With the unemployment rate now down to 7.8 percent, it is at the same level it was when President Obama took office. When you subtract all the jobs that were lost in his first 13 months on the job from the jobs that have been added since then, you get 325,000 net jobs created. Despite a total lack of cooperation from the Republicans which prevented Obama from taking more forceful action, he has now climbed himself out of the hole George W. Bush and the Banksters dug for him. Naturally, this is upsetting to the Republicans who have been doing everything they can think of to keep the economy weak and the unemployment rate high. So, their first inclination is simple disbelief. “This can’t be happening. This is the worst thing ever. People can’t be getting work. Not after all we did to keep them on food stamps. The administration must have cooked the books.” Jack Welsh is even tweeting such nonsense. It’s quite a scene. A bunch of rich, white men complaining that the economy is strengthening and the stock market has more than doubled in value on Obama’s watch.
It’s a sad unpatriotic spectacle when greedheads cannot even be happy when they’re getting rich because the wrong team is in the White House.
And just like that, the narrative changes! Big take-away from Romney’s zingy debate is that he will fire Big Bird. And Obama wins the week and beyond. Republicans railing about the job numbers is a big mistake.
Hope they enjoyed the last 48 hours. Moving forward—
And his bump didn’t even last 48 hrs.
Source: The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll
On the other hand, TPM has shown Colorado and Florida sliding out of Obama’s hands into Toss-Up.
Also even I was surprised that the conservatives launched an attack on the BLS data itself. I guess this has really upset them.
There are attacks on the BLS data from the uninformed left as well.
This whole conversation is premature. There haven’t been nearly enough polls to meaningfully draw a conclusion.
so basically, politically speaking, despite Mittens debate “win”, with the unemployment numbers, the $150 mill fundraising haul, the. jobs number, and the EC dominance, Obama STILL wins the news cycle!!! KARMA’s a bitch ain’t it!
Once again proving that the media narrative means shit when real world truth happens.
too bad for Mitt supporters, they weren’t even allowed 48hr to crow. I suspect that Romney’s first debate performance will be something for the to cling to.
Good news all around. With the adjustments for the past 2 months, this comes out to 200,000 new jobs. With the report earlier of the extra 386,000 new jobs from last year, this puts Obama well over the number of employed when he became President. If, using Romney’s own statement that you can’t hold the first six months against a new President, then Obama’s administration has overseen a couple million increase.
Also, the drop in the UE is not, as some on the right might try to say, because of discouraged workers, because it shows over 400,000 more people in the workforce or looking for work.
Plus, I expect next month’s report, just before the election, to revise this month’s upward.
Plus, there was an uptick in public sector employment.
Plus, looking back at the debate, it is obvious that all the lines that can be used against either of the candidates came from Romney. The Big Bird is the most obvious, but also the “new accountant” line which basically admitted he had sent jobs overseas. Plus others.
BooMan, you have been predicting a blowout for a while. I think it is even more likely. And if the Dems can make the case that these figures would even be better if the GOP hadn’t deliberately tried to stall the recoveery, the House is within reach.
Romney reaction via TPM, “this is not what a real recovery looks like”. yeah, ok Mitt
How does this compare to Reagan’s recovery?
Have you done an apples to apples job creation comparision?
How about an apples to apples GDP growth comparision?
Median income?
Just curious.
How the hell would he know? All he and his buddies have ever done is crash economies.
If he inherited a growing one, his only skill set is in skeletonizing it: selling off the assets, short-selling it, and getting richer off what’s left of the carcass before walking away with a smirk on his face.
Mitt is right. For his own political purposes that have nothing to do with helping 99% of Americans, but his statement is correct. Democratic politicians and their supporters who trump up this data will appear detached from what’s happening on the ground and where we’re all heading.
President Obama has barely made the case against Romney. He’s completely avoided making the case against the Republican party, leaving plenty of people open-minded to listening to what Romney has to say. Really, if we were a competent party, anyone who called themselves a Republican should be treated with incredulity.
Romney’s response
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-this-is-not-what-real-recovery-looks
Wow, what great news!!! It heartbreaking when people lose their jobs. YES!
Of course Republicans are saying the administration cooked the books, ’cause that’s what they would have done. Projection, sheesh.
Yeah you are absolutely right.I am immensely influenced by the term “Projection”.
anti aging night cream
Is said wrong team hoping to use its attachment to wealth creation to win elections and raise their taxes?
