Do the 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax care?
Unlikely.
Do the record setting number of Americans that receive government money care?
Probably not.
Do the political activists that will vote Obama no matter what care?
Of course not.
Does not matter what the facts are. 90% of the media will report these bleak numbers as good news. Fox and a few blogs will report it as bad news and most Americans will focus on Matthew McCaunaghey's new baby.
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE
Pay attention to who is doing the interpreting. Obama was handed a bad economic situation along with two incredibly expensive wars. He brought home troops who needed jobs and who have mostly joined the work force at home when he ended the Iraqi war and he plans to bring home more who will need civilian jobs by 2014. The previous administration's loose regulation of banks, insurance, and mortgages left Obama with a huge real estate collapse that snowballed into world economic crises when he took office, and no-saying Congressional Representatives have steadfastly refused to do their jobs and deal with all of this sensibly. Europe is still in free fall which is bound to rebound in the US. There is only so much a president can do without congressional support and with a media oligopoly that persistently misrepresents the facts to those who might have supported his efforts.
A New difficulty in the new job market is the advancement of computer applications.
Most would argue that the computerization of the hiring task gives the employer, greater choices and therefore better employees. This creates a great disadvantage for the many people who in fact are not the best at anything. Should they be excluded from the market just because someone else is "better" than them?
In fact many if not most employers prefer to hire someone who already has a job doing the same thing somewhere else. They are pretrained and haven't quit, why not exclude everybody who doesn't have a job at the moment? Then there are those who only hire new graduates because, they are mold-able and can be gotten for far less money.
The sad truth is the person who gets the job is the one with the prettiest resume. Beyond that add in the advancement of the newest popular form of discrimination, "Computer generated discrimination" Many if not most companies now require that you apply for jobs on line. Thousands of people apply for any given job and the computer selects the top ten to move on to the interview process. This obviously discriminates aga...
A New difficulty in the new job market is the advancement of computer applications.
Most would argue that the computerization of the hiring task gives the employer, greater choices and therefore better employees. This creates a great disadvantage for the many people who in fact are not the best at anything. Should they be excluded from the market just because someone else is "better" than them?
In fact many if not most employers prefer to hire someone who already has a job doing the same thing somewhere else. They are pretrained and haven't quit, why not exclude everybody who doesn't have a job at the moment? Then there are those who only hire new graduates because, they are mold-able and can be gotten for far less money.
The sad truth is the person who gets the job is the one with the prettiest resume. Beyond that add in the advancement of the newest popular form of discrimination, "Computer generated discrimination" Many if not most companies now require that you apply for jobs on line. Thousands of people apply for any given job and the computer selects the top ten to move on to the interview process. This obviously discriminates against the computer illiterate; those over 50 years of age, poor people, uneducated people and people who are unable to type. All of which already have a hard enough time finding work.
So they can learn, and they can use computers at the public library right? Most public access computers limit you to an hour at most each day and most applications take an hour to fill out, if you can read quickly enough and type well enough. I filled out an application recently where the instructions said; if you took longer than five minutes on any page, you would be booted from the system and your application canceled...
If you can struggle through the application, then they have you take a "Voluntary" assessment test, where they ask personal and trick questions, trying to find out if you are old, moody, depressed, tired, of a criminal mind, chronically unemployed, lazy, or suffer from low self esteem.
When we add these exclusions to the corporately accepted, of smokers, alcoholics, felons, sex offenders, non English speaking, drug users, marijuana smokers. Then the interview process rules out the bald, ugly, over weight, bearded, tattooed, long hairs, those with speech impediments. In total some two dozen reasons to say that you are not qualified to work any job anywhere any time again. How much of the population can get past all these exclusions. One may value the day when jobs were posted in the front window and given to people who live in the neighborhood.
bottom line is can you piss in a cup...
Case in point: voting people from either of the main political parties into office and expecting those people to speak the truth while in office.
They only had to pay about 50 cents/week to little children chained to benches in third world countries. What a DEAL.
The USOC acted consistently with every other giant powermonger, including our government.
He's gotta be a one term President. Remember:
"If I don't turn the economy around in 3 years we're taling about
a ONE TERM PROPOSITION"
Let's HOLD him to that!
do not trust what is going on in this regime. There is nothing that is concrete and employeres are afraid to hire permanent!
Another distortion of what he promised to do for the electorate. Spin, spin, spin.
Helluva' candidate. Not.
That's what his job is: To pretend like he's creating jobs, when really he's destroying them. Don't worry, he's to cool to be called on it, and his fanatic fan base cant admit anything.
It will hobble business growth, it will limit the economy, lower GDP and place a larger tax burden on everyone.
The ACA will never be repealed, both Parties recognize that it has little to do with 'health care' and a whole lot to do with controlling the population.
The numbers would be even worse if they counted the people who have been out of work so long they are no longer included in the U-3 unemployment rate.
The U-6 unemployment rate includes all of U-3 plus marginally attached workers. This is closer to reality:
http://portalseven.com/employ...
With all the employment figures coming out as low as they are it’s time we get an INVESTIGATION to see if the Republicans are PURPOSELY RUINING the economy in order to win the election. The Republicans KNOW that the ONLY way they are going to win the next election is if the economy is bad and they hope that people are dumb enough to believe their lies that Romney can fix their economic problems which he can’t! We KNOW that the Republicans in Congress did ALL that they could to ruin America economically by NOT ASSISTING in ANY way to HELP AMERICA get out of this Republican CAUSED Recession that was on the verge of becoming the worst Depression since 1930. But it is time we have an INVESTIGATION into whether the Republicans in the business sector and private sector in ANY WAY PURPOSELY HELPED make America’s economy worse by not HIRING anyone or by not BUYING ANYTHING! It would make for a heck of an interesting story and GREAT campaign attack talking point. YOU folks in the media and in the Democratic Party NEED to LOOK into this and see if there is any truth to this allegation. FIND some Republicans who will come forward and say it is so. We KNOW that businesses are sitting on massive amounts of profits yet aren’t hiring many people at all. We know that the rich run the companies of America and we know that most of the rich are Republicans so it’s very possible that the Republicans in the private sector and the public sector are PURPOSELY ruining America’s economy! We ALL KNOW deep down inside that it is TRUE! NOW PROOF IT!
“The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd, 2009 (Obama's Inauguration). It was actually two years earlier, on January 3rd, 2007, that the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. As of that day, the Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to you liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's fault,” think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that date:
The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77; The GDP growth rate for the previous quarter was 3.5%; The Unemployment rate was 4.6%; George Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH (quit choking).
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that your friend Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd (another bud) took over the Senate Ba...
&
&&&
“The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd, 2009 (Obama's Inauguration). It was actually two years earlier, on January 3rd, 2007, that the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. As of that day, the Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to you liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's fault,” think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that date:
The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77; The GDP growth rate for the previous quarter was 3.5%; The Unemployment rate was 4.6%; George Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH (quit choking).
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that your friend Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd (another bud) took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy..BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
They contributed to this CRISIS by (among many other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS!
Starting in 2001, Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop the actions of Fannie & Freddie, because it was financially risky for the US economy.
Furthermore, who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…? OBAMA. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie…OBAMA and the Democrat Congress. So when someone (like you) tries to blame Bush…REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party (until the Republicans regained a majority in the House in 2012).
Once again, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive ‘omnibus-spending’ bill to complete the 2009 budgets. Remember, the Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget since.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. Briefly, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”
Correct this story if it's wrong.