fund razor
Founding Member
Buh bye Holder. 
arty:
arty:
Headlines
The morning after, now what?
- Thread starter fund razor
- Start date
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
“Reviewing the Obama administration, are we witnessing the most incompetent administration [in] my life, or are we witnessing the most extremely ideologically liberal administration in our lifetime?" he said. “I’ve thought long and hard about this question. The only satisfactory answer I gather is [to] quote Secretary Clinton: what difference does it make?” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
fund razor
Founding Member
Another week, another resignation.
Bobcat
Founding Member
He just announced in Spanish to the Latin Caucus " No force in the World can stop the Amnesty Plan"
http://p.feedblitz.com/t3.asp?/9361...dBlitzEmail&utm_content=936184&utm_campaign=0
http://p.feedblitz.com/t3.asp?/9361...dBlitzEmail&utm_content=936184&utm_campaign=0
fund razor
Founding Member
Next up in the ongoing validation of concerns about the idiots surrounding the prez:
Joe Biden: Professional idiot.
Joe Biden: Professional idiot.
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
Seems they left out somebody
Nobody important that I can think of......:huh:
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
Nice to see success runs in the family identically........
Kids Fatter After Two Years of 'Let's Move'
Oct. 14, 2014
Critics have long turned up their noses at Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to make school lunches more healthy because, in reality, the lunches are far less appealing. That leads to students loading up on junk instead, and the results are tipping the scales. CNSNews.com reports, “In the first two years since First Lady Michelle Obama launched her ‘Let’s Move’ campaign to fight childhood obesity in 2010, teenage obesity rates increased, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). From 2009-2010, 18.4 percent of children ages 12-19 were classified as obese, according to the CDC. Since then, from 2011-2012, one in five children ages 12-19 or 20.5 percent, were classified as obese, an increase of 11.4 percent.” Too often, this is typical of the nanny state – the end result is the opposite of the expressed desire.
http://patriotpost.us/posts/29991
Kids Fatter After Two Years of 'Let's Move'
Oct. 14, 2014
Critics have long turned up their noses at Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to make school lunches more healthy because, in reality, the lunches are far less appealing. That leads to students loading up on junk instead, and the results are tipping the scales. CNSNews.com reports, “In the first two years since First Lady Michelle Obama launched her ‘Let’s Move’ campaign to fight childhood obesity in 2010, teenage obesity rates increased, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). From 2009-2010, 18.4 percent of children ages 12-19 were classified as obese, according to the CDC. Since then, from 2011-2012, one in five children ages 12-19 or 20.5 percent, were classified as obese, an increase of 11.4 percent.” Too often, this is typical of the nanny state – the end result is the opposite of the expressed desire.
http://patriotpost.us/posts/29991
Serious News
What's Happening
According to the survey, the BLS uses to calculate the unemployment rate, since the president took office in January 2009, the employable population has increased by 13.7 million people. Unfortunately, the number of people employed has increased by only 4.5 million. That's 9.2 million more people than jobs. That's a serious problem.
So, how has President Obama been doing on this economic measure? The labor participation rate has been at or below 63 percent for 11 of the past 12 months. The last time it was as low as 63 percent prior to President Obama taking office was 37 years ago in April of 1978 during the Carter administration. In September, it was 62.7 percent, an Obama administration record low. Labor participation was last as low as 62.7 percent in February of 1978, also during the Carter administration.
When the president took office the labor participation rate was 65.7 percent, 3 percentage points higher than it was in September. Had September's labor participation rate been 65.7 percent, the unemployment rate would have been 10.2 percent, or 2.4 percentage points higher than when President Obama took office. In other words, but for the decline in labor participation, the unemployment rate would today be significantly higher than it was when the president took office. That means the decline in the unemployment rate to 5.9 percent in September was solely attributable to the decline in labor participation.
When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds was 7.2 percent. By September of this year, it had declined to 5.4 percent. Sounds good. However, if the labor- participation rate had remained at 82.8 percent as it was when President Obama took office, September's unemployment rate would have been 7.3 percent. This is 0.1 of a percentage point higher than when President Obama took office, again demonstrating that the improvement in the unemployment rate for prime working age Americans was due entirely to a decline in labor participation.
Entire Article http://www.cnbc.com/id/102077550#.
So, how has President Obama been doing on this economic measure? The labor participation rate has been at or below 63 percent for 11 of the past 12 months. The last time it was as low as 63 percent prior to President Obama taking office was 37 years ago in April of 1978 during the Carter administration. In September, it was 62.7 percent, an Obama administration record low. Labor participation was last as low as 62.7 percent in February of 1978, also during the Carter administration.
When the president took office the labor participation rate was 65.7 percent, 3 percentage points higher than it was in September. Had September's labor participation rate been 65.7 percent, the unemployment rate would have been 10.2 percent, or 2.4 percentage points higher than when President Obama took office. In other words, but for the decline in labor participation, the unemployment rate would today be significantly higher than it was when the president took office. That means the decline in the unemployment rate to 5.9 percent in September was solely attributable to the decline in labor participation.
When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds was 7.2 percent. By September of this year, it had declined to 5.4 percent. Sounds good. However, if the labor- participation rate had remained at 82.8 percent as it was when President Obama took office, September's unemployment rate would have been 7.3 percent. This is 0.1 of a percentage point higher than when President Obama took office, again demonstrating that the improvement in the unemployment rate for prime working age Americans was due entirely to a decline in labor participation.
Entire Article http://www.cnbc.com/id/102077550#.
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
Of the workers they list as having employment, over 19% are currently part time workers.........
The other amazing thing is they talk about is "when he took office". They don't talk about the crash that happened when he was elected. Why can't they understand that almost all of the crash that happened was because business doesn't wait for the **** to hit the fan, when an idiot is elected, and he has both a house and senate that will follow his lead, they make plans and implement changes ass fast as possible to keep from going out of business......
The other amazing thing is they talk about is "when he took office". They don't talk about the crash that happened when he was elected. Why can't they understand that almost all of the crash that happened was because business doesn't wait for the **** to hit the fan, when an idiot is elected, and he has both a house and senate that will follow his lead, they make plans and implement changes ass fast as possible to keep from going out of business......
Similar threads
