Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 03, 2014

U.S. employers hired 288,000 new workers in April, topping forecasters' expectations and bolstering the view that the economy is reviving from a slow winter affected by severe weather. America's official unemployment rate fell to 6.3 percent, down from 6.7 percent the month before. Confidence is increasing: An April Gallup survey found 30 percent of U.S. adults saying now is a "good time to find a quality job," up from 8 percent in 2011. The latest reading is the most optimistic one since early 2008 as the recession was beginning.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

According to shocking new numbers that were just released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of American families do not have a single person that is working.

So when someone tries to tell you that the unemployment rate in the United States is about 7 percent, you should just laugh. One-fifth of the families in the entire country do not have a single member with a job

Yea, things are just real peachy..

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-03 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | POSTED BY BOAZ #1 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Enlighten us BO, is it getting better or worse? Nobody said it's fixed, but I'd out getting better? Signs point to YES for those willing to acknowledge as much. You're probably just bias against those in charge still.

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-03 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

... is it getting better or worse?

Does anyone really know? It seems like every quarter we are hearing about how many more folks aren't getting counted in the unemployment rolls anymore.

I just wish 0bama's bean counters would stop cooking the books and stick to a standard so that these numbers are actually meaningful for more than political gain.

20% of the households (which means a higher percentage unemployment rate since many households would normally have more than one person who would otherwise be employed) doesn't sound like a very encouraging number to me. Is it better than a year ago? Again, who can know for sure?

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boaz -- send me an email. It's on my user page.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3

God knows, but he seems to be inconspicuously silent on the matter. Telling sign? Or evidence he doesn't exist? :P

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-03 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

We live in a sea of lies. Actual unemployment exceeds 20%.

www.shadowstats.com

#6 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-05-03 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

**** www.washingtonsblog.com

#7 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-05-03 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, who can know for sure?

#3 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

If it was bad news I bet YOU would know for sure. But, since it might be a signal we might have reached another milestone in our recovery from the Bush Error... well, who can tell? Well Goatman can!

You have obviously decided that The Books are obviously cooked this time.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-03 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just wish political bean counters would stop cooking the books and stick to a standard so that these numbers are actually meaningful for more than political gain.

Of course, according to some, books are never cooked by the side they favor.

#9 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-03 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Numbers www.youtube.com

#10 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-05-03 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

If it was bad news I bet YOU would know for sure

Looking at nutcase's link, I see it is much worse than 0bama wants us to think. Besides, isn't it easy to be skeptical when you see the books continually cooked by taking people off the rolls? Well, for someone who isn't a continual apologist for this administration (this excludes you, donnerboy) it is easy to be skeptical.

Well Goatman can!

???

Actually I said in this very thread I didn't know. What did I do to get under your skin so badly that you have to assign false positions to me then attack me for them, donnerboy?

You have obviously decided that The Books are obviously cooked this time.

Um, yes -- your messiah's bookkeepers admit it. duh. Are you saying they are lying?

Geez, donnerboy. Get a grip. Let someone else do the apologizing for 0bama for a change

BTW what do you think of nutcase's link? Can you tear your thoughts away from goatman long enough to comment on it?

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course, according to some, books are never cooked by the side they favor.

#9 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

I gathered that from donnerboy's post as well.

#12 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here are the real facts:

1.The participation rate has dropped again. It's now 62.8%, a 36 year low. That means Americans have given up looking for work.
2.92,594,000 Americans are now not in the labor force---that's a new record---good one, Obama.
3.The employment/population ratio is now 58.9%---more then 3% less then 2004.
4.The U6 which measures the umemployed, part-time employed, underemployed and marginally employed is 12.3%

One has to remember that the employment figures put out by the government for every month are probably skewed because of that dirty little secret, the birth/death model which are numbers added into the work force based on guess and past history. So the employment numbers are probably lower then broadcast.

#13 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I might add that most of these jobs are low paying jobs. Wait until the next downturn comes----you think things are ugly now........

#14 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

...from the Bush Error...

#8 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Any economist worth his salt will tell you that today's economic situation is the result of decades of policies, multitudes of lawmakers, and both parties.

A rabid partisan who spends his life blindly apologizing for the idiot 0bama is stupid enough to think it is because of one person.