Mysteries abound. I hope the emoprogs and their media enablers enjoyed their 24 hours of upset stomachs, though, because the contours of the race are exactly what they were on Monday morning. Minimum of 53% of the vote for the President and an easy romp through the electoral college.
Boo,
You know I’m no fan of the R’s, can’t stand Romney, don’t have a hat in this ring.
Just a heads up: Lots of folks on my side of fence find the numbers a tad surprising, if not too convenient.
For example:
With all the season adjusting models that are applied to the employment numbers, this seems like extra pressure was applied — as above shows a very formulaic push appears to have been applied.
That aside, no fan of the stats any of them supply — The numbers (employment, GDP, CPI, etc.) are generally full of garbage, and they are very politically pliable, and have over the years had their methodologies adjusted to make things appear better than they really are. Both parties do it. Politicians are not stupid in this way. It is the wolf reporting on the condition of the hen house.
In my case, I don’t buy these numbers quite yet. They’ve come in so far under even the most unbiased expectations, they really seem suspect.
well, the report is clearly satanic, if nothing else.
To some, no doubt. They are only what they are.
Small picture, though — clearly good news for the Obama Campaign into the debates. The R’s would have to come out and undermine the system they want to control if they assail the numbers, so they will have to tread very lightly.
In terms of economic reality, though, this new print is irrelevant. Monetary policy is undermining sustainable job growth because it keeps redirecting / dislocating an efficient capital structure. Not Obama’s fault directly = systematic.
Recall me saying way back when that a D will have a tough road inheriting the economic problems of the prior 8 years of Bush (the seeds of which were partially sown pre-Bush if you’re on the correct economic narrative), and flirt with being a 1-termer. I was saying that if Kerry beat Bush in the 2004 mid term, he’d inherit a ticking time bomb of a credit bubble and get blamed. The economic expectations implied (that came to fruition) were not put together relying on official stats as tea leaves.
My expectation is that whoever wins this election will have a very short honeymoon before the next round of economic distress, and likely give up the presidency to a different party in 2016.
Wow at least one other person here recognizes the true cause of the last Recession (i.e. monetary policy causing asset bubbles), and the next shoe will drop soon, sometimes causing me to root for a Romney loss in 2012 so that Ryan can ascend to Presidency in 2016.
What you’re underestimating is the role of psychology in the economy…as business owner, a Romney victory will dramatically increase confidence in small businesses…also, a Romney election might suppress Bernanke’s profligate money-printing.
I’ll take my chances!
No doubt a lot of potential activity sitting on sidelines. Some of that is frustration of lack of a reliable tax regime, and fear of a further attack on capital formation. But monetary policy and both D&R government are bedfellows, this a political-banking nexus.
So I don’t have much faith in Romney to actually effect any meaningful change. Rather the opposite. That status quo is far to settled in to allow either D or R to do more than throw a few bones to their various constituencies — especially those on the educated fringe that scare the less literate center, which is why so many millions are spent by each party trying to define the competition as the latest iteration of the Bogeyman (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) so to galvanize their base into ignoring their home team’s incompetence.
Perhaps–retaining power is the primary motive of pols, generally speaking. But I’m seeing at least glimpses that Romney is serious about doing what is needed, even if he’s booted after one term. We shall see
Holding your breath will be hazardous to your health.
No, it’s not “precisely” two-thirds. The numbers are reported in thousands. Just as it wasn’t “precisely” 87.5% a couple months back.
Sigh. It’d be nice if people could at least learn the terminology before shooting their mouths off about how horrible government statistics are. If you don’t know what seasonal adjustment is, you really shouldn’t talk about it. Seasonal (not season) adjustment is not a model. It’s a method of adjusting data that are subject to seasonal change. It makes no sense to report raw data in December and compare it with January, for example, because holiday hiring ramps up and then falls off in those two months. You’d be sitting there talking about how great December was while January was horrible. You need to compare it with the typical trends we see in December and January year in and year out.
Hence seasonal adjustment.
(Cue NBC “The More You Know” thing.)
http://www.census.gov/srd/www/x12a/
LOL. I’m pretty familiar with what goes on. “Model” is a term lots of pros use to describe what goes on with the process of making data adjustments to describe the assumptions that have to be made to come up with what end up being the officially adjusted numbers.
