Where is the US economy headed?

You would think PrezBO would know this before making the promises he has made.

Yep -- it's beginning to look real.

There is no indication or proof that the economy has turned around or heading in the right direction - none.

However, there is plenty of spin and propaganda from the left and the liberal media spreading false hope.

How would you interpret the data as to why U-3 and U-6 rose while net new jobs rose by 231,000 in the civilian sector, H2O? I am sure you have analyzed the numbers carefully today.

We would have to look at new unemployment figures, wouldn't we? Otherwise, we are trying the equivalant of analyizing an income statement by looking at increased revenues, while ignoring increased expenses. Or so it seems to me.

We would and I did look at U-3 and U-6 data. The rest of your analogy, Roger, went over my head.
The numbers today made me more optimistic. Perversely, even the U-3 and U-6 did. But that is a difficult concept to understand or sign on to. I can explain my logic if asked.
Recovery in the job market will take years. It is totally naive to think otherwise.

Try saying something new.

It seems like I have always heard around 5%, give or take a little, as being close to full employment.

I know this is anecdotal, but I know quite a number of people in the trades, whose jobs are pretty well tied into the construction industry of various types, residential, commercial, and industrial, and it seems like there was a very small improvement for a time during the past month or two or three, but recently more uncertainty again and lack of work, which is pretty well tracking the numbers being given us. Other anecdotal indicators that I have also seem to indicate that a resilence of the people of this country is attempting to bring things back, but there is an underlying dysfunction in the economy that the government is not fixing. I realize my comments again become political, but it is my true belief that the adversarial relationship between business and government, plus the total lack of any positive economic policy by the current administration will make it very difficult for the economy to recover in a normal fashion.

Another issue, listening to Rush today, he reported that many employers are going to start dropping health insurance because of the rise in cost, and this will cause more problems for employment. Now, I realize many of the biased here hate Rush, but I believe the man digs up alot of useful information. He also pointed out that this was predicted, that the Obama administration likely want employers to drop their insurance, thus turning to government, so that ultimately single payer will become a more likely scenario. I agree with that assessment, I think Obamacare was written with intended triggers in the legislation to move us incrementally toward their desired end result. The administration touts the legislation as ultimately saving us money, but I believe it will ultimately cost us alot more money, and following the European model, we are getting a first hand look at where that model will lead us. I have never understood why the most successful country on earth would desire to borrow the policies of other countries that are obviously failing and bankrupting them.

Thanks for a response in your own words, Okie, rather then a bunch of cutting and pasting. I am off to bed right now. I will check it out tomorrow.

Re Rush: Did he really claim that the oil spill was planned and orchestrated by environmentalists? Did he also say that an oil spill is as natural as the ocean is and, if left alone, the ocean will take care of it?
And Gov Rick Perry of TX: "This was an act of God."
Night to all.

I did not hear Rush say anything about the oil spill being planned or orchestrated, and I doubt seriously he said anything like that. It also could be his comments might be attempted to be twisted by those that are looking to trip up Rush. Also, I did not hear him say anything about oil spills being natural. I would say however that oil seeps and asphalt deposits are extremely natural, some occurring inland and some on ocean floors. Some of the first explorers observed oil slicks on water, examples in California. The massive tar sands deposits in Canada that are now being mined, are examples of oil deposits or oil fields preserved in rock, and there are many places around the world where such oil or asphalt impregnated rock deposits are exposed at the surface. The massive oil shale deposits in Colorado are another example of oil being trapped in shale or siltstone. Oil is a naturally occurring substance, so it follows that nature will in fact take care of it, I believe. I do not advocate dumping oil into the ocean, but I do not believe it is an ultimate catastrophe as the tree huggers would want us to believe. I do not believe that oil is a substance that needs to be feared to some ridiculous extent. As an aside, I find it amusing that a Hazmat team may be called to an oil spill on a highway, while the entire highway may actually be a layer of asphalt material made out of oil.

The cause of the oil spill, there will undoubtedly be much more investigation, but I think it is just an accident inherent in the process of drilling for oil, probably a blowout caused by very high formation pressure. Whether you can call it an act of God as Rick Perry termed it, I doubt it, but I think it is a result of the circumstances of nature that were being tapped into, much of which we cannot control, I would agree to that extent.

Something new..... POM, you're an idiot.

How's that?

I rely on Obama to analyze and interpret all information... he is like a god and always correct.

Rush starts from a position far to the right of center. While you and many of your ilk hate the main stream press because to you it is liberal, the main stream press does start from a mid-point. I recently read Newsweek after more than three decades of not touching it and was impressed by how the writers bent over backwards to do balanced commentary and reportage. Your listening to Rush is only going to maintain your position on the extreme right.

Hey, a comment like that from you is proof that my thinking is on target. Do wish you knew something about political science and history.

Here is my take. I dropped Newsweek a few years ago because I got tired of the extreme bias, starting with the obviously biased pictures on the covers to exude their hatred for anything or anyone conservative, or love for any ultra liberal idea. The articles were written so biased as to make me throw the magazines in the trash in disgust after a few minutes, and so I had to ask myself why I was paying for such garbage.

To understand Rush, you need to realize he is a conservative first and foremost, and forms his opinions based upon that view. I have found him to be well informed and fact based, but he does love to tweak the liberals by making startling statements, such as "talent on loan from God." In contrast, the mainstream press has a liberal template that they try to fit every story into, and they will twist and exaggerate anything and everything to make every story fit their template. The difference, which you just demonstrated, the mainstream press claims to be unbiased, while Rush openly admits and proudly by the way, to be conservative and that his commentary is editorial and analytical from a conservative viewpoint. In contrast, the mainstream press is dishonest at its foundation, claiming to be unbiased when they are not at all unbiased and they know it.

I understand that he is a conservative . . . he is more than that. He is not, however, well informed. He has often been cited for outright lies and those charges were backed up with proof. Furthermore, he is not really tweaking the left but indulging his own ego and crafting his own publicity. In other words, he is a combination of a spoiled child throwing a tantrum and/or teasing and a shrewd businessman, for his program is more of a business than say any city paper is.

When I was an undergrad, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism, Newsweek was considered right-centrist while Time was considered centrist. US NEws and World Report was considered right.

Today, I found it much less right-centrist and squarely in the center while you find it extremely biased and ultra-liberal. You were practically moved to violence by it. That's telling.

I recently suggested to you that were the measure of the American political spectrum a yard stick, you would be at 17 inches to the right. I would put myself at around 12 inches to the left . . . there are so many who are much further to the left than me.

You really do not want to listen to the center and it almost moves you to violence.

I would think that if the journalism community itself labels Newsweek as centrist or right-centrist, that their opinion would carry more weight than yours for several reasons, including that they are experts, that they are more urban and urbane, and, finally, that the community of the press --- whether you like it or not --- is made up of people from across the spectrum, making their consensus telling.

Here's what Rush said re: the oil spill -



His comments, as usual, spread beyond his show to include many other members of the right-wing infosphere.

Cycloptichorn

POM, you're an idiot!

you're a doo doo head

Thanks for posting this. No real journalist would make a statement like "hardcore environmentalist wackos" for public consumption. That sort of rhetoric is sufficient reason to not listen to him. He is not a gentleman.