Thanks for making it clear which one you are, donnerboy -- as if no one knew already. LOL

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Wait until the next downturn comes----

You mean when it becomes Bush's economy again? LOL

I get dizzy listening to the proggies claim who owns the economy at any given moment. LOL

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The U.S. has been cooking many books for a long time. They lie to the American people continuously. Look at how they've changed (multiple times) how they figure CPI and GDP. The markets are now totally controlled by our government and the Fed. They try to make things look better then they are since they're scared to death of loss of confidence not only in the government but more importantly in the dollar. This time around (for a number of reasons) they might not be able to continue the manipulation. Financially, we're in deep trouble and most of the American people are insouciant. When the real trouble comes, it'll be a shock and the poor ______ will wonder what happened to their former indulgent lives.

#17 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any economist worth his salt will tell you that today's economic situation is the result of decades of policies, multitudes of lawmakers, and both parties.

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 02:52 PM | Reply |

Couldn't agree more with that comment. In fact, I believe it all started in 1913 with the formation of the central bank, the Federal Reserve. Jefferson warned about such and that if enacted, they would own our children and grandchildren. Well, look around you. His statement is coming true today. Jackson knew the damage a central bank could do and fought it tooth and nail. If people don't learn from history they repeat the same mistakes and we've done a good job of that.

#18 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The U.S. has been cooking many books for a long time.

#17 | Posted by matsop

the only problem is, they change how they cook so you don't know from one year to the next if it is better or worse.

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Do you realy wanting congress and the senate screwing with monetary policy? That would be a train wreck.

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Just to give a recent example of how they've changed the figures again. Take the GDP----recently,GDP calculation was revised.The revisions come as part of a comprehensive overhaul of gross domestic product data dating from 1929 through the end of 2012. The government revised the figures to include new measures and data it says better captures the U.S. economy.One of the biggest changes is how the agency measures what it calls the "knowledge economy" through investments in research and development and entertainment and the arts. Previously, that spending was included as intermediate components during the production of other goods or services, but now they will be measured as fixed assets and reflect their ongoing contributions.Of course, this doesn't mean any change in growth but it makes things look better then they are. It also makes debt/GDP appear better. No one else in the world uses this type of calculation.

Our government is totally corrupt and it's going to eventually unravel this nation. You can feel it coming both domestically and internationally. Obama is another stooge foisted on the American people with his blather of "hopey and changey" and Hillary is waiting in the wings, another puppet for the ruling elite.

#21 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you realy wanting congress and the senate screwing with monetary policy? That would be a train wreck.

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 03:22 PM | Reply

It's been done in the past----when things got out of control and the folks got p____, it fell on congress who were at least able to return to sound money principles. Also, most of the time the outside printing of money was due to unusual events like wars----hence the old saying "not worth a continental".

#22 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you realy wanting congress and the senate screwing with monetary policy? That would be a train wreck.

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 03:22 PM

Sniper, I believe the next currency collapse to come will involve the dissolution of the Federal Reserve since it'll be taken out of our hands as a nation. We've had currency collapses in the past----1914, 1939, and 1971. In the near future, we'll have another one and this time the global community will demand that the dollar no longer is the reserve currency. There'll be a new "Bretton Woods" meeting of some kind and a global system will be put in place.

#23 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any economist worth his salt will tell you that today's economic situation is the result of decades of policies, multitudes of lawmakers, and both parties.

So you're saying Obama hasn't been as bad as he's made out to be by you or many others, eh? Finally some pragmatism from someone other than PRAG.

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-03 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you're saying Obama hasn't been as bad as he's made out to be by you or many others, eh?

Neither I nor anyone ever claimed he was to blame for the Great Recession. In fact, how could anyone since it started before he came to office?

0bama's great failure is to fix it and to prolong it. After all, it was he, not Bush, not the GOP who said he could get us out of it

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Magic numbers again. Must be gearing up for an election.

If you read the article those "jobs" are not good jobs.

"According to analysis by the National Employment Law Project, low-wage industries accounted for 22 percent of job losses during the recession, but 44 percent of job gains over the past four years."

Wow... I used to make $100K a year at the office, now I earn $18K a year at McDonalds.. but I have a job. Thanks Obama.

#26 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-03 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The New York Times' Neil Irwin gives a balanced view of the new jobs numbers:


Rarely does a monthly report on the United States job market look so terrific on the surface while being so disappointing underneath.

