless of political and philosophical outlook. The amount of waste in our economy because, for instance, single minority women have to spend additional hours arranging health care and child care JUST BECAUSE of poverty-level incomes instead of going to school or starting businesses is an economic drag and holds us all back. The fact that we incarcerate at some of the highest rates in the developed world is a huge drag on our economy.

Being in trade agreements where we are open to competition from other countries to step up our capacity will, over time, put economic pressure on us to do better in ways that I am hopeful will improve all of our lot and not just the proverbial 1%. And, at least in principle, I consider global free trade agreements consistent with a liberal economic POV even if today's labor unions stridently disagree with that.

And before someone decides to debate the merits of the TPP with me: I haven't read it in anywhere close enough detail to know if it fits my more theoretical general perspective on free trade agreements. All I can say is that in general, I'm glad we pursued a new free trade agreement.

So it's not that I consider those worker populations forced to undergo more unemployment rates as some kind of acceptable economic casualties (some sort of "there but for the grace of God..." attitude), but rather that free trade agreements have a strong potential to create and maintain pressures for the sort of creative destruction necessary for more expansive prosperity.

The latest order, with theatrically themed comments is:

1: Rubio, probability of securing nomination about 38%

Rubio, oh Rubio, say have you met Rubio?
Rubio the top dog laddie?
He has features the markets adore so
And he's moving up ever more so.

Rubio oh Rubio, that encyclopedio
Rubio the unsung top dog
Jeb! has met his Waterloo
On the Wreck of the Hesperus 2!

2: Trump, volatile (what else), but lately 15-20% and trending up. A BIG SNL spike!

3: Cruz, 10% lately volatile, but quietly accelerating (mostly) upwards the past few months. Musical adaptation of The Little Engine That Could, chugging up that big nomination hill..McCarthy McCarthy McCarthy.

4: Jeb!, 9% See Rubio. The musical some wags have dubbed The Man From Who Wants Ya.

5: Carson 5% Unlicensed touring production of Godspell. The Jesus character forgets his lyrics and just wings it.

6: Christie 3% "You New Jersey audiences are the greatest"

This has been a Remora Production, a commensal attachment to CW.com

Michale

The rejection of this relatively minor stretch of pipeline has a very direct and substantial impact on America's global leadership role with respect to mitigating the negative consequences of climate change. More importantly, allowing this pipeline, which has become a kind of litmus test on how serious you are about fighting climate change, would have diminished the seriousness with which the rest of the CO2 emitting world would take the US position on what to do about climate change.

I had a doozy of a response to this, Liz.. Unfortunately, the NNL filters kicked in.. :D

CW, would ya mind?? :D

Michale

In honor of all that, I felt it fitting to review all the other "Last CHANCE!!!"es we have endured over the years..

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

Last chance! – Bonn, 2001
Oh my gods, the sky is falling!!! This is our "LAST CHANCE"!!!!

Last chance! – Montreal, 2005
HOLY PLANETARY DESTRUCTION, Batman!!! This is REALLY our "LAST CHANCE" to prevent the end of the planet!!

Last chance! – Bali, 2007
HOLY CRAP!!! This is REALLY REALLY the last chance to save humanity!!!

Last chance! – Copenhagen, 2009
Oh dear!! This is really, really, REALLY, REALLY the last chance before the planet dies... REALLY!!!

Last chance! – Doha, 2012
Come'on guys!! OK OK.. This is REALLY the REALLY FINAL last chance to save the planet.. Truly...

Last chance! – Lima, 2014
Are you shitting me!!?? Com'on.. NO ONE is going to be stupid enough to fall for this crap again!!! Oh aww right... People, this is really the last chance... Do nothing now and we all are going to die... Truly... They mean it this time..

Last chance! – Paris, 2015
OK, you people are royally nucking futz!! How many times are you people going to play Chicken Little!? Fine, I know you are paying me... So, here goes... Hi everyone. The world will end (yaaawwwnnnn) unless we do something.. (burrrppp) ANYTHING... There, I did my schtick, give me my paycheck..

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

So ends the history of the Global Warming.... I mean Climate Change... Oooopss Climate Disruption religion...

And all of this begs the question...

Since Paris is the absolute one and only truly and really "Last Chance"......

Does that mean AFTER this, the Global Warming fanatics will SHUT UP about it!!???

"If only.... If only...."
-Hades, HERCULES

The Hysterical Left sounds like those preacher whack-jobs who are always predicting the end of the world..

Funny story about that...

