Friday, July 24, 2009

This'n'That; July 26th[Presidential;U3-U6;Lies!MoreLies!

Can Fluffy Act "Presidential?" I can’t believe it. Can someone explain to me how an individual in the most prominent leadership role [not to be confused with an individual who is a leader] of the civilized world can be reduced to such ghetto levels of racial divide? How can this individual partake in banter of such racial, banal and prosaic order?
  • This is about Fluffy’s response and interjection of opinion about the dispute between Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts police. It is so beyond my comprehension I can’t imagine how the distinguished leaders and nobility of other countries view our embarrassment.
  • Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher addressing the people of Great Britain in such a manner? Where is the gravitas??
  • No wonder the world has such a dim view of America, our President is nothing more than a gang-banger.
  • None of us know what prompted the actions of the police, or what the discourse and/or diatribe of Mr. Gates was.
  • What we do know is that it is beneath the President of the United States to get involved in such a niggling and petty ordeal.
  • What troubles me is that he promotes a society that says we should mete gratuities as though we’re all equal-which, we’re not.
  • It is more bothersome that he has brought additional disgrace to the Office of the President. Didn’t Clinton do enough to tarnish that glow?
  • It’s beneath the President of the United States to indulge in such rhetoric.
  • No other leader of the industrialized or civilized world has or would license such discourse as Obama aired on national television recently.

Unemployment: Worse Than "They" Say!

Over the last few decades we have seen the official unemployment figures massaged and fiddled time and time again in order to make them seem more 'acceptable' in the official reports and, of course, the newspapers.

  • I don't believe the official unemployment number (known as U3) is accurate.
  • One of the major reasons is that it does not consider people who leave unemployment for underemployment.
  • Accepting underemployment is one very real factor that can make initial unemployment claims drop, especially if ongoing unemployment claims are going higher.
  • U6 unemployment is decidedly more accurate than following U3 unemployment[currently:9.5%].
  • According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics ("BLS"), U6 is currently sitting at 16.4% and is defined by them as including:
  • "Marginally attached workers or persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule."
  • In layman's terms U3 does not include workers who have given up looking for work but still want a job, workers who have given up looking for a job all together because they feel they can't find one or were kicked off unemployment, or workers who have taken a lesser job that they normally would not hold because they cannot find suitable employment.
  • U6 includes these people. All in all, U6 suggests a very different employment picture than U3 and today's headlines should be looked at with extreme caution. Especially since the Department of Labor has a history of "fudging numbers" and has represented that ongoing unemployment has continued to increase.
  • Lastly, let us not forget that a person cannot collect unemployment insurance forever. At some point in time a person's unemployment benefits eventually run out. That time frame varies from state to state, but most will only pay for 26 weeks. After that time, if unemployment runs out, under U3 a person is no longer considered unemployed.
  • Does that make any sense?

More Fluff From The Fluffer!

The Fluffer added more Fluff, taken from the Campaign of Fluff. More than once Fluffy obama pledged that there would be NO lobbyists WORKING IN HIS ADMINISTRATION....b-u-t.... He forgot to get approval for that claim from ACORN-COI. Apparently the street-thug academy wants the lobbyists to get their share of the federal largess!! So, Fluffy obama is going to ban lobbyists from his administration...except.......? This from a previous New York Times:
  • In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president."
  • He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time. OK. Stand by your guns; fulfill a campaign pledge [for a change!].
  • The Republican National Committee criticized that requirement and said the new administration was already violating it.
  • obama's nominee for deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon.
  • Obama's nominee for deputy Secretary of Health and Human Dependency, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules.

  • He said that Mr. Lynn had the support of Republicans and Democrats, and would receive a waiver under the policy.
  • Mr. Corr did not need a waiver because he had agreed to recuse himself from tobacco issues.

As the philosopher Scooby-Doo might say: Awhroo? (That's cartoon dog for "Huh?")

  • "When you set very tough rules, you need to have a mechanism for the occasional exception," this official said, adding, "We wanted to be really tough, but at the same time we didn't want to hamstring the new administration or turn the town upside down."
  • I'm deeply ambivalent about this whole thicket of issues; I normally have negative feelings about anything "obama."
  • I thought Fluffy's sweeping condemnation of lobbyists was better campaign rhetoric than policy.
  • The reality is that some lobbyists are as nefarious as advertised and some are not.
  • The vast majority want to turn their "expertise" into big bucks and the very few remaining turn around and help what the liberals would call good causes.
  • And oh yeah: Many have experience that could be helpful for a new administration trying to enact its agenda.
  • I think that some substantial number of people who go through the so-called "revolving door" are a problem, and so I have some sympathy for tougher restrictions on that kind of back and forth.
  • But if you're going to campaign on sweeping condemnations about the evil of lobbyists and then, with great fanfare, ban them from your administration, you need to live by your own rules!
  • At least you shouldn't start making exceptions for them on Day 1.
  • Else the message is:

It is important to prevent other administrations from doing business with lobbyists; but we are of such mor al character that the rules need not apply to us.

More Lies From Der Fluffmeister!

I found another website of import; one that tracks and verifies obama's lies: http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/ [obama, What's The Facts?]. Here's the first 50, in reverse order of discovery:

Man-oh-man!!! When has this guy EVER TOLD THE TRUTH?!?! With a list like this; and this list is less than one-third of that compiled on the "wtf" site!!! Remember this in the Fall of 2010 and the Fall of 2012; Vote ALL THE BASTARDS OUT!!!

Til Nex'Time....


allvoices

allvoices
Posted by Justin Case at 9:29 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)