The BLS data is as factual as any you can find ...or, at the very least, if you dont trust govt data, was compiled the same way as previous administrations.....so Merc's suggestion that Obama was lying when using the same official standard (U-3) as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... was simply wrong. That is a fact.

The rest was my opinion...which is no shittier than yours or Mercs.

Merc who? No idea what you are talking about.

I don't read this forum. I just like baiting stupid assholes. You are making this way too easy! PS. Merc must be really cool to get you going like this!

You've been drinking again, haven't you.

xoB you know me so well. ;)

Actually, I was in a wanker of a mood. Long hours at work trying to avoid the unemployment line (yes I read other forums in the cellar!) and blah blah blah...<2 hours later - the redux method> just finally decided to called it like I saw it.

Nothing personal against anyone who would use a moniker that is synonymous with airplane glue (which explains A LOT!). :devil: Damn, I just can't help myself!

Yeah, I know... it's your mother's fault.

Dude...nothing gets by you! :notworthy

So how many members of the current Obama Administration use to work for or were directly involved in the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

A bit of recent history:

The Paulson above was Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs thought 2006 at which time he became Bush's Sec. of Treasury (no relation to John Paulson/Paulson Hedge Fund)

And was instrumental in one of his first act's as Treasury Sec., along with Chris Cox, Bush's SEC Chairman, of gutting SEC's regulatory oversight of the "net capital rule"

Securities fraud charges against Goldman Sachs are just the beginning of steppped up SEC (and DoJ) investigations of the fraudlent practices of the 2000s, when there was virtually no oversight.

It seems to me to be a good thing that the SEC doing its job rather than gutting and ignoring its oversight responsibilities.

Thats all for now. :)

From those partisans over at ABC....

Another Lobbyist Headed Into Obama Administration
27 Jan 09

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1

From those partisans at Rolling Stone mag...

Obama's Big Sellout
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._sellout/print

Read it and weep....

So Paulson (Goldman Sachs -- > Treasury Sec) and Bush's SEC Chairman gutting the net capital rule in 2006 was not a bad thing...but the Obama SEC investigating and filing fraud charges is a step in the wrong direction?

:lol2:

No connections here people just put your blinders on... :lol2:

http://the-classic-liberal.com/white...n-sachs-house/

Oh, and then there is this...

Goldman Sachs’ White House ties run deep

http://blog.littlesis.org/2009/07/20...ties-run-deep/

Now that health insurance has been addressed, then why is the finance industry to next target of reform and regulation? Why do so many 'insiders' want to, for example, expose outright fraud in Goldman Sachs?

So many posts complete ignored the news.

"Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!"

Really, where the fuck are they?

At the IRS office.

zzzzzzzzzzzzing!

lol

I think the shovels are firmly embedded in someone's ass. I won't say whose ass.

Afghanistan? Iraq? Ask Bush. He spent all the surplus money that Clinton had earmarked for jobs. Or ask all the wealthy people who got tax cuts - maybe it's up their asses.

MY chair feels suddenly uncomfortable. I think Shaw thought I was a hobo.

;)

Drop in the bucket compared to the latest Demoncratic spending spree... nice try.

Prove it.

Do you're own research, get back to me when you have something of substance to contribute. :flipbird:

Unemployment challenges Obama's economic narrative

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/...re_us/us_obama

Gibbs Evades Question About Obama's Use Of "Teabagger"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...teabagger.html

Obama Gives NO BID Contracts

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

OH, MY, Fucking, GOD, to......

Wait for it....

KBR Inc.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Liberals would also know it as HALIBURTON....

Funny, I have heard this complaint from somewhere in the past...

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Link
Any questions?

If you're not going to look at, say, the OMB's budget projections, inflationary deficits and all, Spexx, you're living in Childish Land. You could actually become informed, you know.

Disbelief because you're putting all your trust in princes isn't going to help you. Instead, it could make your retirement plan worthless. If you can't see proof here, well, how bad do you want to live through that proof?

Hang on there, Merc: is Wikipedia all wrong about Halliburton divesting itself of KBR as of 2007?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

Visualization of the $100 million cuts planned by the Obamanation.

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

The Demoncrats continue to fail the nation...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

There'll be few new jobs created until the conservative repubican fat cats get fat again. Then they may think about throwing a bone to the unemployed. The government can do very little about it.

Obama now wants to spend Another! 50 Billion Dollars on JOB Creation. WTF did they do with the last two bill spending Billions of our taxpayer dollars with the promise of "millions of shovel ready jobs" followed by a "Jobs Bill"?

These whores are spending our future to bankruptcy....

Actually, the $50 billion is to save teachers, police and firefighters from being laid off. It has nothing to do with creating jobs. They need to save union jobs. I have no problem with helping law & fire enforcement. With unemployment at record levels, there has been a rise in crime all over the nation. But we should not be bailing out the teachers union. We hear so much about the unions needing a bailout but they managed to spend $10 million opposing Blanche Lincoln in the Democrat primary.

Both violent crime and property crime were down nationwide in 2009 for the third straight year.

And, the FOP endorsed McCain.

I guess you think preventing teacher lay-offs is a union issue, rather than an education issue. I would disagree and the alternative to temporary federal funding is higher state/local taxes.

Unions are what the most naive discuss when told how to think by their political handlers. It is 100% about keeping the important (productive) people employed. You should have been asking these questions when relevant - when George Jr said Mission Accomplished would only cost $2billion. Well, it cost $1trillion. Today is when we pay that bill. That means every American is expected to have a lower standard of living. Or did George Jr forget to mention that part?

Stop with the union nonsense. It is about all workers who must now suffer because wacko extremists 'fixed' our economy with miracle tax cuts. Vietnam in 1968 and 1970 got paid for by destruction on the American standards of living in 1975 and 1979 - when the bills started coming due. Deja Vue. Or did you forget to learn the lessons from history? Ask how much taxes must increase to pay for 'corporate welfare', tax cuts for the rich, finance games, and Masson Accomplished in 2003.

It is not a question of how much some workforce should be paid or punished. It is 100% a question of how much your standard of living must degrade for the myths and lies by government in 2003. Unions did not create the real problem. We did by listening to overt liars in 2003. And then have so much contempt for ourselves as to relect the scumbags in 2004.

There is no way around it. It is only a question of how much more we must pay for these essential services.

Protecting the Obama brand

An interesting analysis by Salon.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/jo...ama/index.html

TheMercenary, with a long history of promoting wacko extremist political agendas, conveniently forgets to include facts.

BP said the leak was only 1000 barrels per day. And refused to release video that would easily deny that reality. It took orders directly from Obama to force BP to release that video. Then BP said it was only 5000 barrels per day. Now BP is denying they said that. BP repeatedly kept saying there was no reason to measure the size of this leak because (their own memos imply) they feared anyone might understand how big this leak really was.

So this was all Obama's fault. We know this only because wacko extremists say so?

The leak was always somewhere between one million and three million gallons every day. We know this only because Obama had to step in and order BP to release video and other facts.

And still BP's refusal to release information is all Obama's fault - because wacko extremists say so.

We also know government has nothing to avert the damage - because government should not have such tools. We also know that when wacko extremists were running government, the MMS people - whose job was to make surge BP, et al had those tools - were going to industry paid-for sexting parties. Parties that any MBA and party boy president would approve of. $20,000 parties that were 'business as usual' in a government that fixed FEMA, SEC, FDIC, financial oversight, GM, AIG. Who would not even prosecute Enron until the State of Oklahoma force it using overt embarrassment.

But somehow this is all Obama's fault - because a wacko extremist says it is so.

At what point do wacko extremist apologize to everyone for inventing lies and myths - constantly? Oh. That is also Obama's fault.

We should expect massive damage from LA to southern FL because that was a foregone conclusion a month ago. Anyone who thinks booms or skimmers will avert the damage is lying to themselves. Time to avert this damage was many years ago when government regulation was so routinely subverted everywhere that even MMS employees enjoyed sexting parties and other $20,000 benefits.

Early review of the Presidential Address

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

Wow! The big guy got hammered by MSNBC and from of all people Chris Matthews.

I'm amazed at the comments from the D's - not one really even mentioned the spill except Landrieu from LA. Pathetic.

:corn:

Salon and Rolling Stone are wacko extremist now? Man, I must have missed a few issues...

Imagine that. Any news source as in depth and many of the RS articles achieve are now the enemy.

In the bit about the current crisis the Obama Administration is totally fucked...

They dropped the ball big time.

Only because telling the American people that his plan is to crash the economy and start over again re-, ...uh, I mean green - would not sell to the vast majority of the electorate.

I really don't get that Slang. Explain to me why he, or any American politician would want to do that.

The premise that he wants to destroy it seems more than far-fetched to me.

Yes, it sure does. What in the world was I thinking? ...destroy the capitalist system to reboot in O's fundamentally transformed America.

I really need some professional help.

Destroy it? I doubt he can really do it. But he sure is trying hard to reshape it in his own image.

I think this is the first actor of any significance to really speak out against the president. At least he has the balls to do so.

Interesting conflation of "Israeli" and "Jewish". It's not like the Prime Minister of Israel is the Jewish Pope.

This is also an interesting formulation: "You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today." It simultaneously associates the Commandments and law, while avoiding making an actual (false) claim that law is based on them.

Not where I was headed, but now that you mention it - that is interesting.

But not a foreskin.

Feds wasted millions in utilities program for poor

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...7RewwD9GMCFIO3

Obama faces growing credibility crisis
http://media.ft.com/cms/dc5ac5ca-8f2...144feab49a.gif
Link

I've been saying for a long time. Get people employed and you can do pretty much whatever you want. Did Obama miss that message? Should have learned from the W administration.

But the two charts seem to indicate that his approval has gone down as more people became employed...

Not really - It looks like it went up slightly at the same time in the slight spike in employment. I think its "dishonest" that the units are so small - That same info on graphs with larger units would look quite different - especially thr unemployment graph.

That chart on the right is the unemployment rate--the spike is more unemployed people, not more employed people.

I stand corrected - I read it wrong.


(reminder to self - never question the brain of the clodfobble)

The phenomenon still makes no sense to me though, unless it's just coincidence. I guess it's like, when I'm unemployed I like the guy who's big on social programs, but as soon as I find a job I'm all, "No you can't tax me for social programs, bitch!"