What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Meanwhile, here at Lit, the Obamanation is reduced to parsing games...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And the Fed continues to play with matches...

The latest round of extraordinary Federal Reserve stimulus is risky and leaves little room to maneuver should another crisis hit, economist Lawrence Lindsey told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday.

Lindsey said that with the Fed purchasing at least $40 billion a month in mortgage debt through QE3, “they are buying the entire deficit.” (Read more: Fed Pulls Trigger, to Buy Mortgages in Effort to Lower Rates.)

“I have no problem doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times,” said Lindsey, a former White House economic advisor under former president George W. Bush who now runs his own consulting firm.

Lindsay said he agreed with the Fed’s first two rounds of quantitative easing. Now, with the economy now growing closer to its trend rate, “doing something that’s really out of the ordinary is risking things.”

He added, “If this becomes the new ordinary, it’s hard to imagine the Fed’s maneuvering room” should another crisis hit. (Read More: Why Fed Policy Just Like the NFL Refs: El-Erian.)

The central bank's recently announced bid to stimulate the economy has also taken the pressure off politicians to deal with the U.S. fiscal cliff, Lindsay argued, which could result in destabilizing tax hikes and spending cuts automatically taking effect early next year.

“The Fed, maybe because it can't do otherwise, has told the Congress: 'We're going to buy your bonds no matter what,'” Lindsey said. “I think that's keeping the pressure off the president, off the Congress.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49180320

 

[RobDownSouth]

Meanwhile, here at Lit, the Obamanation is reduced to parsing games...

Damn them and their pesky facts!
Damn them I say!

Life was so much easier when people accepted the lies that routinely pour from your lips, wasn't it AJ?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

French Unemployment Tops 3 Million, First Time Since 1999

Given the disastrous mess in Southern Europe, compounded by the election of socialist Francois Hollande (together with his extremely foolish tax hike policies), France Set to Implode was a very easy call to make.

The evidence is strongly pointing in that direction. Please consider French unemployment tops 3 million as economy struggles

The number of unemployed people in France has topped 3 million for the first time since 1999, according to latest labour ministry figures.

Speaking before the data was officially announced, Labour Minister Michel Sapin said: "It's bad. It's clearly bad."

However, the government blamed the previous regime of Nicolas Sarkozy.

[Hollande] pledged to revive the eurozone's second largest economy, tackle rising unemployment, and reverse industrial decline. However his approval rating is now at its lowest since he assumed power, pollsters say.

Since May, major companies have announced thousands of layoffs, including carmaker Peugeot, drugmaker Sanofi, airline Air France-KLM, and retailer Carrefour.

Mathieu Plane, economist at the French Economic Observatory, told the Reuters news agency: "There are almost one million more unemployed people compared with early 2008 and we can't yet say that we have reached the peak."

The French economy has posted three consecutive quarters of zero growth, and forward-looking data suggests it may continue to flatline.

The 2013 budget, due to go before the cabinet on Friday, is expected to contain more than 30bn euros in budget savings, and fresh tax rises.

The government has forecast 0.3% growth for the year, and has so far kept its 2013 target at 1.2%, which many economists now consider unrealistic.

France's central bank this month predicted that the economy would contract by 0.1% in the third quarter after flatlining for the first half of the year.

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#mim0UiZp6IUPlZpS.99
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19733992


Remember the celebrations when a Socialist was elected? Not just there, but here...

 

[RobDownSouth]

French Unemployment Tops 3 Million, First Time Since 1999
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/#mim0UiZp6IUPlZpS.99
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19733992
Remember the celebrations when a Socialist was elected? Not just there, but here...

Poor AJ, reduced to whining about French unemployment.....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama Imposes $488B Worth of Regulation
Sep 26, 2012
Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, on the $488 billion worth of regulations the Obama Administration has imposed in the past four years.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1862966360001/obama-imposes-488b-worth-regulation

 

[Adre]

Romney Touts MA Health Care Reform.

That's the headline on Morning Joes screen right now. The flip flopper par excellence is bragging that children in Massachusetts are insured because of him. Does he know his VP is going to repeal Obamacare? Oh wait, he is too.