As in, “the assumptions they’ve built into their model showing job growth is a load of garbage because when you drill into it you find they have invented tons of new housing construction jobs simply because that’s been a common trend in the last five years, when the dominant theme in real time has been construction gridlock and tremendous job loss. That flaw is leading to horribly off-kilter analysis from many prominent economists who accept the report at face value, and have therefore overestimated GDP going forward when they should be worried about recession. Meanwhile, politicians who are telling you they’ve done a great job because of that jobs report are equally full of…”
A common gripe of thoughtful analysts back circa 2007.
Feel free to nitpick, though.
The report’s major benefit is that the methodology is pretty much consistent from time period to time period and the methodology is published so that folks can see where the flaws might be.
The biggest flaw in the report is that it depends on self-reporting by the group sampled.
Agreed, although the bias tends to be towards making things generally better. But, exactly, it’s all there for you to see.
What amazes me is how many people focus only on the headline numbers as if it’s more than it is. In the case of financial experts, it’s malpractice to not read deeper into the report, yet many just parrot the headline. When it comes to politicians, they hide behind the headline.
The same thing applies to the deficit. Back when Bush The Lesser was touting a $250 billion deficit (his lowest), it was the usual headline number that everyone parrots. If you actually dig into the annual report (thanks to Congress in the 1980s, although it took them about 20 years to actually publish it after the law was passed demanding it) you can actually discover GAAP accounting applied to the U.S. Government, from which you determine a REAL deficit as opposed to the headline deficit, which is comparative fiction.
The GAAP numbers includes the NPV of future obligations, an accounting requirement that lends sobriety (and legality) to private sector reporting. For example, a business with a 10-year $10 million dollar loan payable in it’s entirely at the end of 10-years can’t hide the principal of the loan for 10-years and show it suddenly when it’s due. Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Government does with off balance sheet accounting (which we can thank a Democrat Congress in the 1960s for under LBJ).
When you applied GAAP to Bush’s $250 billion deficit (I think it was 2003 or 04), the real shortfall / deficit was $3.4 trillion. That number has only rolled over and accrued over the last eight + years, so even the $1 trillion deficit numbers we now deal with are pure fiction.
That number is now in excess of $5 million annualized / $81 Trillion total, and that’s not considering potential liabilities implied in Freddie, Fannie, PBGC, etc.
Total AGI in 2009 was only $7.8 Trillion, so imagine the tax rate required to balance a budget.
But I digress, the point I am making is that politicians use numbers to describe the deficit that would land an ordinary business person in jail.
Note: I said “ordinary”. Apparently if you run in circles like a John Corzine – a Goldmanite with mega political pull – you can fudge however you please, like put your clients assets at total risk by pledging them as collateral offshore as you make massive bets for the firm’s accounts in European Debt, and sticking your unsuspecting clients with the tab – when you sold to those clients safe investment accounts… For Corzine that’s Ok.
(Goes to show, if the fraud is big enough…)
Got a link to the most recent annual report? I guess that would be FY 2011. How long does it take between the end of the FY and the issuing of the report?
First, government isn’t a business regardless of how often Republicans and DLC Democrats assert that it is.
Second, GAAP frequently miss off-balance sheet accounting tricks — Enron and all the financial institutions that participated in the housing bubble fraud to name but two instances. And is completely inadequate to the task of recognizing future health and environmental costs that accrue from current operations.
Third, if you insist upon toting up all the unrecognized liabilities of the US government, then honesty and simple accounting demands that you tote up all the assets as well.
Thanks. Having worked at Census doing economic reports for years, I am, as you can imagine, constantly in need of incoherent day-trader types on the Internet telling me what the job involved.
And, no, you’re not familiar with what goes on.
May want to check that, slick. The stats on construction employment say otherwise. Are you sure these were thoughtful analysts and not some weird dream you had after reading Don Quixote?
Also, the GDP report is not the same as the jobs report(s). Just FYI.
do we have a lot of new trolls today? sock puppets?
My Trolldar has been pinging occasionally reading the comments on this post. Alot of jargon being used. Some of it’s being presented as complicated stuff we’d never understand so we can just take comfort that there’s an expert here to interpret it all for us. You know what that usually means…
I love your definition of “troll”
Anyone who disagrees with me!
Welcome to the Frog Pond!
Well…
First, thank you for elevating my comment…give me the weekend, and I will take the time to do the research to post the apples to apples comparison…
Regarding the other “Troll”, I knew who you were talking about…the gentlemen, or woman in question, clearly has a sophisticated knowledge of statistics and monetary policy…
Also understands the basic dynamics of political power…
But he likely has not run a business or employed people…sorry, I know y’all hate Romney, but that is a different kind of knowledge…when I was a Libertarian in college in 1988, my writing was much more sophisticated (I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket!) If you’d like, I can post much more “sophisticated” writings!
Put it all together, he or she is likely a realistic Libertarian (maybe he’s the flip side of Arthur Gilroy) that understands that, due to the nature of political power, combined with the effects and power of Central Banks having the power to print money…that…
The SITUATION IS HOPELESS!!!
To some degree, they are right.
But I am an unreserved optimist…I don’t give up…and the quality trait of resigning oneself, with cynical, clever, resignedness, is for losers…sorry, I know that to be true in the depths of my being…
Of the top of my head, from my INTERNALIZED knowledge, in his best year, Reagan AVERAGED 700,000 new net jobs per month! Awesome! He wasn’t perceived as an enemy of businesss or free enterprise!
But, out of respect for your defense, I will do the actual research.
Thanks.
I used to co-run my own business and grew tired of the B.S.
I was actually spending way too much of my time dealing with arbitrary and wasteful compliance (as in, it did very little in preventing anyone from engaging in fraud if that was their objective, despite politicians parading around as if they had it all under control)that pulled me away from what I enjoyed doing. So rather than struggling to make a living and keep people employed (as many as 25 at one time), I said the hell with it and now work for a larger firm. I now sleep much easier.
I would not consider getting back into it ever, unless things loosen up. Sadly we seem to be going the direction of the French, where you now risk everything, and if you succeed, your fellow citizens claim 60% of the cap gains when you sell your hard work. LOL.
Good Work!
Why don’t you post here more?
It gets lonely in the Frog Pond sometimes.
P.S.
I am open to “reasoned” arguments regarding “climate change”.
But, I have done my own research, and am wholly unconvinced.
Anytime someone’s a “climate skeptic,” I will continue to know that I don’t have to listen to anything else they have to say. it says everything I need to know about your reason, judgement, and critical thinking ability. It’s also why candidates’ views on evolution actually do matter.
Yep, given that one factor of climate change is changes to the ph level of oceans, I’d say that your litmus test is in order.
No, you aren’t.
Anyone who pays attention to issues of public import and calls global warming a myth is, by definition, not open to reasoned arguments.
yes, same reaction here.
Just think of the olden days when we only had 1 troll, though he used 4 names. I’m not feeding any of the new ones
When you’re done wiping the results of your smug self-congratulation off yourself, please consider that my reference was not to the immediate numbers just published, but was instead using the example of a common issue with the numbers circa 2007, or so, that I thought folks might be able to grasp given the massive discrepancy reported in the statistically adjusted headline number vs. reality.
Simply, employment was padded upward by the folks doing the seasonal adjustments where they were adding construction jobs to the economy (practically on autopilot) because that had been the recent trend, when it was plain as day to anyone bothering to critically think and look for themselves that construction, mortgage lending, housing, etc., was tanking and taking jobs along with it.
I’m not saying that’s what happened today or that we have that massive a discrepancy taking place. It was merely an example of how you can’t just take the numbers at face value, you’ve got to dig through them.
Having since had some time to digest, it’s pretty clear that today’s numbers are driven primarily by a surge in part time / under-employed workers – a number that soared by ~582,000. [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm], the biggest one month jump since 2/2009.)
And there is actually another strange anomaly I’m interested in learning more about: the 20-24 year old demographic has always been a negative September print when non-adjusted going back to 1980. (All those “kids” going back to college / grad school). The best number was a -90,000 in 2001, with 07 at -290,000, 2008 at -453, then -499, -412, and -212 through to 2011. (The 1980s through 1195 were hardly ever better than -600, for perspective.)
What about 2012? +101. The first positive print ever. Apply to that the first ever 300+ seasonal adjustment number ever.
Cutting to the chase: the September surge in Seasonally Adjusted jobs give to 20-24 year old is the biggest in decades. This is on top of the only positive NSA increase in 20-24 year old jobs in history. This at a time when a record amount of students are avoiding going into the work force and choosing to rack up higher education debt to tide them over, hiding until the labor market improves? (as noted in the massive $900 billion surge in federal education funding, highest number of students ever, etc??)