I have a computer repair shop at a local flea market.. This one group of religious whack-jobs had a booth at the flea market.. They were preaching the end of the world is 2 months away or something like that... One of the guys came in and bought a laptop from me.. Normally, I give a one year warranty on all my laptops... But, tongue in cheek, I told the guy that I would only give him a 2 month warranty.. We haggled for a bit and finally settled on a 6 month warranty... He left, very happy with his purchase.. It was all I could do to keep a straight face...

True story... :D

Anyways, I am sure that we are going to have to endure yearly "Last Chance" conferences, because it's not about climate or saving the planet..

It's all about the money, the power and the control...

And anyone who follows this hokey religion is part of the problem.. NOT part of the solution...

Michale

Democrats Asked for Obamacare but Now Try to Duck Out of Paying for It

Who knew that TrainWreckCare would be such an apt name for it..

Oh.... wait..... :D

It's funny.. No one wants to talk about TrainWreckCare anymore..

"Gee, I wonder why that is??!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

:D

Michale

Democrats Asked for Obamacare but Now Try to Duck Out of Paying for It
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426748/obamacare-cadillac-tax-democrats-unions-harry-reid-nancy-pelosi

Who knew that TrainWreckCare would be such an apt name for it..

Oh.... wait..... :D

It's funny.. No one wants to talk about TrainWreckCare anymore..

"Gee, I wonder why that is??!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

:D

Michale

And, just for the record, since you appear to have a reading comprehension problem, let me dumb it down for you...

"If you dumb it down any more, I'm going to punch you!"
-Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE: ATLANTIS

:D

I was laughing at you and the utter inanity of you, ONCE AGAIN, trying to interpret, influence and/or have a say in the commenting policies here in Weigantia...

It's frakin' hilarious! :D

Michale

Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.

People like you have come and gone around here, Biga..

No debate, no argument, just immaturity and childish-ness..

I have outlasted them all..

I will outlast you as well..

But hay... Thanx for playing.. :D

Michale

There is absolutely nothing funny about your right wing ideology or the tactics you use to "defend" it.

You're laughing with yourself.

And, for the record, your partisan attack shtick that ends with "Republicans do it too" just shows your hopeless flailing while missing the forest for the trees. A wingnut partisan hack doesn't regain credibility by straddling the fence... just another blow to the family jewels.

And don't think I didn't notice how you wimped out yet again when I called you out on your unemployment nonsense.
Typical troll.
You can't even admit you were wrong for agreeing with me when I pointed out we were talking about two different things.
Such a simple admission with no impact on your... whatever it is you think you accomplish here... and you couldn't even bring yourself to be honest just once.
You've truly internalized the essence of trollery.

A

Thanks for the translation... with all the usual justifications, but also some of the caveats and exceptions that are usually swept under the rug.

Funny how wages get the focus by the corporatists, eh?

All those problems with inflation, here and abroad, historical and present... too many people working and getting paid too much.

Who would have guessed?
Sort of puts Orwell to shame.

"Macroeconomically ideal" for who again?

All those factories were shipped to China because "people weren't applying for the jobs employers want to fill"?

Yeah, capital squeezing out an extra nickel is "desirable" and therefore it's "necessary" for all those people to be unemployed.

I particularly like the "for whatever reason" part... it fits nicely with the "structural" term among others, so economists and politicians don't have to get into the ugly details about who exactly is being left out of the great American dream and why.

Just to be clear rdnewman, it's the message not the messenger I'm railing against. I'm well aware that what you wrote is basically straight out of the textbooks written by and for THEM. And it's not really the economics either, it's the application and execution that abuses and pervert the economics under political cover.

It's completely ridiculous that political inaction about the problems we face has left monetary policy as the only tool left available, but since that is the reality, the needs of the masses should come first. Particularly since we are talking about future potential risk of inflation, not current, actual inflation.
Throw in the underemployment, discouraged, and workforce participation rate numbers, and there seems to be ample reason to be careful about tapping the breaks right now.

A

Heh...

"It's funny cuz it's true.."
-Homer Simpson

:D

Michale

"Ben Carson is taking time off from his presidential campaign to sell another one of his books. But while he's doing so, we're finding out that in previous books he pretty much just made a bunch of stuff up. When subjected to examination, it seems several stories he told just don't hold water. At the rate this is going, we're going to find out that he was really nothing more than a dentist, pretty soon."

Speaking of "making stuff up"...

Politico Admits Fabricating A Hit Piece On Ben Carson
Politico's editorial staff on Friday conceded that entire basis of attack on Carson was invented out of whole cloth.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/06/politico-admits-fabricating-a-hit-piece-on-ben-carson/

It's funny to see the Left jump all over ANY BS claim that comes down the pipe about Republicans, but completely ignore the very real FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton...