Oh wait, Gallup daily tracking shows Obama up by six points. Where is Dick Morris when you need him? Oh well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He has said consistently that it is a state, not a federal issue.

This means it is not a flip-flop.

 

[Adre]

Saying that a need as universal as healthcare is a state issue is a copout. Tantamount to saying defense is a state issue.

 

[Adre]

And moreover, Romney stated that he would keep parts of Obamacare. So he does believe in a federal plan. Flip flop!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Defense is in the Constitution.



Obama want to keep parts of it too; he really believes in Federalizing everything...

Like Maxine...




“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Barack Obama, March 2007, SEIU Health Care Forum

“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

BTW, we just had our annual meeting with our Health Care provider...



Guess what? Our costs are going up again.



Thank you Democrats!



Middle-class




TAX!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Understanding Romneycare
Joseph E. McIsaac, The American Thinker
September 27, 2012

Conservative criticism of Mitt Romney's involvement in Massachusetts' universal health care (so-called "Romneycare") targets one of the most misunderstood issues in the 2012 presidential race. Critics lash out against Romneycare as proof that Romney lacks true conservative credentials, yet a closer look at the political reality that prevailed in the Commonwealth actually reveals that Romney deserves much credit for a principled, high-integrity handling of this legislation.

Understanding Massachusetts

The first and most important context to understand is that Massachusetts is full of liberal Democrat voters. The Commonwealth's House and Senate typically are constituted with 85% to 90% Democrat majorities. Such dramatic super-majorities are a dominant consideration in any discussion of Romneycare, as they render the governor's veto into a mere symbolic gesture that cannot stop the passage of any legislation favored by the Democrats. For example, in Romney's last year in office, the Governor issued 250 vetoes, every single one of which was overridden.

Universal Health Care is Popular in Massachusetts

Another important and relevant fact in any discussion of Romneycare is that the idea that universal health care is now and has been very popular among the majority of Massachusetts' citizens for decades. To win higher political office, such as the governorship or a Senate seat, tacit or explicit support for universal health care is a political necessity.

There have been multiple attempts to implement universal health care in Massachusetts. In fact, Romneycare was the third attempt.

In the 1980s, then-Governor Mike Dukakis passed a law that every employer must provide health care insurance to all employees or pay a penalty. In 1996 and 1997, the Commonwealth expanded and restructured the state Medicaid program, called MassHealth. Both of these predecessors to Romneycare collapsed financially.

In 1986, the federal government passed the 1986 EMTALA law mandating that hospitals provide care to everyone regardless of ability to pay. By 2004, treatment of the uninsured under this mandate had soared to $1.1 billion dollars per year in Massachusetts i.

The Romneycare Timeline

Beginning in 2000, a number of factors came together that triggered the drive for real universal health care and the formation of a number ofii competing plans that eventually coalesced into Romneycare. Health care costs had skyrocketed due to the federal and state initiatives to expand coverage to all citizens, insured or not. The costs grew so high that they got red-flagged for review by the federal government.

The federal government was providing a grant of $385 million per year to Massachusetts to help cover the $1.1-billion coverage cost for the uninsured. In 2005, the federal government threatened to terminate this grant due to the extremely high cost per patient in the Commonwealth. Governor Romney and legislative leaders were able to negotiate a two-year grace period during which the health care system would be reformed, thus setting the table for the universal health care debate that ultimately led to Romneycare.

An excellent paper on the subject, entitled "Building a Consensus for Health Care Reform in Massachusetts: Policymakers and the Hero Opportunity in the Bay State" by Thomas H. Little, Ph.D., includes an excellent summation and comprehensive description of the timeline and development of the universal health care push in 2005 and beyond:

After numerous discussions with business leaders, health care providers and insurers, President Travaglini turns his ideas into a concrete legislative proposal, introducing Senate Bill 2282 in April, 2005. As initially introduced, the bill proposed to cover almost half (225,000) of the state's uninsured by increasing the Medicaid reimbursement rate to hospitals and community health centers, encouraging insurance companies to provide low cost policies with basic coverage and high deductibles, provide money to increase enrollment in Medicaid and require companies who do not provide insurance to contribute to the states "uncompensated care pool" if their employees used state services for health care (free rider surcharge).