***

Employers added a whopping 288,000 jobs, the most in two years.

***

The number of people in the labor force fell by a whopping 806,000, wiping out the February and March gains and a bit of January as well. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage points to 62.8 percent, returning to its December level.

And the number of people reporting they were unemployed fell by 733,000, which sounds good on its surface, but paired with the similar-sized decline in the labor force points to job seekers giving up looking rather than finding new employment.

In other words, 288,000 jobs were created, but 806,000 fell out of the labor force and gave up looking for work altogether. So 2.8 times as many people dropped out as found jobs.

As CBS notes:

The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.

***

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.

The number of women not in the labor force has risen to an all-time high. there was a loss of jobs in the 25-54 age group, And – in 20% of American families – no one works.

Despite what you may have heard, the huge numbers of people dropping out of the labor force can't be attributed to retiring baby boomers.

In reality, throwing money at the big banks has led to a "jobless recovery" – a permanent destruction of jobs – which is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys. (And see this.)

And most of the new jobs being created are low-wage or temporary jobs.

www.nytimes.com

#27 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

But goat................. the unemployment rate is ONLY 6.3%

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean when it becomes Bush's economy again? LOL

I get dizzy listening to the proggies claim who owns the economy at any given moment. LOL

#16 | Posted by goatman

And I get dizzy from your Pretzel Logic and your loose handling of the facts.

Our research reviewed American economic performance since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board Chairman – Republican Marriner Eccles. We observed that even though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And relatively quickly.

Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.) But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance.

Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should. Because the President deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership.

Bob Deitrick, co-Author "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box" (BBBB)

0bama's great failure is to fix it and to prolong it. After all, it was he, not Bush, not the GOP who said he could get us out of it

#25 | Posted by goatman

I am pretty sure we have different definitions of "failure" my non-partisan friend from the Great State of Texas.

Geez, donnerboy. Get a grip. Let someone else do the apologizing for 0bama for a change

I don't feel the need to apologize for Obama on the economy. The economy has slowly recovered from the Great Recession. I see things as looking up. Democrats are strong. Obamacare is winning. My Glass is currently half full. The GOP is taking it on the chin and Your Life is falling apart and your Glass is currently half empty. (Some people think we should use a smaller glass but whatever.) Are there still problems in the world? Of course there are, I would think you would be more optimistic being where you live and all.

Guess not.

Anyway for the REST of America...Consumers confidence is up. The Stock Market is up. Many factors are up. But, yes, Uncertainty Lingers.

Where I see Opportunity, you see Uncertainty.

But, YOU are certain of one thing... the books ARE cooked.

Well, congratulations! And Welcome to
Enlightenment Texan!

And so when did YOU too finally become Aware of the Realization that the Game is Rigged?

Anyway...have fun with your Pity Party.

I have to go fix a sink.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-03 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't care how they cook them, it still looks bad.

YEAR.LABOR FORCE.EMPLOYED...UNEMPLOYED..U
NEMP RATE
2012..154,975,000..142,469,000 ..12,506,000..8.1%
2011..153,617,000..139,869,000 ..13,747,000..8.9%
2010..153,889,000..139,064,000 ..14,825,000..9.6%
2009..154,142,000..139,877,000 ..14,265,000..9.3%
2008..154,287,000..145,362,000 ...8,924,000..5.8%
2007..153,124,000..146,047,000 ...7,078,000..4.6%
2006..151,428,000..144,427,000 ...7,001,000..4.6%
2005..149,320,000..141,730,000 ...7,591,000..5.1%
2004..147,401,000..139,252,000 ...8,149,000..5.5%
2003..146,510,000..137,736,000 ...8,774,000..6.0%
2002..144,863,000..136,485,000 ...8,378,000..5.8%
2001..143,734,000..136,933,000 ...6,801,000..4.7%
2000..142,583,000..136,891,000 ...5,692,000..4.0%
1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2%
1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9%
1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4%
1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6%
1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1%
1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9%
1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5%

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have to go fix a sink.

#29 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Poor donnerboy. Still more fixated on me than the many facts presented in this thread. LOL

I hope after you "fix your sink" *snicker* you'll come back and address the facts rather than focus on me.

