Obama-Economy Debate - Alamogordo, NM

alamo_airforce wrote:

Then stop using her warrior name and get your own. Until you do that i will call you by whatever name i wish to.
<quoted text>

I can be anyone you want me to be honey.

Who exactally were you replying to.

Sockpuppet-Alert wrote:

I have served my country for longer than that! It's not your service it's the way you serve that is questionable. It speaks volumes about your mental state.
And I am not Carol.
I am Barb/Mike/Racquel/Bill/Perfect ion/Warrior/Senior Person/Alamo Air Force/Miken etc,etc,etc.
Have a problem?
Write my "name" on a piece of paper, put it in an envelope, fold it up, and shove it up your ass.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2012

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in manufacturing, food services and drinking places, and health care, but was down in retail trade.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.2 percent) were both little changed in March.(See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(7.6 percent), adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (25.0 percent), whites
(7.3 percent), blacks (14.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.3 percent) showed
little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent,
not seasonally adjusted.(See tables A-1, A-2,and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals
accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number
of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million.(See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate (63.8 percent) and the
employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were little changed in March.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 8.1 to 7.7 million
over the month. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job.(See table A-8.)

In March, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.(The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 865,000 discouraged workers
in March, about the same as a year earlier.(The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in March had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities.(See table A-16.)

Look at the Participation rate and the unemployed rate, not much of a change, yet unemployment drops by .6 percent with less people looking, Looks like fuzzy math is being used to slowly lower Obama unemployment numbers before election time.

If someone is unemployed and withing 18 and 62 they should be counted as unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm

Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving
unemployment insurance benefits?

No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work
are included among the unemployed.(People on temporary layoff are included even if
they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped
looking for work?

Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs
are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in The Employment
Situation news release.

I smell a rat on how unemployed rate is figured..

The economy cannot be fixed by boorrowing,printing,or by government taking money out of the hands of the people to be spent by them.


close to a trillion dollars in stimulus to who?

people can't afford to buy anything so why boost the banks,the auto makers,fanny and freddie?

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas e/empsit.htm
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2012
Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in manufacturing, food services and drinking places, and health care, but was down in retail trade.
Household Survey Data
The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.2 percent) were both little changed in March.(See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(7.6 percent), adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (25.0 percent), whites
(7.3 percent), blacks (14.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.3 percent) showed
little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent,
not seasonally adjusted.(See tables A-1, A-2,and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals
accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number
of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million.(See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate (63.8 percent) and the
employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were little changed in March.
(See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 8.1 to 7.7 million
over the month. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job.(See table A-8.)
In March, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.(The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 865,000 discouraged workers
in March, about the same as a year earlier.(The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in March had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities.(See table A-16.)
Look at the Participation rate and the unemployed rate, not much of a change, yet unemployment drops by .6 percent with less people looking, Looks like fuzzy math is being used to slowly lower Obama unemployment numbers before election time.
If someone is unemployed and withing 18 and 62 they should be counted as unemployed.

You've obviously been listening to Rush because he's been preaching this crap to you Sheeple for months.

Here's today's screed......

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/06/...

Interesting that when we all said the same thing back then about the G.W. Bush's skewed unemployment number propaganda we were all derided as "liberal, state run media propagandists."

But now that "propaganda" is somehow "credible" (according to Rush) when the same thing is said about Obama?

What a bunch of CLOWNS Conservatives are!

yes but it is a very very old rat. who supports whichever stooges that are in power.

Land Locked Sailor wrote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas e/empsit.htm
Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving
unemployment insurance benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work
are included among the unemployed.(People on temporary layoff are included even if
they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.
Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who have stopped
looking for work?
Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
want a job, including those who have stopped looking because they believe no jobs
are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in The Employment
Situation news release.
I smell a rat on how unemployed rate is figured..

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
You've obviously been listening to Rush because he's been preaching this crap to you Sheeple for months.
Here's today's screed......
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/06/...
Interesting that when we all said the same thing back then about the G.W. Bush's skewed unemployment number propaganda we were all derided as "liberal, state run media propagandists."
But now that "propaganda" is somehow "credible" (according to Rush) when the same thing is said about Obama?
What a bunch of CLOWNS Conservatives are!

Glad to see you listen to Rush, I do not...Funny how we have less workers and less hires and unemployment goes down, Looks like re-election gimmicks again....Keep spinning Mike..

If you are not actively and seriously looking for work, your not unemployed...your retired or LAZY..

WARRIOR wrote:

If you are not actively and seriously looking for work, your not unemployed...your retired or LAZY..

And then there is you, just a Troll.

It's been worse since he took office

http://stream.wsj.com/story/economy-stream/SS...

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke delivered a bleak new assessment of the U.S. economy to lawmakers on Tuesday but remained guarded about what, if anything, the Fed would do about it. Policymakers at the central bank lowered their growth projections in June and seem to be preparing for additional moves to spur the economy.

Let us guess, Stimlus 2, 3, 4, and maybe 5, with tax hikes...

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/20/califor...

California Goes Bankrupt
One California city after another becomes insolvent as the state's economic crisis worsens.

First Vallejo, then Stockton, then Mammoth Lakes, and now San Bernardino and soon possibly Compton. As Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach told Bloomberg News, the bankruptcy dominoes are starting to fall. One California city after another—following a decade-long spree of ramping up public-employee pay and pension benefits, as well as redevelopment debt—are becoming insolvent.