So the initial push for Romneycare was by the Senate President Travaglini, not Mitt Romney. A common misconception is that Mitt Romney led the charge for Romneycare, but he responded to facts on the ground.

With Democrat super-majorities in the legislature, introduction of Senate Bill 2282 made passage of universal health care highly likely. Governor Romney had a choice: veto whatever bill emerged from the legislature (which he felt was highly flawed and would ultimately hurt the citizens and financially fail), or choose not to posture but to weigh in to try to fix the legislation that would inevitably pass:

Not to be outdone, Governor Romney put forth his own proposal, introducing two bills in the House (HB 2923 and HB 2924). Like Travaglini's plan, Romney did not levy a tax or charge on the state business community. His plan relied on a redistribution of current revenues and elimination of waste and increased efficiencies created by market forces to fund the expansions. The cornerstone of the plan included a mandate that all citizens of Massachusetts be required to purchase health care much like licensed drivers are required to purchase auto insurance. Romney's plan also created the Massachusetts Exchange, a public/private partnership which would assist insurance companies in developing acceptable policies and help people identify the most effective plan for them.iii

This description of Romney's original proposal is quite different from what finally passed as Romneycare. Romney's original proposal relied heavily on market forces to drive cost control. Missing from the description above was that in addition to an individual mandate, the Romney proposal included an employer mandate for which he favored an "opt out" clause. The mandates required only catastrophic coverage, not the comprehensive and expensive "Cadillac plan" coverage that was ultimately included in the bill that passed (and in ObamaCare).

There were many other parties putting forward ideas and plans. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation published their proposal in October 2005. The BCBS plan would increase Medicaid rolls to cover children living at up to 200% of the poverty level and families at up to 133%. It also would optimize insurance pools by consolidating smaller pools together to increase efficiencies and control costs.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi eventually got a House bill together six months after the Travaligni Plan and three months after the Romney Plan. The House plan employed elements from the Travaligni, Romney, and BCBS plans.

Many advocacy groups weighed in as well:

Labor Unions - Sought to have employers pick up the cost of health care with no cost to the individual.

Health Care Providers and Hospitals - Favored increased access and coverage, effective cost management, and fair reimbursement to providers.

Business Community - Sought to avoid having the burden placed on employers and were looking for ways to reduce insurance costs overall.

With all of these competing plans and lobbying, universal health care did indeed become an inevitable political reality. Ultimately, the legislature passed a compromise bill.

Romney Now Gets Blamed for the Actions of Others

On the day that Romneycare was signed into law, Romney line-item-vetoed eight elements changed in or added into the final draft of the bill, including the employer mandate, which he felt was no longer necessary. After the signing ceremony, though, the legislature returned to the State House and overrode all eight vetoes.

Romney's successor, Governor Deval Patrick, greatly increased the mandated level of coverage while implementing the law, which has resulted in a financial calamity and debt not structured in the original law, sending the state into a financial tailspin. Yet Romney gets the blame for what Governor Patrick (a Democrat) wrought.

The Principled Decision by Mitt Romney

Universal health care in Massachusetts is favored by 70% of the population, and by up to 90% of the legislature. As a candidate for governor in 2003, Romney was already making public comments about universal health care because it was one of the "hot" topics of the election. He was asked about his thoughts by the media and gave his take on how to "do it best."

Once elected, Romney could have completely stayed out of the fray of crafting a bill. He could have simply vetoed whatever bills got to his desk bill and avoided any backlash that might hurt his future political aspirations for having been involved. It would have left the people he represented as governor (the people of Massachusetts) in worse shape, as his vetoes would be easily overridden, and the bill would be crafted without Romney's considerable skills at planning and finance.

For those who criticize Romney's involvement, understand that disengaging would have been a sellout of the citizens for his own personal future prospects. Romney did not agree with selling out the people he represented for personal political gain, and he refuses to spin or lie about it now. It was a principled decision based on his solemn commitment to his job as governor and the need to put the greater good ahead of personal political gain. Universal care was going to happen, it did happen, and it would have been a worse law had Romney taken the easy road and not gotten engaged. Romney is the better man for acting as he did.

The name "Romneycare" is a misnomer, obviously coined by political enemies. The Obama team, for its part, uses Romneycare to insulate itself from attacks on ObamaCare. David Axelrod said in March 2011 that "[Romney's] health plan 'inspired' President Obama and was a 'template' for the White House's own national program."

So why does Romney continue to say that Romneycare was a success when empirically it is an economic disaster that also provides Obama talking points that protect ObamaCare? Were the Romney team to start a serious defense of the political twists and turns that fundamentally changed his bill into something much worse, it would no doubt confuse the vast majority of the electorate and sway no one in the process. The Obama campaign would undoubtedly make Romneycare the center of political discussion, thus diverting attention from the poor economy and other problematic issues that Obama faces this election cycle.

Romney cannot say that Romneycare in Massachusetts is a poor law without falling down a slippery slope and getting consumed in discussions about its failure by the Obama-complicit media. Neither can he argue the merits or history of Romneycare without creating a media frenzy as well. The smartest way for the Romney campaign to stay on message about Obama's failed economy is to give short messages that Romneycare is a success but to not get into the details, and so they do.

Romneycare vs. ObamaCare

Another fallacy is that Romneycare is the model for Obamacare. For two laws that each address the problem of insuring the uninsured, these could not be more divergent.

The final bill passed in Massachusetts was 70 pages in length; the federal bill was 2,074 pages. In Massachusetts, every legislator and all the private advocates had read the bill prior to its passage. The federal bill largely was unread before its passage. The federal bill does not simply nationalize health care, but puts control over health care into the hands of bureaucrats who are neither elected or under the control of Congress.

The majority of voters incorrectly believe that Mitt Romney championed the entire effort to bring universal health care to Massachusetts. The truth is that Romney showed his integrity and true commitment to the oath of office as governor to do the best he could for the people.

That's leadership.

I have to say that it sounds like he did his best to be the Governor of all the people which is diametric opposition to Obama who sees 53% of America as his enemies and even goes as far as to say it...

 

[Adre]

Thanks for all your C&Ps. Does not change what I said, or the facts. First Mitt said he would repeal Obamacare on day one, and later he said he would keep parts of it that he believes are good. Flip flop. Keep up the research.

 

[mercury14]

BTW, we just had our annual meeting with our Health Care provider...



Guess what? Our costs are going up again.



Thank you Democrats!



Middle-class




TAX!

You mean like they've been going up at an exponential rate for the last 30 years? Better blame Obama!

 

[mercury14]

Thanks for all your C&Ps. Does not change what I said, or the facts. First Mitt said he would repeal Obamacare on day one, and later he said he would keep parts of it that he believes are good. Flip flop. Keep up the research.

Mitt believes in several government mandates on health insurers and providers, while also saying such things are crimes in a free market. His position is is incoherent as always.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Thanks for all your C&Ps. Does not change what I said, or the facts. First Mitt said he would repeal Obamacare on day one, and later he said he would keep parts of it that he believes are good. Flip flop. Keep up the research.

Okay.

He is not going to repeal it. That is what you should be bagging on him about. The only thing he can do is advocate for, sign or veto the legislation of the Congress.

If flip-flopping is your main disqualifier, then the current occupant of the White House is the undisputed king of saying one thing to get power and then doing the exact opposite once elected.

A sampling for your amusement, just to show it is not my, what was the word from the other thread? oh yeah, PARANOIA...

"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn't come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."
Barack Hussein Obama

"Then why the hell did this president, what was it, two weeks after the spill started, signed another waiver for exactly this kind of deep sea drilling, another waiver for the exact same company!"
Don Imus

"If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."
Famous "Activist" Constitutional Law Professor Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

Good thing it is a tax on the Middle class and not a mandate!

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Barack Obama, December 2007

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2006

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
Barack Hussein Obama

"That's not part of his power, but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress...,"
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 2008

Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Barack Obama, Jun. 28, 2006

 

[MeeMie]

No Shit!

55% of small business owners would not start company today, blame Obama


Fifty-five percent of small business owners and manufacturers would not have started their businesses in today’s economy, according to a new poll that also reports 69 percent say President Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt their businesses.

“There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people,” said Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.”



The poll reports another ominous statistic for job creation: “67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.” Why? Because “President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers,” according to 69 percent of the business owners surveyed.



Here are the key findings in the poll, as highlighted by NAM:

• 67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.
• 69 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers.
• 55 percent say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.
• 54 percent say other countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States.

“Instead of smoothing the way, our government continues to erect more barriers to growth through burdensome regulations that increase costs for small businesses and all Americans,” NFIB president Dan Danner said.


Those statistics suggest that even Democratic and independent small business owners criticized Obama, because only 46 percent of poll participants identified as Republicans, per Roll Call.


“It’s clear that small business owners and manufacturers are becoming increasingly more frustrated by the federal government’s inability to solve America’s economic problems,” Bill McInturff, whose Public Opinion Strategies conducted the poll. “Manufacturers place most of the blame squarely on policies coming out of Washington.”




http://washingtonexaminer.com/55-percent-of-small-business-owners-would-not-start-company-today-blame-obama/article/2509069#.UGRDLo7N78v

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

"[W]hat limits ought to be set to the activity of the state," is "that the provision of security, against both external enemies and internal dissensions must constitute the purpose of the state, and occupy the circle of its activity."
Wilhelm von Humboldt

An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another...;
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

 

[Busybody]

Durable Goods

Down ONLY 13%

RECOVERY!


Doesnt matter, the cuntry LOVES Obama and he will win

 

[Busybody]

U.S. second-quarter GDP revised down to 1.3% in third and final review

09/27/2012 08:35:39 AM



As UD and SCHMUCK will say....>Thats GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as they said under Bush, when growth was DOUBLE and unemployement was 5%, THAT WAS THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE H HOOVER

 

[Busybody]

RECOVERY! (since the holiday season is here, meaningless temp jobs will make EVERYTHING look better, Obama will landslie in, and we will fall off the cliff in Jan....)



By Jeffry Bartash WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Applications for U.S. unemployment benefits dropped 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000 in the week ended Sept. 22, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the lowest level since late July. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to fall to 375,000. Initial claims from two weeks ago were revised up 385,000 from an original reading of 382,000, based on more complete data collected at the state level. The average of new claims over the past month, meanwhile, declined by 4,000 to 374,000. The four-week average reduces seasonal volatility in the weekly data and is seen as a more accurate barometer of labor-market trends. Also, Labor said continuing claims decreased by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 3.27 million in the week ended Sept. 15. Continuing claims reflect the number of people already receiving benefits. About 5.17 million people received some kind of state or federal benefit in the week ended Sept. 8, virtually unchanged from the prior week. Total claims are reported with a two-week lag.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Durable Goods

Down ONLY 13%

RECOVERY!


Doesnt matter, the cuntry LOVES Obama and he will win

U.S. second-quarter GDP revised down to 1.3% in third and final review

09/27/2012 08:35:39 AM



As UD and SCHMUCK will say....>Thats GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as they said under Bush, when growth was DOUBLE and unemployement was 5%, THAT WAS THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE H HOOVER

SINCE!

We had pages of parsing over the word since.

That's the new direction of the meme, do not defend the economy, attack, attack, ALWAYS attack!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

RECOVERY! (since the holiday season is here, meaningless temp jobs will make EVERYTHING look better, Obama will landslie in, and we will fall off the cliff in Jan....)



By Jeffry Bartash WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Applications for U.S. unemployment benefits dropped 26,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000 in the week ended Sept. 22, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the lowest level since late July. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to fall to 375,000. Initial claims from two weeks ago were revised up 385,000 from an original reading of 382,000, based on more complete data collected at the state level. The average of new claims over the past month, meanwhile, declined by 4,000 to 374,000. The four-week average reduces seasonal volatility in the weekly data and is seen as a more accurate barometer of labor-market trends. Also, Labor said continuing claims decreased by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 3.27 million in the week ended Sept. 15. Continuing claims reflect the number of people already receiving benefits. About 5.17 million people received some kind of state or federal benefit in the week ended Sept. 8, virtually unchanged from the prior week. Total claims are reported with a two-week lag.

K-Mart is his saving grace!

 

[Busybody]

That's the new direction of the meme, do not defend the economy, attack, attack, ALWAYS attack!

That and giving MILLIONS to CHARITY just shows how selfish Romney is



But

THEY ARE WINNING and AMERICA IS LOSING