The U.S. still employs more than 2.5 million fewer people than when the recession began. At 180,000 jobs a month, it will take until the middle of 2014 to close that gap. Adjust for population growth, and it will take nine more years to return to the prerecession level of employment at the current rate of growth, according to the Brookings Institution.
That would be the middle of President Hilary Clinton’s Second term and very good for her hand picked successor.
“Headwinds and tailwinds are canceling each other out,” said Lou Crandall of the economic research firm Wrightson ICAP.
The longer that stalemate continues, the worse the long-term damage will be. Already, millions of unemployed Americans have given up looking for jobs; many will likely never work again.
Youth unemployment stands at 16.1% and would be a Europe-like 22% if more than 1.5 million young people hadn’t dropped out of the labor force; economic research suggests their early-career woes will leave lasting scars. The slow pace of growth leaves the economy more vulnerable to an unexpected shock—meaning a flare-up in Europe’s debt crisis or surge in oil prices could send the U.S. back into crisis mode. (WSJ)
Never let a Crisis go to Waste! 🙂
Obama has 3 fundraisers in New York along in next week. It’s not like he’s got anything to worry about… 🙂
“I would love nothing better than an effective, loyal opposition that is willing to meet us halfway and move the country forward (and do whatever I want them to) — because that’s what the American people are looking for (but since they won’t do everything I want when I want I’ll just blame them for everything). The economy is growing but there is still a lot of folks out there who are struggling; still way too many people who are unemployed; (I’m focused like a laser beam on jobs! 🙂 not campaigning or covering up) people who haven’t seen a raise in a decade (unlike Congress); people whose homes are still underwater; people who when they see $4-a-gallon gas (it was less than$2 when you became President-but I’m sure that’s the evil oil companies you’ve been trying to destroy’s fault!) know that that is money that’s coming straight out of their pockets or their retirement funds and is going to be very hard to make up. (And ObamaCare will certainly help!) 🙂 And they’re hoping that we can do some governing (why break the trend!) 🙂. And that’s what I intend to do this year, and the year after that and the year after that,” Obama told the group. (Translation: Campaign!)
“But I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that it would be a whole lot easier to govern if I had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.” (WS)
Yeah, the last time we got Stimulus Spending and a year-and-half mud fight cramming ObamaCare down our throats. That was progress.
But yes, it would be so much easier if their was no opposition to The Agenda and they could just do whatever they wanted, when they wanted, and because they wanted. And they could thumb their noses at the peons and peasants who objected to their high and mighty superiority.
“And I want her once again as a fully empowered partner for us to be able to move our agenda forward.”
Campaign Mode Overdrive: Engaged!
BY-Partisanship is our goal!
2014 totalitarianism or bust!
IRS UPDATE: At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.
On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report.
And next year they get to enforce ObamaCare. Doesn’t that just fill you with hope & glee. 🙂
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
Removed: Al-Qaeda , CIA warnings, and terrorism.
Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted. (ABC)
Nothing to see here, move along… 🙂
The CIA draft included: The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Instead we got the Internet Video storyline.
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
And the White was trying to avoid it altogether!
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now.
So it makes you go hmmmmm….
The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either. (NY)
Depends on your definition of what is, is… What IS editing… What IS Terrorism…What IS a cover-up….
If it smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IS it a duck? 🙂