:D

Michale

Obama held hostage: How Iran’s using the nuke deal as license to go wild
http://nypost.com/2015/11/07/obama-held-hostage-how-irans-using-the-nuke-deal-as-license-to-go-wild/

Who could have POSSIBLY thought that the religious fanatics of Iran would use America's tacit endorsement and approval of Iran's activities to go hog wild..

Oh.... wait.....

Michale

Yea... It shows.... :D

Yer just like JFC... Ya'all don't care, and ya'all go to great lengths and long abundant comments to show everyone how MUCH ya'all "don't care".... :D

Michale

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/8be7e80/2147483647/thumbnail/766x511%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F82%2Fd3%2Feb24b91341cbb6dba93c6e40e846%2Fthumb-2.jpg

:D

Michale

Of course, all of this is scant comfort if you're among the people that want to find a job in your chosen location and profession and are unable to...

Exactly...

My point has always been that there are several economic factors that are usually prevalent when politicizing the issue..

More specifically, when the unemployment rate has risen the Democrats would tout the number of jobs created or the numbers of actual unemployed has gone done etc etc..

When the number of jobs created has gone down, the Democrats would tout that the unemployment rate is actually better..

That's what I mean by "cherry picking" the data...

It's all nothing but spin...

As you said, there are still millions and millions of Americans who are unemployed and under-employed..

The REAL fact is that, if you ask Joe or Jane Sixpack if their lives are any better under Obama and the Democrats, you will get a very big resounding "NO"..

I don't begrudge Democrats their spin.. Republicans do it too...

But lets not kid ourselves and pretend it's actually indicative of anything beyond partisan spin..

Michale

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now THAT was funny!! :D

Thanx for that.. :D

Michale

Just to be clear, "full employment" in this context is actually short for the macroeconomic statement "the lowest unemployment that can exist before inflation becomes likely". The usual Fed estimation of that "ideal employment rate" is generally between 5% and 5.2% based on historical results.

Because it's a macroeconomic figure based on national statistics, it clearly doesn't take into account that some geographic areas of course vary and there are still structural employment disparities (and always are of some sort). For instance, technology workers with college degrees are certainly at much lower than 5% unemployment rate while those over 50 years old or under 21 years old and no high-school diploma are likely quite a bit higher than 5%.

There is also some "necessary" unemployment as people voluntarily switch careers and employers and companies open and close -- if the unemployment rate is too low, that suggests that it may be hard to people and companies to make changes that might otherwise be desirable. When unemployment rates are too low, then a kind of "friction" develops (so called "frictional unemployment")

Since its the one place that politics can enter what is referred to as "full employment", it's certainly fair to question unemployment rate calculation methodologies as well underemployment rates and discouraged worker rates and how these correspond with anecdotally observable unemployment. Still, if people aren't applying for the jobs that employers want to fill for whatever reasons, then wage rates are nonetheless under pressure, potentially triggering inflation and so fulfilling the definition of what is meant by the macroeconomic definition of "full employment."

One could be forgiven for thinking that pressure for employers to increase wages is a good thing, but it doesn't take long for that to translate into higher prices for everything. That's why keeping wage pressure controlled at a lower level is generally considered a Good Thing by a Fed that's tasked with limiting inflation in its charter.

It would probably be a less misleading phrase to say "macroeconomically ideal unemployment rate" than "full employment" but that's really what is meant.

Of course, all of this is scant comfort if you're among the people that want to find a job in your chosen location and profession and are unable to...

I was only responding to the nature not the content your comments, so your cut and paste projection is once again off topic... not to mention dishonest and delusional.

And, you may have noticed that personal attacks are a violation of the comment policy here.
Since my comments get posted, you should consider that my description of your wingnuttery and trollery is simply factual.

Stating the obvious about your political ideology and dishonest tactics is all you will get, as I don't feed trolls or debate liars.

Likewise, your mischaracterization of my comment about employment is bizarre... as it is completely unrelated to what you have written in the past beyond the general topic of unemployment.

Your right wing selectivity as a defense of your fellow partisan wingnuts is establishmentarian to the core, and clearly contradicts the anti-establishment gist of what my comment was about.

I have no problem with you agreeing with me, but don't claim your interpretation is at all comparable. The corporatists in both parties use the same methodology for unemployment, and the same reality twisting definition, so your "agreement" is nonsense as written, and you clearly failed to comprehend my words... and the effort to claim validation for your wingnuttery is pathetic as I did no such thing.

A

Try going to a job fair or unemployment office and asserting that we're at "full employment".
The term is downright Orwellian... and offensive to everyone seeking work.
Likewise, you'd find a similar reaction, if not worse, among the minority populations and age groups whose official unemployment numbers aren't anywhere near 5%.

Gotta agree with Biga on this one..

Mainly because I have been saying the EXACT same thing for months now....