I don't know if it is a compliment or not that I have now actually become a deflection for a rabid 0bama supporting proggie.

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

My Glass is currently half full

Posted by donnerboy

Actually your glass is 100% full of 0bama and me and completely devoid of rebuttal for the facts laid out before you. Not surprising, though since the many posts here present irrefutable numbers that you dare not address lest you have to admit the shortcomings of your master and his cooked books.

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Stock Market is up

So? The stock market is up. Thanks, fed, for printing the money to make this possible. Surely you haven't gone so far with your rabid partisanship as to give 0bama credit for this, are you donnerboy? Besides, it was the proggies who vehemently claimed that the stockmarket was not a bellwether of the economy when it reached record highs during Bush.

Oh well. As usual, Bush deflections and the different-rules-for-us card seem to be all you have, donnerboy.

*yawn*

Sure would be nice if you came back and addressed the links and numbers others have posted here. But I know you won't. Prove me wrong. I dare you, donnerboy.

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

But goat................. the unemployment rate is ONLY 6.3%

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER

I know. I hope when I decide to sell my 200,000 mile 15 year old pickup, all I have to do is put a nice coat of paint on it and new tires and find one of the DR proggies like OWS or donnerboy who will put as much value in it as a brand new one that looks exactly like it on the surface.

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

hope after you "fix your sink" *snicker* you'll come back and address the facts rather than focus on me.

no you don't but the sink is fixed. And I am a Hero again! yeah!

You my fellow American, shall not be so easy being so mired in the Swamp.

Actually your glass is 100% full of 0bama..

the fact that you cannot afford a smidgen of credit to the man gives you away.

Your glass is 100% full of partisan crap.

You and Sniper make a great comedy duo.

thanks for the Lols.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-03 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

So still no comments on the links, donnerboy? You can't dispute the numbers.

Told ya' donnerboy. LOL

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

They don't count those who have quit looking for a job. What about the number non-working in the working age groups? What is the percentage of non-workers. What is the ratio of workers to non-workers. More or persistent cooking of the books.

#37 | Posted by Donald at 2014-05-03 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

They don't count those who have quit looking for a job.
#37 | POSTED BY DONALD

True, but that's nothing new. I don't think the way those people are counted has changed in years.

I wonder: With the extension of unemployment benefits, are there people who are both receiving unemployment and been unemployed so long they are no longer counted among the unemployed?

The problem with this recovery is the richer you are, the more you're recovering. If you're poor you might not be recovering at all.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with this recovery is the richer you are, the more you're recovering. If you're poor you might not be recovering at all.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 09:31 PM | Reply |

And the middle class is shrinking with a small % moving in to room with 1%ers, fashionably now called the 2%ers. However, more of them are moving down to room with those designated as living in poverty.

#39 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-03 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"True, but that's nothing new. I don't think the way those people are counted has changed in years." - Snoofy

Every year they make some sort of change.... its difficult to compare year to year given the changes.

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-03 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with this recovery is the richer you are, the more you're recovering. If you're poor you might not be recovering at all.
#38 | Posted by snoofy

A better statement might be the older you are the more you are recovering.

#41 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-03 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

A better statement might be the older you are the more you are recovering.
#41 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Could be. There older you are the more wealth you've probably accumulated, so it might be tough to tease that out.

How about the younger you are the more shafted you're getting? I wonder if it's better to be poor and 65 than poor and 18 right about now.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just wish political bean counters would stop cooking the books and stick to a standard so that these numbers are actually meaningful for more than political gain.

Of course, according to some, books are never cooked by the side they favor.

#9 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-

all I have ever asked on this issue is that dems use the same standard they lectured us when the rate was 4.5 during the first bush term. RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE, we were lectured and instructed that the number was bogus cause it didn't count the people who quit looking. Just use the same criteria and let's look at it.

#43 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-04 06:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

There are many reasons people quit looking for work.

Some got old. Some got sick. Some got married. Some had kids. Some had their jobs shipped overseas. Some trained for jobs that no longer exist. Some just gave up.

But, if we teased out the numbers for the different age groups you will find the reasons for a job-less recovery. (Assuming you cared) And those numbers could be improved (again assuming you cared).

But unfortunately, to solve many of these we will probably have to wait until this President is out of office before the GOTP finally takes it foot off the brake of this economy.

