The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[mugzi]

All you putzes in NY who voted for Schumer deserve him.

Will Chris Matthews and MSNBC Spend Week Bashing Schumer's Branches of Government Gaffe?
Newsbusters ^ | January 31, 2011 | Noel Sheppard


As NewsBusters has been reporting, the folks at MSNBC last week - in particular Chris Matthews - spent a great deal of time attacking former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for comments they erroneously felt disqualified the conservative women from public office.

Will this network and its commentators pay as much attention to Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) remarks on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday wherein he claimed the three branches of government are the House, the Senate, and the president (video follows with transcript and commentary):

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGnz8z2G

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Let me turn you to domestic policy because it is budget season. It is time to raise the debt ceiling. Otherwise the U.S. is going to lose its ability to pay its debts.

Where do you see this fight going now?

Because, basically, we have a very determined bunch of Republicans right now, particularly on the House side, saying, no way we're going to raise this debt ceiling until we start doing some cutting.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-N.Y.): Well, there's even a problem before the debt ceiling. On March 4th, the government funding resolution expires. And it seems that a lot of Republicans in the House want to risk a shutdown of the government if they don't absolutely get their way.

That was a mistake when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995. It will be a bigger mistake now. It's really playing with fire because, if they were to shut down the government, not only would horrible things happen like an inability of people to get Social Security checks, you can't fund the military, but ultimately, it risks the credit markets.

They are getting wary because of the large debt we have, which we have to get down, but if they feel that people are willing to shut down the government, you could risk the credit markets really losing some confidence in the United States Treasury, and that could create a deeper recession than we had over the last several years -- God forbid, even a depression.

So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strongly they feel -- you know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president. And all three of us are going to have to come together and give some, but it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.

Imagine for a moment Palin or Bachmann saying something this stupid. So-called journalists - especially those on MSNBC! - would have a field day with it.

Matthews would call the speaker a balloon head, spending the next several days playing the comment over and over while claiming it shows a deplorable lack of knowledge about our political system thereby disqualifying said person from public office.

By contrast, and this is only a guess on my part, I highly doubt the "Hardball" host or any of the other shills on MSNBC will at all question the intellectual capacity of the Senior Senator from New York if this flub is even mentioned.

And even though it's filmed inside Schumer's state, I don't expect the folks at "Saturday Night Live" will do an opening sketch this weekend about their Senator's gaffe much as they did for Bachmann last weekend.

Perish the thought, for as we've seen so often in recent years from the liberal media, errors by Democrats are human; forgiving them is divine.

[mugzi]

Im so glad the Muslim er I mean Christian, I mean Commander in chief is tacitly in favor of this....all I can say is wow. I mean I could say more, plenty more but Ive already made it clear what I think of him.

Admin Official: Obama "not ruling out legitimacy" of Muslim Brotherhood for New Egypt Gov't
Monday, January 31, 2011

An Obama administration official, speaking anonymously to the Washington Post, said the administration is open to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood being in the government of Egypt that will likely replace the rule of Hosni Mubarak:

The official said that while the administration was concerned about "some elements" of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and other non-secular groups participating in the demonstrations, it was "not ruling out their legitimacy" and place in a future government.

Obama was aware that the Muslim Brotherhood and others were in the audience when he spoke of "a new beginning" in a 2009 speech in Cairo that was directed at the Islamic world, the official said. He cited a passage in the speech in which Obama said that "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other" and that "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them."

The Post buried this unsettling revelation in an article about the administration charting a "delicate course to oust Mubarak."

Voice of America reported that at today's White House briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration had no contact with the Muslim Brotherhood:

Gibbs was also asked about the U.S. position on potential participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in any new governing structure, saying that the United States has had no contact with the group.

"We have as we have throughout the world, standards for that contact - that is adherence to the law, adherence to non-violence and a willingness to be part of a democratic process, but not use that democratic process to simply instill yourself into power," he said.

While the group professes to be non-violent, the Muslim Brotherhood is widely considered to be the father of international Islamic terrorism and is thought to be working to create a global Islamic caliphate.

[HarthorneWingo]

Truthfully, I believe in my heart that he is an atheist.

[mugzi]

LOL, interesting theory.

[HarthorneWingo]

Regardless of your political persuasion, watching Obama's June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo is worth a watch in light of what is going on there today. It's now a stretch to think that it may have played a role in this movement. But I would defer to our friend, Remember the Past, who has family in Egypt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suc-m9wGW7k[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4981WmBRz2o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf52TbGuB0c&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/youtube]

[mugzi]

Ultimately the supreme court is going to have the final word but this is interesting nonetheless.

Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words
By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

[HarthorneWingo]

Typical "judicial activism" coming from the right. And, legally, what does Obama's "prior position" have to do with anything? Either it's legal or it isn't, right? This is clearly a judge with a political agenda. He could have struck down the provision without striking down the whole law.

[mugzi]

Oh so using Obamas words against him is 'activism?'

Funny Obama was against the mandate in 08 b4 he was elected why the 180 after he was elected? Hmmm, well its obvious that this megalomaniac said whatever he felt he needed to in order to get elected.

I didnt hear you screaming about judicial activism "on the left" when the judge in CA struck down prop 8 which by the way was passed by the 8 million Californians who voted against gay marriage. Regardless of your pov on the topic, that judge basically said to 8 million people that "your opinion doesnt matter, only mine does."

So by your words we should infer that its only activism when ity pertains to a ruling you disagree with.

As loathe as you are to admit it you know and I know that Obamacare is a boondoggle that is already raising insurance rates, enticing doctors to retire early, raising our national debt and is grossly unconstitutional.

Fortunately, thank goodness the supreme court is still 5-4 in favor of the right and if the bill comes before the sc it has a good shot of being rejected.

[HarthorneWingo]

:lol:

Oh so using Obamas words against him is 'activism?'

No, but striking down the entire law enacted by congress, especially when he could have simply struck down that particular provision, is. I also understand that, in evidence of this judge's "activism," he made some political "admissions," if you will, in his opinion. I haven't read it, yet. But I will.

[HarthorneWingo]

The party of "fiscal responsibility" is $23 in debt.

That's ok. President Reagan ran up a big deficit too when he was president. Just do, in essence, what he did. Raise taxes. ; )




http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48616.html

RNC debt looms over GOP field

By ANDY BARR | 2/1/11 3:16 PM EST Updated: 2/1/11 9:03 PM EST

Monday's announcement that the Republican National Committee is $23 million in debt has many of the party’s top strategists concerned that the national party may be a drag on the eventual Republican presidential nominee.

Obama’s campaign is already kicking into gear, moving its top players to Chicago. And there is talk of raising up to $1 billion for the president’s reelection campaign.
Continue Reading

The Obama campaign will be aided early in its fundraising push by higher contribution limits to the DNC — something none of the Republicans will be able to match until they become the nominee.

It may take months, however, before the RNC can get back to even, delaying its ability to stockpile cash to take on Obama.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 ... z1ClxAwGcI

[richardhutnik]

Here is the article on Norway:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in ... alism.html

This article challenges a number conventional arguments from those on those who are conservative today. I would be interested in hearing people here refute the article. Some of the points the article brings up:
* The rate of producing entrepreneurs in Norway is higher than the United States.
* High tax rates, and an increased social safety net don't deter entrepreneurship.
* Despite having increased welfare, the unemployment rate is 3.5% in Norway. Contrast that with the 9%+ in the United States.

So, what gives here?

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Here is the article on Norway:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in ... alism.html

This article challenges a number conventional arguments from those on those who are conservative today. I would be interested in hearing people here refute the article. Some of the points the article brings up:
* The rate of producing entrepreneurs in Norway is higher than the United States.
* High tax rates, and an increased social safety net don't deter entrepreneurship.
* Despite having increased welfare, the unemployment rate is 3.5% in Norway. Contrast that with the 9%+ in the United States.

So, what gives here?

- Rich

That's a rhetorical question, right?

[richardhutnik]

Here is the article on Norway:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in ... alism.html

This article challenges a number conventional arguments from those on those who are conservative today. I would be interested in hearing people here refute the article. Some of the points the article brings up:
* The rate of producing entrepreneurs in Norway is higher than the United States.
* High tax rates, and an increased social safety net don't deter entrepreneurship.
* Despite having increased welfare, the unemployment rate is 3.5% in Norway. Contrast that with the 9%+ in the United States.

So, what gives here?

- Rich

That's a rhetorical question, right?

Not quite. If there are no replies, then it ends up that. I am asking for some honest input on this.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Here is the article on Norway:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in ... alism.html

This article challenges a number conventional arguments from those on those who are conservative today. I would be interested in hearing people here refute the article. Some of the points the article brings up:
* The rate of producing entrepreneurs in Norway is higher than the United States.
* High tax rates, and an increased social safety net don't deter entrepreneurship.
* Despite having increased welfare, the unemployment rate is 3.5% in Norway. Contrast that with the 9%+ in the United States.

So, what gives here?

- Rich

That's a rhetorical question, right?

Not quite. If there are no replies, then it ends up that. I am asking for some honest input on this.

- Rich

Well, I agree with the points the article makes. It all comes down to greed ... people don't want to take care of those in our society who less fortunate for all the reasons we've heard time and time again- even if it's in their financial interests. Clearly, Norway shows that both can be done at the same time.

But I guess you're preaching to the choir here. I guess you'll have to wait for Mugzi and Tucker4Three to chime in.

[HarthorneWingo]

Unemployment dropped from 9.4% to 9%. 36,000 jobs added in January.

[mugzi]

I know its in your best interest to see unemployment drop so your manchurian candidate has a shot at re-election but here's a little reality about those numbers you quoted.

Labor Force and Unemployment Statistical BS
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Blog ^ | 4 Feb 2011 | Mike Shedlock


I had no idea what to expect in today's jobs report. ADP projected 187,000 jobs but has been wildly off numbers reported by the BLS. Economists expected +146,000 jobs. The actual establishment survey report shows +36,000.

I knew huge revisions and methodology changes were coming this month would make gaming the report a crap-shoot. However, the amazing thing in the jobs report was not the number of jobs, but the statistical sleight-of-hand in the unemployment rate.

Statistical BS

The unemployment rate (based on the household survey), unexpectedly fell from 9.4% to 9.0%. How did that happen?

Based on population growth, the labor force should have been expanding over the course of a year by about 125,000 workers a month, a total of 1.5 million workers. Instead, (for the entire year) the BLS reports that the civilian labor force fell by 167,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,094,000. In January alone, a whopping 319,000 people dropped out of the workforce.

To get the unemployment rate down from 9.8% to 9.0%, you simply do not count two million workers. Look on the bright side, at this rate we will be back to full employment in no time.

Huge Downward Revisions

One way to make recent numbers look better is to revise the historical data downward. Today we have a third massive backward revision since the beginning of the recession.

"The total nonfarm employment level for March 2010 was revised downward by 378,000 (411,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis). The previously published level for December 2010 was revised downward by 452,000 (483,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis)."

Decade of Revisions Next Year

"The population control adjustments introduced with household survey data for January 2011 were applied to the population base determined by Census 2000. The results from Census 2010 will not be incorporated into the household survey population controls until the release of data for January 2012."

Hallelujah, the recent census report will provide fertile ground to revise away anything the BLS wants.

January Jobs Report

Please consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) January 2010 Employment Report.

The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.0 percent in January, while nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+36,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in manufacturing and in retail trade but was down in construction and in transportation and warehousing. Employment in most other major industries changed little over the month.
Unemployment Rate - Seasonally Adjusted



Bear in mind, were it not for millions of people allegedly dropping out of the labor force over the last year, the unemployment rate would be over 11% right now.

Nonfarm Payroll Employment - Seasonally Adjusted

[mugzi]

I guess Gallup got it wrong too, huh.

Obama facing difficult year as unemployment in U.S. hits 9.8%
DM ^
Posted on Fri Feb 04 2011 14:48:52 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by traumer

President Barack Obama’s pledge to tackle the economy and job creation will be tough to fulfil according to new unemployment figures. A new Gallup poll has revealed that unemployment in the U.S. has risen to 9.8 per cent, a higher figure than anticipated. While the economy has shown signs of growth, with the service sector expanding at its fastest rate in five years last month, job creation continues to lag, with unemployment up again. The 9.8 per cent unemployment rate is down from last year’s figure of 10.9 per cent but is higher than December’s figures and indicates the severity of the job market in the U.S. While there has been modest improvement in the last 12 months, a 9.8 per cent unemployment rate nonetheless represents a daunting task for the Obama administration. Nearly one in 10 Americans are unemployed and with job creation struggling to keep pace with population growth, there has been little notable improvement in the hiring market in the last four to six months. It takes about 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth and the economy needs to add more than double that amount to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate. However, in the past three months, job gains have averaged only 128,000.

Neil Dutta, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told the Associated Press that he expects the unemployment rate to still be above 9 per cent by the end of 2011. The recent severe weather conditions, with huge snow storms blanketing much of the U.S., could also play havoc with hopes for economic growth.

[HarthorneWingo]

Since you didn't link a source, it's hard to tell.

But according to the following sources, Gallup does have it wrong. Besides, what was Gallup's methodology? Polling? lol.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133492142 ... in-january

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48851.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/04/1 ... rcent.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-j ... 3149.story

http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/jobs ... -1.2661011

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/02/ ... rate-drop/

Had enough? The last link is to the Wall Street Journal. Even it doesn't quibble with the 9% figure.

[HarthorneWingo]

The final nail in the coffin.

http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2011/02 ... -9-percent

Unemployment drops to 9 percent

(Posted on POLITICO Top Stories at Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:57PM)

The rate hits its lowest point in nearly two years, but the economy adds only 36,000 jobs. (visit source article)

[richardhutnik]

Unemployment dropped from 9.4% to 9%. 36,000 jobs added in January.

That is horrible numbers, on the number created. It needs to be around 150,000 to keep up with population growth.

- Rich