Cherry picked employment data does not reality make... :D

Michale

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant..

I see you haven't found yer little blue pill yet, eh? :D

Michale

How can you continue to deny you are a wingnut?
Comments 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 make it plain as day.

Come out of the closet already.
Be honest and true to yourself and others.

Of course, you did manage a little attempt at changing the subject trollery too.

Why can't you admit that registering as an independent had no effect on who you are?

No sense in pretending that personal change can be accomplished by filling out and submitting a form.

A

Thanks for convincing the powers that be to limit the number of candidates in the upcoming debate.
Excellent work that.

Now, as there have been calls from the Repubs to focus on substance, let's hope the debate actually does so, because Americans deserve to know that Repub candidates have none.

As for Carson, I think another definition deserves to be included in your post.

Faith- belief that is not based on proof

So, your predictions about Carson's support falling among the faith-based community may be a tad optimistic. By definition, his false assertions may have little effect in their beliefs about him.

Can't say I'm on board with your use and acceptance of a 5% unemployment rate being considered "full employment"... despite the fact that "most economists" agree.
The concept has establishment fingerprints all over it... in other words, political cover for changing monetary policies in a manner that will make it much harder for the millions who remain unemployed to get jobs.

Try going to a job fair or unemployment office and asserting that we're at "full employment".
The term is downright Orwellian... and offensive to everyone seeking work.
Likewise, you'd find a similar reaction, if not worse, among the minority populations and age groups whose official unemployment numbers aren't anywhere near 5%.

Maybe consider including one of those "claims are not meant to be factual" qualifiers that Repub congresscritter made famous...

... or at least some mention of how the "reasoning" of economists can distort reality and commonly accepted definitions like "full" when it comes to employment.

A

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4600724969001/an-attack-on-killing-reagan/?#sp=show-clips

According to media reports, TransCanada had asked the U.S. government to suspend its permit application on Monday.

This is true. He says that he retreated to studying an ancient book of contradictory, sinister fairy-tales about a violent, tyrannical, irrational god thingy to reduce his impulse to attack people with knives and hammers. Such nonsense. It's a good thing that Trump is calling him out on his pack of lies since he's just going to keep stone-walling the media jackals. Some of the jackals were standing much too close to him last night - within hammer range. Very risky, but not as risky as giving an impulsive, apocalyptic fanatic like Carson access to nukes.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/

The excuse that she didn't know it was classified intel is now completely and utterly moot..

It was her JOB to know... And if she didn't know, it was her JOB to find out BEFORE she sent anything thru her private insecure bathroom closet email server...

Hillary is going to jail....

Michale

As I am sure ya'all would readily agree with... :D

Michale

Humans can't even control the weather and ya'all think they can control the planet's climate??

And, please..

Unless ya'all are ready to acknowledge ALL the science, not just the "science" that supports the Left Wingery agenda, don't even bother..

Arguing with Flat-Earthers who only use cheery-picked "science" to prove the existence of their god is extremely time-consuming and annoying.. :D

Michale

Considering how much BS has been PROVEN to be in Obama's books, do you REALLY want to go there??

:D

Michale

OK, we can refer to it like that from now on...

But, as long as we're being "honest", we'll start calling the Democrat Party, The Harvest Baby Parts For Fun And Profit Party

I mean, if you want "truth" (as opposed to FACTS) in labeling.......

Michale

And what makes you think that the human race has the capability to control the climate??

Humans can't even control the weather and ya'all think they can control the planet's climate??

And people call ME arrogant?? :D

Michale

He could support American workers and the middle class...

Or he could cave to the lobbyists and special interests and environmental whack-jobs.

As per the norm, Obama screwed over everyday Americans in favor of special interests and lobbyists..

The GOOD news is, it's going to be that much harder for Democrats to get elected in a year...

So, there IS a silver lining... :D

Michale

The rejection of this relatively minor stretch of pipeline has a very direct and substantial impact on America's global leadership role with respect to mitigating the negative consequences of climate change. More importantly, allowing this pipeline, which has become a kind of litmus test on how serious you are about fighting climate change, would have diminished the seriousness with which the rest of the CO2 emitting world would take the US position on what to do about climate change.

While the use of this new section of pipeline to distribute crude into the US may have negligible effects on the environment (and may arguably be a better and more environmentally-friendly method of crude transport than by rail or truck), if the US wishes to continue in its role as world leader on this issue then, politically speaking, it had to be rejected.

And, though some may think that this decision has taken the pressure off our new prime minister, Justin Trudeau, I would suggest the opposite. Now the pressure is full on as Trudeau prepares for next month's climate meeting in Paris. We shall see just how serious he and others are about taking action to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change.