For them it is not about doing what is right for the country and moving this country forward. It about doing everything in their power to make this President fail. Or at least appear to be failing even if he is succeeding. And depending who wins the White House and Congress this may not even change as the GOTP has dug quite a big hole for themselves to crawl out of.

The whole fight over the ACA proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-04 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The whole fight over the ACA proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And some (notably those without blinders on) say the fight is over a poorly thought out, overly complex, and proven unworkable piece of legislation.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-04 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE, we were lectured and instructed that the number was bogus cause it didn't count the people who quit looking. Just use the same criteria and let's look at it.
#43 | Posted by afkabl2

Take it up with whoever scolded you. Nobody but you cares. If your feelings are still hurt from being scolded from ten years ago, boo hoo.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about the younger you are the more shafted you're getting?

#42 | Posted by snoofy

That is the people that elected the shafter-in-chief. Live with it.

#47 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-04 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

**** The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By 27 MILLION Since 2000!

www.blacklistednews.com

#48 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-05-04 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is the people that elected the shafter-in-chief. Live with it.
#47 | Posted by Sniper

The other guys would have shafted them more, deal with it.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

You would think eventually the "shaftees" would say enough. But the enemy is us and corruption may be so embedded in American institutions that it might not be long before we slide into 3rd world status.

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-04 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE, we were lectured and instructed that the number was bogus cause it didn't count the people who quit looking. Just use the same criteria and let's look at it.
#43 | Posted by afkabl2

Take it up with whoever scolded you. Nobody but you cares. If your feelings are still hurt from being scolded from ten years ago, boo hoo.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-0

NO ! I won't because I gave up a long time ago, first of all, believing anything written here on face value in support of the liar in the white house.

and I'm certainly not surprised when a lib says they don't care about the truth when it comes to any issue. All anyone has to do is read my post that's filled with a bipartisan look at the issue and you can't even then think about applying the same standard here because you know that it will make obama look bad and keeping those lies coming are the only things dems care even a little about these days...sad, really..but certainly not unexpected.

#51 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-04 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I AM, sure however, that a gop in the white house and every hypocrite lib will come out of the woodwork to blast away using the OLD criteria...that's not even worth a bet.

#52 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-04 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"**** The Number Of Working Age Americans Without A Job Has Risen By 27 MILLION Since 2000!"

And the population has grown by 34 million, your point?

#53 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-04 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I gave up a long time ago, first of all, believing anything written here on face value in support of the liar in the white house.
#51 | Posted by afkabl2

"Long ago" you say.
Was that before, after, or during January 20, 2009?
Seriously, name the President who didn't lie.
Maybe Carter?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

And some (notably those without blinders on) say the fight is over a poorly thought out, overly complex, and proven unworkable piece of legislation.

#45 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Speaking of blinders...you may need to check yours.

Clearly either you can't see or haven't been paying attention or you are one those nayboobs of negativity constantly rooting for the failure of this Presidency. There are OBVIOUSLY pros and cons to the ACA but any REASONABLE person can see that the good clearly outweighs the bad. Unless the bad is all you want to see.

Then, of course, that is all you will see.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-05 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There are OBVIOUSLY pros and cons to the ACA but any REASONABLE person can see that the good clearly outweighs the bad."

only if you refuse to address the reality that the "good" could have been achieved in a much simpler and less complex bill.

At this point, you should just accept that there is good in the ACA....but don't start pretending you understand even a shred of the "bad". You don't. Not at all. The cumbersome problems for employers are a mystery to you.

IOW, the good is all you want to see.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-05 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"only if you refuse to address the reality that the "good" could have been achieved in a much simpler and less complex bill."

That was never my job. That was the job the Republicans who refused to do their job when this bill was being debated.

Not that the bill is reality they want to debate it?

As for me seeing the bad ... we have been way too busy debunking the constant steam of lies to ever get around to reasonably discussing what needs to be fixed.

But, I sense we are finally getting there.

#57 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-05 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"we have been way too busy debunking the constant steam of lies to ever get around to reasonably discussing what needs to be fixed."

well, that's where you've been. That's the place where the cheerleaders feel compelled to congregate.

It's also an excuse to ignore the bad, which coincidentally is what the cheerleaders have to do.

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-05 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort