Understanding Unemployment – Obama Style
The following was emailed to me:
They were one of the most popular comedy teams of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
(Today Obama and the Democrats are the comedy team.)
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It’s about 9%
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: You just said 9%
ABBOTT: 9% unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right, 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work, you ARE unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “out of work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But… they ARE OUT OF WORK!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: WHAT POINT?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work, it wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work!
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. ABSOLUTELY!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work??
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier way of the two is to just stop looking for work?
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
And now you know why Obama’s unemployment figures are improving.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Maxine Waters Calls Republican Leaders 'demons'
Maxine Water calls Republican leaders ‘demons’
Once, again that bastion of civility – the Liberal left has offered up a heaping helping of their brand of civility.
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters had the following to say to her state party convention attendees: “I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don’t ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons.”
Where is the civility that the Democrats always demand of Republicans, Ms. Waters?
This isn’t some anomaly coming from a freshman congressman. This isn’t Maxine Water’s first idiotic statement, either. Last year she told a crowd of fellow bearers of the civility banner, “as far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.”
Dare I say Ms. Waters is representative of many – if not a majority of far-left whacos who demand a kindler, gentler discourse from conservatives who have substantive disagreements with President Obama and the radical left while Waters, Pelosi, ‘Ol’ Joe, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Obama and their ilk on policy.
After Congresswoman ‘Gabby’ Gifford and twelve others were shot by a whack-job, Jerrold Loughner, folks from the left, like the aforementioned and Pima County Sheriff, Clarence, ‘the duper’ Dupnik blamed the shooting on Right wing radio, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party. They all used the horrible tragedy to exploit their own liberal bias and blame it on everyone and everything except the one person who was responsible – one lone nut job who didn’t listen to right wing radio, Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party.
That’s typical for the left. It’s also typical for the left to be the quintessential hypocrites. These people, who I won’t call demons, are masters of projection. They project all of their faults, and traits on the right. Like Bart Simpson they share the motto of, “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove a thing.”
Actually we did see you do it but like the Wizard of Oz you keep telling us to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Perhaps Maxine Waters should take lessons on civility from Gabby Giffords, a woman who I didn't always agree with but liked, in spite of any policies that I may disagree with her on.
Just once, the next time a Democrat tells a conservative that they need to be more civil and not so vitriolic, I want to hear the conservative tell them, “Shut the hell up and look in the mirror the next time you feel compelled to make that statement. But that just me.
Once, again that bastion of civility – the Liberal left has offered up a heaping helping of their brand of civility.
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters had the following to say to her state party convention attendees: “I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don’t ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons.”
Where is the civility that the Democrats always demand of Republicans, Ms. Waters?
This isn’t some anomaly coming from a freshman congressman. This isn’t Maxine Water’s first idiotic statement, either. Last year she told a crowd of fellow bearers of the civility banner, “as far as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.”
Dare I say Ms. Waters is representative of many – if not a majority of far-left whacos who demand a kindler, gentler discourse from conservatives who have substantive disagreements with President Obama and the radical left while Waters, Pelosi, ‘Ol’ Joe, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Obama and their ilk on policy.
After Congresswoman ‘Gabby’ Gifford and twelve others were shot by a whack-job, Jerrold Loughner, folks from the left, like the aforementioned and Pima County Sheriff, Clarence, ‘the duper’ Dupnik blamed the shooting on Right wing radio, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party. They all used the horrible tragedy to exploit their own liberal bias and blame it on everyone and everything except the one person who was responsible – one lone nut job who didn’t listen to right wing radio, Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party.
That’s typical for the left. It’s also typical for the left to be the quintessential hypocrites. These people, who I won’t call demons, are masters of projection. They project all of their faults, and traits on the right. Like Bart Simpson they share the motto of, “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove a thing.”
Actually we did see you do it but like the Wizard of Oz you keep telling us to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Perhaps Maxine Waters should take lessons on civility from Gabby Giffords, a woman who I didn't always agree with but liked, in spite of any policies that I may disagree with her on.
Just once, the next time a Democrat tells a conservative that they need to be more civil and not so vitriolic, I want to hear the conservative tell them, “Shut the hell up and look in the mirror the next time you feel compelled to make that statement. But that just me.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Hope And Change We Can Believe In
White House Claims 233,000 Jobs Added
According to the White House 233,000 jobs have been added.
