PDA

View Full Version : INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF THE DAY 02/01/12



LWW
02-01-2012, 03:55 AM
The CBO confesses that the true unemployment rate, before the regime massages the numbers for the O-cult members, is actually 10%.

This lines up well with prior estimates of the true rate.

Add in that if inflation were figure in the same manner as when godking Jimmuh Kahtuh ruled the masses, we have experienced inflation of over 10% as well.

Of course any non o-cultist who goes to the grocery store already knew that.

In short, we have Jimmuh Kahtuhesque type "MISERY INDEX" numbers ... and the Obamedia assures the nutty 25% that prosperity is right around the corner ... and they believe it.

Right now the only thing keeping the ship of state from capsizing is the tea party segment of the congress that has largely blocked any further implementation of dear leader's war on prosperity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1 percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent</div></div>

LET THE DENIALS BEGIN! (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released)

Qtec
02-01-2012, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CBO confesses that the true unemployment rate, before the regime massages the numbers for the O-cult members, is actually 10%. </div></div>

So how was it BEFORE the present Regime took over. I'm guessing that you think those numbers were also 'massaged', am I right?

The fact that that the GW Bush Regime lost 4 MILLION jobs in 6 months, leading up to the poor sap that would inherit this disaster, is true?

Good to hear you say it.

Q,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks.............it means a lot.......LOL

LWW
02-01-2012, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CBO confesses that the true unemployment rate, before the regime massages the numbers for the O-cult members, is actually 10%. </div></div>

So how was it BEFORE the present Regime took over. I'm guessing that you think those numbers were also 'massaged', am I right?

Q,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks.............it means a lot.......LOL </div></div>

Inflation numbers have been massaged since kongress changed the formula in the early 1980's.

LWW
02-01-2012, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that that the GW Bush Regime lost 4 MILLION jobs in 6 months, leading up to the poor sap that would inherit this disaster, is true?

Q,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks.............it means a lot.......LOL </div></div>

How did he do that?

Soflasnapper
02-01-2012, 11:35 AM
We now have a higher employment participation rate than occurred in January 1984 (the comparable time frame in the Reagan first term).

64% now, 63.9% then. Government stat engine for this metric. (http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet)

You may need to re-enter the starting year of 1980, and click the 'go' button to get the display. Helpfully, each month's figure is provided in a chart form in numerical form, to help get the exact figure which the graph doesn't accurately enough display to tell.

63.9% workforce participation rate was the Reagan figure after an alleged great recovery, and while the boomers were still entering the workforce in large numbers. Now, of course, 32 years later, the boomers are beginning to leave the workforce as their leading edge cohort has reached early or full retirement age.

While this data set specifies it is the civilian workforce participation rate, the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE was jiggered in the first Reagan term to include all those in military jobs as well as civilian jobs. A little bit of statistical chicanery that likely still is in effect, so far as I know.

LWW
02-02-2012, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that that the GW Bush Regime lost 4 MILLION jobs in 6 months, leading up to the poor sap that would inherit this disaster, is true?

Q,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks.............it means a lot.......LOL </div></div>

How did he do that? </div></div>

Bump for the snoop?

Qtec
02-02-2012, 05:09 AM
My call is Q or Qtec. Last chance Dorothy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime




By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners.</span> <u>In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.</u>

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. </div></div>

So, GW looked the other way while the 1% robbed the MC and the poor.

What else could he possibly do to protect those getting FKD by lenders?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the answer is a resounding no.</span>

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.</span>

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.</span> </div></div>

read the rest DOROTHY (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html)

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:50 AM
The question was how he did what you claim.

You didn't answer.

Imagine that.

Qtec
02-02-2012, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question was how <span style='font-size: 23pt'>he</span> did what you claim. </div></div>

Who is 'He'?

Q

LWW
02-02-2012, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question was how <span style='font-size: 23pt'>he</span> did what you claim. </div></div>

Who is 'He'?

Q </div></div>

Who did you say he was?

Your village is concerned with you having been missing for so long.