I can’t say with any certainty in the end, but the numbers are smellier than I originally thought. Still, we’ll have to see where they go in the quarters ahead.
Now, all that aside — Certainly I could have been clearer with my first point as to what I was getting at. But for a guy who wants everyone to know how much smarter you are than me, and who even “worked at the census” crunching those numbers, shouldn’t you be a little more versed in the substance behind the bullshit you guys were producing?
On the other hand, you appear to be more interested in being a snarky smart-ass — pouncing on others perceived inaccuracies in an attempt to fluff up your own self-perceived prowess vs giving someone you know nothing about little leeway through some civilized discussion.
And incidentally, I’m slightly aware of the differences in the reports, GDP or otherwise — And, Gosh-by-Darn!, I don’t need to throw out my fancy credentials as a census “report builder” to make the point. (I actually advise clients on the economy and markets, am digesting this crap for them every day so they can navigate it.) Apparently you have difficulty contemplating how more than one economic stat at a time can have substance issues, be inadequate, yet still simultaneously provide information on the overall economy.
You’re done, son. Go sit in the corner.
And, yes, I’m a proud smart-ass. You’re precisely half of that.
Be sure to clean up when you’re done working yourself there, big guy.
Martin — is this norm, or am I just dealing with the king jerk-off everyone just tolerates around here?
It just occurred to me — I’ve actually seen Drew J. Jones on TV before:
http://youtu.be/kMvW-_pkX3Q
Are the numerical estimates seasonally adjusted or just the moving averages?
The interesting data was the large movement from unemployment to part-time jobs. That generally has to do with school starting and the beginning of retailers’ ramping up for Christmas.
Another possibility is public sector hiring finally getting going in states with July-June fiscal years–hiring that might have been delayed because of political wrangling in legislatures.
Also, construction seems to be picking up.
OH yes!!!
Convenient!!!???
Miraculous, I’d say.
So well planned.
I don’t believe in coincidences. Not in a campaign with this kind of tight control mechanisms.
It’s all bullshit.
DemRats + RatPubs alike.
All bullshit, all of the time.
And may the best bullshitter win.
“Who’s that,” you ask?
Bet on it.
AG
Remember that when Obama was elected, one of the primary goals in the Republican playbook was Tank the Economy. They knew that having a black president was shaky ground to start with, and they have used every block and denial process they have in their party’s power to bring him down.
If the voters are honest, they will have to acknowlege that the economy under Obama has gotten better and should continue to do so. But the Republicans would rather gnaw their own feet off than admit that. So again, inroads made by Obama will be ignored or flat-out lied about.
I’ve always said Obama could invent the cure for cancer and the Republicans would accuse him of stealing jobs from doctors.
boehner says number positive but slow. someone should ask him if it would be faster if they’d approved Obama’s jobs bill
He would lie and say that it was only because the GOP was able to stop Obama’s job-killing socialist takeover that the economy was able to grow at all.
I’m actually surprised that Republican house members haven’t tried to take credit for unemployment declines during their two years in the majority. Screw Romney. Keep Democrats in check, divided government = growth, reelect us! It’s better than their alternatives…
Certainly, Jack Welch’s comment is idiotic.
But, you do realize that creating 113,000 jobs per month will not keep pace with population growth, don’t you?
And this is good?
And you can’t look at the total employment numbers without seasonal adjustments, otherwise, you are not comparing apples to apples. If the economy normally adds 700,000 jobs on average every September merely due the fact that it’s September, you don’t get credit for 800,000 plus.
Sorry…another poor jobs report. It doesn’t have to be like this.
So, in your view, what has to happen to make the jobs report better? And to what factors do you attribute this jobs report being so weak?
You didn’t ask me, but I’m looking for a longer and improving trend — probably 3 quarters, and a whole heck of a lot more than one report. I’ve seen too many rosy numbers adjusted downward after having already made their positive outlook impact. Additionally I need to see growth in wealth creating segments of the economy vs. the current trend, which leans to government, healthcare and services, which are more consumptive than segments that are actual contributors to the improvement of standard of living (e.g. beyond simple redistribution which is not net real growth, but rather redistributive and converts core growth-oriented capital into a consumption oriented, depreciating asset. E.g., a $500 million stim program could quickly put people to work digging ditches and filling them back up, and GDP would be as pleased as employment stats, but those jobs are dramatically different than jobs at a shop that builds a new, more energy and cost efficient, time saving device that makes a homeowner wealthier because they have more extra money and time with the new device vs. having to buy the older, less efficient, more expensive model.
Granted, you can’t just look at employment. I’m interested seeing a ton of factors change. I don’t look at employment, GDP, CPI as what they’re purported to tell us. They have value, but you have to understand that they’re manipulated to convey a message that things are generally much better than reality in support of the status-quo power structure, and go from there.
It betters it slightly. I think the current number is 109,000.
But, you do realize that creating 113,000 jobs per month will not keep pace with population growth, don’t you?
You do realize that the last two reports were adjusted upwards by over 80,000 jobs, don’t you? And that this is the first release of the September numbers and it, too, will be adjusted upwards, don’t you?
Which means that this is not “another” poor jobs reports, since job creation in the previous two months was quite strong.
You’re right, though, it doesn’t have to be like this. We could reopen the casino, deregulate, and allow the Big Giant Brains to put the economy back into a ditch.
Look at Calculated Risk’s comparison of recessions since World War II.
What is very noticeable is that something changed between 1981 and 1990 in the way we recover from recessions. What changed is the adoption of conservative, exclusively monetary strategies for dealing with recessions–and overconcern with inflation and debt during the recession. And lack of concern about debt during the boom, except for Clinton. Conservative thinking in both parties choked off any realistic use of fiscal stimulus.
And from 1990 to 2001 to 2007, each recession got progressively deeper and longer.
It is a very striking chart.
Other changes include rising wealth inequality, rising income inequality, the ongoing decline of labor unions, and probably a few other factors. (None of which is to diminish the points you make.)
Well if you want to go to the fundamental problems that caused the recessions and not just the short-term fixes, yes.
And you can add rolling deregulation through critical industries, especially the financial industry.
We’re losing sight of the real fight to be waged. The statistics you cite, however true, are about the global economy and how President Obama is doing. Great, the unemployment rate is back where it was four years ago. How’s the average re-employed worker doing? Does he have retirement benefits? Is she making more in real dollars than she was 15 years ago? What’s happened to the family’s credit rating in the meantime? What percentage of his wages is going towards interest payments on those variable rate credit cards? And how’s that plan to live off modest interest income after a lifetime of hard work working out for that senior? Americans are still in the hole that Bush and the Republican party dug for us with Democrats abetting them, so talking about unemployment statistics doesn’t resonate all that much.
This isn’t some game of who won or lost the debate or who’s winning or losing the post-debate rhetoric. We need a champion in the White House that can make an unabashed case for social security, workers’ rights, keeping the post office public. We didn’t see a champion for us.
And this means that eight months from now, when President Obama and Democrats in Washington will face one more outrageous, extreme proposal from Republicans, they won’t be able to claim that Democrats have a mandate to push back with a liberal agenda. Hell, some of us will come onto this blog and say “The American people overwhelmingly support such-and-such an agenda” and will hear the right-wing argument on this blog that Democrats have no such mandate.
President Obama will win this election without setting up a mandate for the agenda that we need. And a young generation will reach 2016 without understanding how extreme, radical, destructive, and crazy the mainstream Republican agenda is. The debate was boring? College-age kids couldn’t follow it? The Republican agenda, with its bent on privatizing everything and denying climate change, will recast the social fabric of this country. But you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, not two nights ago, not for the last four years, and not for the next.
Well, climate change is indeed a myth. And any function of Government that can reasonably be privatized, should be privatized.
You’ve encapsulated the argument!!!
The bigger the Government, the larger the actual gaps between rich, powerful elites, and the “masses” (see Soviet Union)…
It’s much easier for the elites to use Government coercion for advantage than competition…whose job was easier in seeking wealth and power…the Politburo, or Apple, Walmart and Exxon?
If you truly care about the middle-class…
Wake Up!
Well, concern trolling is a step up from despair. It’s more boring, though.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/10/05/upon-further-review-mitt-romney-may-have-cheated-to-win-the-de
bate/#.UG8GpyO2u0o.twitter
they have been committing ECONOMIC TREASON against this country since January 20, 2009.
no shock about what they did today.