Really? According to latest figures the number of people in the work force fell from 132.9 million jobs in December to 130.4 million workers in January. Is that what they mean when people talk of ‘fuzzy’ math? According to my math that’s about 1.2 million jobs that went away.
The highest job unemployment was under George W. Bush was 7.3%. The average was 5.2%. Care to put that up against Obama’s unemployment numbers? Ah, yes –‘Hope and Change’ we can believe in. He just wants us to give him 4 more years to finish the job.
According to the White House 233,000 jobs have been added.
Really? According to latest figures the number of people in the work force fell from 132.9 million jobs in December to 130.4 million workers in January. Is that what they mean when people talk of ‘fuzzy’ math? According to my math that’s about 1.2 million jobs that went away.
The highest job unemployment was under George W. Bush was 7.3%. The average was 5.2%. Care to put that up against Obama’s unemployment numbers? Ah, yes –‘Hope and Change’ we can believe in. He just wants us to give him 4 more years to finish the job.
Justice Ginsburg Calls U.S. Constitution a Bad Example
Washington, DC –
U.S. (liberal) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently told an interviewer on Egyptian TV that they should use the United States Constitution as a model for their constitution. She felt the constitution should focus more on human rights.
Ginsburg said, , “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.” She obviously believes the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant today. Odd; coming from someone who has sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution. May I remind the (somewhat less than, in my opinion) Honorable Ms. Bader Ginsburg that she took an oath, swearing to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. It is not her job to twist and bend the Constitution of the United States to fit her liberal beliefs.
Her job isn’t to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should or should not be upheld.
Any problems we have aren't the fault of or any lacking on the part of our United States Constitution. It was well thought out and drafted at a time when we were subservient to the King and under tyranny. The founders did an incredible job of drafting the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The problem is NOT with the document, but rather Supreme Court Justices who want to find and interpret things that aren’t in it and ignore those things that are in it.
This gives us all an insight into the mind of a liberal United States Supreme Court Justice. I should add that I don’t want to see a Conservative Justice take the same path. The U.S. Constitution is what it is. Don’t take ‘artistic license’ with it. If we’re going ignore it and interpret it on a whim; we may as well roll the hemp that it was printed on and smoke it. Whoa, Dude! Where’s my Constitution?
U.S. (liberal) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently told an interviewer on Egyptian TV that they should use the United States Constitution as a model for their constitution. She felt the constitution should focus more on human rights.
Ginsburg said, , “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.” She obviously believes the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant today. Odd; coming from someone who has sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution. May I remind the (somewhat less than, in my opinion) Honorable Ms. Bader Ginsburg that she took an oath, swearing to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. It is not her job to twist and bend the Constitution of the United States to fit her liberal beliefs.
Her job isn’t to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should or should not be upheld.
Any problems we have aren't the fault of or any lacking on the part of our United States Constitution. It was well thought out and drafted at a time when we were subservient to the King and under tyranny. The founders did an incredible job of drafting the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The problem is NOT with the document, but rather Supreme Court Justices who want to find and interpret things that aren’t in it and ignore those things that are in it.
This gives us all an insight into the mind of a liberal United States Supreme Court Justice. I should add that I don’t want to see a Conservative Justice take the same path. The U.S. Constitution is what it is. Don’t take ‘artistic license’ with it. If we’re going ignore it and interpret it on a whim; we may as well roll the hemp that it was printed on and smoke it. Whoa, Dude! Where’s my Constitution?
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Marco Rubio On Target
While addressing the HLN, keynote speaker Marco Rubio hit one out of the park. This is an excerpt from what Rubio had to say:
"And so, when the choices that are put before us today are dangerous ones because if we choose this path of pitting people against each other, if we buy into this notion that our economy really can't grow fast enough for all of us to prosper so we're going to have to somehow empower government to distribute the wealth of this country among us, we've chosen to become like everybody else. We've chosen to become like the countries that your parents and grandparents came here to get away from."
That message is right on the mark and needs to be passed on far and wide!
"And so, when the choices that are put before us today are dangerous ones because if we choose this path of pitting people against each other, if we buy into this notion that our economy really can't grow fast enough for all of us to prosper so we're going to have to somehow empower government to distribute the wealth of this country among us, we've chosen to become like everybody else. We've chosen to become like the countries that your parents and grandparents came here to get away from."
That message is right on the mark and needs to be passed on far and wide!
Is Israel Planning On Striking Iran?
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius says U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is worried Israel is planning on striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Ignatius, who was traveling with Panetta at the time, says Panetta believes it isn’t years away but months away.
According to Ignatius Panetta believes it could be as soon as April, May or June.
Israel is surrounded by enemies (and is probably wondering if the U.S., under the Obama administration is one of them) and one of them is a whack-job who not only is trying to build a nuclear program, but has made it clear it’s imperative from their standpoint to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel has been in similar situations before and acted swiftly and decisively to neutralize the threat. I don’t believe many people doubt that the Israelis aren’t justifiably concerned about the situation and certainly have the military option on table.
There are a few things that must be factored in, however. For one, they would have to know where the facilities are hidden under ground. Two, they would have to have something akin to the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator – bunker-busting bomb). The MOP is a 30,000 pound bomb that Panetta told the Wall Street Journal has some kinks that need to be worked out, yet.
It’s not likely the Obama administration is particularly keen on providing one to Israel. That would mean Israel would have to come up with another plan. They would also pretty much be on their own since Obama isn’t likely to offer and help for fear he would be perceived unfavorably by the Russians or Iran – two countries we can certainly count on to have our best interest at heart, don’t ya know.
This all leads me to question why Panetta would pass his concerns on to a journalist – knowing it would certainly be published for Iran, God and the whole world to see. The noted Chinese general, Sun Tzu is credited with authoring one of the most well-known combat strategy books of all time – The Art of War.
In his book he speaks of planning, deception and indirect attack. I rather doubt Sun Tzu would fancy letting an enemy – and make no mistake, contrary to what President Obama would say, Iran is an enemy of the U.S. and certainly an enemy of Israel know they were planning an attack in the very near future. Perhaps it’s deception on Panetta’s part – designed to make Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe he has a few month before he has to be concerned.
Another possibility could be Obama thinks Israel is off the reservation and wants to publicly tip their hand, believing Israel will abandon the plan, now that any planning they have invested into the attack and any deception, i.e., if and when they were planning such an attack has been blown, compliments of their ‘good friend’, the U.S., via Panetta.
What I do know is if Panetta’s statements weren’t given with the full knowledge of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu we can assume he’s quite put out with us and any musings about the U.S. being an ally that could be counted on to watch their back has now become a metaphorical knife in the back. But that’s just me.
Ignatius, who was traveling with Panetta at the time, says Panetta believes it isn’t years away but months away.
According to Ignatius Panetta believes it could be as soon as April, May or June.
Israel is surrounded by enemies (and is probably wondering if the U.S., under the Obama administration is one of them) and one of them is a whack-job who not only is trying to build a nuclear program, but has made it clear it’s imperative from their standpoint to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel has been in similar situations before and acted swiftly and decisively to neutralize the threat. I don’t believe many people doubt that the Israelis aren’t justifiably concerned about the situation and certainly have the military option on table.
There are a few things that must be factored in, however. For one, they would have to know where the facilities are hidden under ground. Two, they would have to have something akin to the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator – bunker-busting bomb). The MOP is a 30,000 pound bomb that Panetta told the Wall Street Journal has some kinks that need to be worked out, yet.
It’s not likely the Obama administration is particularly keen on providing one to Israel. That would mean Israel would have to come up with another plan. They would also pretty much be on their own since Obama isn’t likely to offer and help for fear he would be perceived unfavorably by the Russians or Iran – two countries we can certainly count on to have our best interest at heart, don’t ya know.
This all leads me to question why Panetta would pass his concerns on to a journalist – knowing it would certainly be published for Iran, God and the whole world to see. The noted Chinese general, Sun Tzu is credited with authoring one of the most well-known combat strategy books of all time – The Art of War.
In his book he speaks of planning, deception and indirect attack. I rather doubt Sun Tzu would fancy letting an enemy – and make no mistake, contrary to what President Obama would say, Iran is an enemy of the U.S. and certainly an enemy of Israel know they were planning an attack in the very near future. Perhaps it’s deception on Panetta’s part – designed to make Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe he has a few month before he has to be concerned.
Another possibility could be Obama thinks Israel is off the reservation and wants to publicly tip their hand, believing Israel will abandon the plan, now that any planning they have invested into the attack and any deception, i.e., if and when they were planning such an attack has been blown, compliments of their ‘good friend’, the U.S., via Panetta.
What I do know is if Panetta’s statements weren’t given with the full knowledge of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu we can assume he’s quite put out with us and any musings about the U.S. being an ally that could be counted on to watch their back has now become a metaphorical knife in the back. But that’s just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
