An interesting observation

hislegacy said:

A possibility, but I’m not real sure.

I think she was a good First Lady, but beyond planting vegetables and making people eat broccoli, not sure if she has too much to offer.

It that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think she's much too smart to jump into the pit of snakes that is American Politics.

USincognito said:

Actually Trump's victory with Gorsuch was due to Mitch McConnell throwing out Senate precedent.

Click to expand...

Which is because Harry Reid did the same when trying to pack the circuit and appeals courts....Mitch warned him of the consequences....but Harry was on his way out so he didn't care.

THE PAIN OF HELPING PEOPLE GAVE WAY TO PLEASURE,,

hislegacy said:

Two belly laughs in one day!

My sides are hurting.

Click to expand...

you shouldn't have missed those abs days.
tulc(they're important to prevent just that sort of reaction)

hislegacy said:

I stopped reading after this sentence.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, dear leader's golden offspring told you what to think of teachers last week.

civilwarbuff said:

Which is because Harry Reid did the same when trying to pack the circuit and appeals courts....Mitch warned him of the consequences....but Harry was on his way out so he didn't care.

Click to expand...

Whataboutism is so Soviet Era. And you're getting your talking points messed up. Changing the vote from 60 to simple for cloture was raised in regard to Kavanaugh, not with regard to Judge Garland. And a change to the rules to allow a simple majority for cloture is NOT the same as simply blocking a nomination for 10 months like a petulant child.

GOP has always been aggressive in trying to weaponize the system of judicial nominations
>> The negative framing of Reid’s decision is so pervasive that I have to acknowledge it is a Jedi mind trick that I have even fallen into myself and I worked for Harry Reid’s Senate leadership staff between 2009 and 2011 so I should know better.

While it is accurate to say that Republicans use the Reid nuclear decision as part of their justification and it was indeed a controversial move by the former Senate Majority Leader, it is intellectually dishonest to allow Republicans to claim this measure of whataboutism when it comes to their actions related to judicial nominees.

Yes, Reid went nuclear and it caused a lot of hand-wringing on both sides of the aisle. Republicans, who were in the minority, were outraged because of what it meant for their singular focus on shaping the court system in their image.

Yes, several Democrats within Reid’s own caucus were uncomfortable with the decision because of what it meant for the institution and the predictable comeuppance that was around the corner when Republicans took control and used the rule against Democrats to push through their nominees.

But context matters. Reid made this decision after years-long obstruction of judicial nominees by Senate Republicans led by McConnell. And to call it obstruction, as it’s commonly referred to in today’s political vernacular, just does not do it proper justice. <<

Conservatives might fall for their own talking points, but moderates and liberals don't.

USincognito said:

Whataboutism is so Soviet Era. And you're getting your talking points messed up. Changing the vote from 60 to simple for cloture was raised in regard to Kavanaugh, not with regard to Judge Garland. And a change to the rules to allow a simple majority for cloture is NOT the same as simply blocking a nomination for 10 months like a petulant child.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure McConnell will hold up a SCOTUS nomination by Trump if it comes after March 2020.

I kid, of course - there is no way Mitch would play by the same rules with a Republican in the White House.

hislegacy said:

This is regarding Mr Barack Obama.

Love him, hate him doesn’t matter. I think it is A fascinating observation that for seven of his eight years virtually every negative thing that happened in the United States was because of his predecessor.

https://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2010/02/09/obama-wont-abandon-blame-bush-strategy

And now positive change to our country is because of him.

https://ntknetwork.com/obama-blames-bush-for-his-economy-takes-credit-for-trumps/

When it comes to the economy keep in mind that the Excelerator changes happened after Mr. Obamas regulations and policies were reversed.

Click to expand...

It takes about a year (1 year) really for a new president's policies to begin to do much. If something bigger like a big gasoline price swing or housing collapse isn't overwhelming the situation.

Let's look. "Real hourly earnings" -- in red in the graph -- means how much wages increased after subtracting out inflation.


Calculated Risk: December 2018

So far, it's ok, not bad, but okish -- doing well enough.

Not as good as 2015 yet, but that could still happen if we get lucky.

hislegacy said:

Why didn’t Mr Obama end both of those wars, why did we loose more people during his terms than Bush’s?

Was economy down when he took office? Yep

Let’s see, 911, then more than 1,000,000 people transient after the hurricane

Those two events had great effect on the economy.

I didn’t like Bush’s spending methods, and that doesn’t excuse the economy, but those two national events sure did have an effect.

Click to expand...

The Great Recession wasn't just here, it was worldwide.

hislegacy said:

And it all resulted in one of the slowest recoveries in history.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the USA made one of the quicker and most stable recoveries.

As soon as his regulations and restrictions were removed it roared to life.

Click to expand...

The economy continued its upward trajectory. Now Donald is squandering the boom by refusing to pay down the debt; instead, he has increased it, first for tax cuts for millionaires and now for a vanity wall or fence or some sort of barrier, whatever it is today.

hislegacy said:

If you had written from an open discussion POV I probably would have listened.

Click to expand...

I doubt anyone who has had prolonged discussions with you on these forums would agree.

hislegacy said:

This is regarding Mr Barack Obama.

Love him, hate him doesn’t matter. I think it is A fascinating observation that for seven of his eight years virtually every negative thing that happened in the United States was because of his predecessor.

https://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2010/02/09/obama-wont-abandon-blame-bush-strategy

And now positive change to our country is because of him.

https://ntknetwork.com/obama-blames-bush-for-his-economy-takes-credit-for-trumps/

When it comes to the economy keep in mind that the Excelerator changes happened after Mr. Obamas regulations and policies were reversed.

Click to expand...

So Obama created the recession that started before he took office?

hislegacy said:

Why didn’t Mr Obama end both of those wars, why did we loose more people during his terms than Bush’s?

Was economy down when he took office? Yep

Let’s see, 911, then more than 1,000,000 people transient after the hurricane

Those two events had great effect on the economy.

I didn’t like Bush’s spending methods, and that doesn’t excuse the economy, but those two national events sure did have an effect.

Click to expand...

You think the recession was caused by 9/11 and A HURRICANE?

Wow.

This thread proves that some people don't care what the facts and data show, they will simply ignore it.

The Real Question
But this leads us back to the question… Why do we have a U-3 number at all? Aren’t all U-6 people unemployed? But during bad times like the recent few years it is scary to hear the Unemployment rate is 18% (U-6) but less scary if the number you hear is “only” 10.6% (U-3) so the government prefers the U-3 number and unfortunately the news media plays along and uses the U-3 number because it is the “Official” unemployment rate.

According to Shadowstats the government is really underestimating unemployment by even more than our numbers suggest since “long-term discouraged workers were defined out of official existence in 1994.” The new U-6 numbers only include short-term discouraged workers.

Note that shadowstats shows the unemployment rate relatively flat since 2009 at 22 – 23% primarily because of a declining Labor Force Participation Rate.

What Is U-6 Unemployment?

Sparagmos said:

So Obama created the recession that started before he took office?

Click to expand...

I would have said the Obama time machine strikes again. But given that other thread where we saw posts that claimed that Carter was responsible for laws passed before he took office, maybe it is has been used before then. Or after then to go back to before then? Time travel is so messy, no wonder only Democrats are dumb enough to use it.

Gigimo said:

Note that shadowstats shows the unemployment rate relatively flat since 2009 at 22 – 23% primarily because of a declining Labor Force Participation Rate.

Click to expand...

And why should anyone believe them?

KCfromNC said:

I would have said the Obama time machine strikes again. But given that other thread where we saw posts that claimed that Carter was responsible for laws passed before he took office, maybe it is has been used before then. Or after then to go back to before then? Time travel is so messy, no wonder only Democrats are dumb enough to use it.

Click to expand...

Haha true!