Not that the state’s legislators have anything constructive to offer. California’s Democratic leaders are not only unwilling to rein in the costs of benefits for their patrons, the public-sector unions, but they have been erecting roadblocks to those localities that want to fix the problem on their own. Yet all the political blockades in the world cannot fix the basic problem of insolvency.

Stockton negotiated the new process created by a state law requiring a 60-day period of negotiations before filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. That period is over and the city—a hard-pressed port on the edge of the California Delta—has become the largest city in the country to pursue municipal bankruptcy. The cause was a pension system eating up 30 percent of the budget, an absurdly generous retiree medical program, and excess bond debt for pension obligations and redevelopment projects.

Soon after, Mammoth Lakes decided to pursue bankruptcy. That city’s problem came after it lost a judgment in a development case. Although not tied to public-employee compensation, the situation was caused by city officials who prefer to play developer than tend to the nuts-and-bolts of city government—a long-term problem in that eastern Sierra vacation town. In 1996, Mammoth Lakes lost a court case after it declared its downtown area blighted because of excess urbanization, in a ruling the judge said exemplified the misuse of redevelopment power.

The latest city to declare bankruptcy is San Bernardino, which has declared an emergency situation that will allow it to evade the negotiation period mandated by state law. The city simply doesn’t have the cash to keep operating. As Bloomberg reported,“San Bernardino and its agencies have more than $220 million of debt, including $48.6 million of taxable pension-obligation bonds, according to financial statements.” Pension-obligation bonds are used by cities to pay ongoing pension expenses, yet San Bernardino’s problems show that a city cannot borrow its way out of debt.

Other big cities, including Los Angeles, are talking more openly about the bankruptcy option. Not long ago critics who mentioned the B-word were considered Chicken Littles.

The latest talking point is that these cities couldn’t control what happened to them. The Riverside Press-Enterprise reported:“The city of San Bernardino’s financial woes are a directly correlation to a torrent of foreclosures in the Inland area of Southern California, the national foreclosure tracking firm RealtyTrac said Thursday.‘Property taxes plunged in San Bernardino because of an avalanche of foreclosure activity during the recent housing bust,’ said RealtyTrac vice president Daren Blomquist.”

There’s no doubt San Bernardino and Stockton—Ground Zero for the housing crisis—suffered from the problem described above. But what did those cities do with the rapid increase in property tax revenues during the price run-up? We know—they squandered it on increased compensation for government employees, on redevelopment projects and other questionable spending deals. They squandered the money when it came flowing in, now depict themselves as victims of circumstance when the funds dried up.

The real culprit is foolish decision making. Stockton, for instance, refused to take advantage of an exemption in prevailing wage laws—something that could have saved it money but would have angered the powerful unions.

The housing bubble hit the hardest in cities inland from the growth-controlled major metropolitan areas. When the prices went up in Los Angeles and San Francisco, developers moved inland, where it was easier to get the permits necessary to respond to the demands of the marketplace.

But even coastal cities are struggling. Los Angeles is not a victim of the foreclosure crisis. Pension costs in San Jose—where the housing market has rebounded thanks to a healthy tech-based economy—rose 350 percent in 10 years and now consume 20 percent of the general-fund budget. That city passed pension reform on the November ballot to stop the fiscal bleeding.

In the Prop Zero blog Joe Mathews debunks San Bernardino’s allegations that the state is to blame for its fiscal problems:“Local elected officials who complain about a lack of state money have things backwards. The state of California is relatively spare in its spending, compared to national averages. California’s local officials are, by contrast, big spenders, at or near the national lead in compensation for local workers, especially law enforcement.” Mathews misses a big point—California state government spends its money poorly, but he is right about local government wastrels, who busted the bank on public-safety pay and benefit packages and now are looking to cast blame anywhere they can.

Bankruptcy is not a great option but at least it gives cities a chance to get their house in order and start fresh. Unfortunately, Vallejo and Stockton refused to tackle existing pension debt in their bankruptcy plans. Orange County emerged from bankruptcy in the 1990s in better shape than ever, but as writer Chris Reed explained in Calwatchdog, subsequent boards of supervisors then began spending like crazy on public-sector compensation.

Bankruptcy cannot stop future officials from wasting the taxpayer dollar. But when there’s no money, there’s nothing left to do. In Scranton, Pa., a judge issued an injunction to stop the mayor’s plan to begin paying all city employees minimum wage. But there’s no money left to pay any more than that, he said. The city will gladly pay more as soon as it has the cash to pay it.

Only when the money runs out will cities find the necessary solutions. That’s perhaps the saddest commentary on the situation in California cities these days

This nation is having a live history lesson going on, We as a nation cannot let the Congress now or future Congress continue to use the Obama model of Econiomics of "Spending us out of Debt" It does not work, No one has ever accomplisghed it....

me wrote:

It's been worse since he took office

http://www.flickr.com/photos/woe1/7604027536/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/...

The bleeding was stopped and jobs are slowly returning,It's better.

Obama has made this economy prosperous.

He doesn't have a clue,we put the fate of our country into the hands of a FOOL! "Fool me once, shame on you,fool me twice,shame on me" Don't blame me,I voted for Romney...

[QUOTE who="you asked for it"Don't blame me,I voted for Romney...[/QUOTE]

how funny