Like Listening to a Ten Year Old Child

Listening to #Obama @ his live press conference is like listening to a 10 yr old tell you that " The dog ate my homework" / More #Lies & #BS

— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) March 1, 2013

VA denies PTSD Veterans services of service dogs - It's all about $$$

Another MIL Blogger writes about how the VA is hurting PTSD Veterans by denying them the assistance of Service Dogs

This is wholly unacceptable because the bottom line is that the US GOV doesn't want to pay for this simple but effective assistance for our Veterans. 

Meanwhile, we have MILLIONS/BILLIONS to splurge on lifetime gold plated bennies for Congress, Gov workers and their minions.

This is just not right.

http://khanrahan.com/2012/11/15/what-is-the-va-waiting-for/

The Department of Veterans Affairs Spins While Veterans Suffer

---

Posted on 15th November, by Kevin Hanrahan in Soldier. 29 Comments

---

Recently the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced that they would no longer provide service dogs to veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). They will continue to provide service dogs to veterans with impaired vision, hearing, or mobility

I’ve wanted to cry outrage since I first read the announcement. But, before I did so, I felt some research needed to be completed. Let’s take a look at why the VA is refusing to provide veterans these service dogs.

There is no proven medical benefit of Service Dog for those that suffer from PTSD:

In the Federal Register the VA states, “The VA has not yet been able to determine that these (service) dogs provide a medical benefit to veterans with mental illness. Until such a determination can be made, VA cannot justify providing benefits for mental health service dogs.”

My initial response is, “Okay, but why hasn’t the VA conducted studies to confirm or deny a ‘medical benefit’ for veterans suffering with PTSD? Why did they wait until 2012?”

Our Veterans have returned scared and in need of help since 2002. It certainly seems like the VA has dragged its feet on this one.

Don’t worry, though. According to the Federal Register, the VA has directed a three-year study “to assess the benefits, feasibility, and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Congress directed the VA to conduct this study in 2009. However, according to The Atlantic, the study has been suspended. So The VA says we need a study to determine the medical benefit of service dogs work for veterans suffering from PTSD. But there is no study currently being conducted.
Wow. The logic of the VA simply dumbfounds me.

So how will the VA content with the rising PSTD rates of our veterans until then?

Drugs! The old standby!

A study conducted by Veterans Affairs found that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with mental health diagnoses—particularly post-traumatic stress disorder—were significantly more likely to receive prescriptions for Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and other opioids than those with pain but no mental health issues.

When I served as Executive Officer for a Military Police Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in 2009, we had a young soldier in the unit I’ll call Specialist Jones.

Jones had just returned from a hard Iraq deployment. He was constantly getting into trouble. Most of his troubles stemmed from alcohol use, but he had one particular problem: Jones could never show up on time for formation. The company wanted to kick him out because of his lack of discipline and substance abuse issues.

The Battalion Sergeant Major directed an inquiry into the root of his problem. He wanted to know everything about him.

Was Jones a drunk?
Was Jones on bath salts or smoking Spice?
Was Jones such an undisciplined little shit?
No, no, and no.

Come to find out Jones was on several different types of drugs administered by different Army doctors. He was suffering from physical and mental problems. He was on Oxycodone, Percocet, muscle relaxers and all the other great stuff the military and the VA throw at this mysterious problem of PTSD and veterans physical problems.

I understand that the VA wants medical proof before they agree to provide service dogs. But is funneling drugs into the hands of our troops a better solution? Is there medical proof that Oxycodone solves or helps people cope with PTSD?

Or are we just masking the condition?

How do you medically evaluate whether service dogs help, cure, or do nothing? I’ve researched the heck out of this and I am actually asking you all—Does anyone know? The only thing I can see is evaluating the results of studies. (I’ll address the study the VA is conducting another time.)

Does a chemical in a PTSD suffering veteran’s brain shift when they are with service dogs?

Does a PTSD suffering veteran’s depression decrease with assistance by a service dog? How do you determine this “medically”?

Does anyone know the answers to this?

So what happens to our veterans while we wait for the VA to finish their study?

Why did the VA have to be directed to conduct this study?

I borrowed this chart from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.


The 2012 military suicide rates are on target to outpace the 2011 rates by around 25%. If this trend continues, we could lose thousands of veterans to suicide while the VA tries to pinpoint “medical” proof that service dogs work.

The VA’s mission is “To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise ‘To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orpha’” by serving and honoring the men and women who are America’s veterans.”

Do you think they are fulfilling this mission?

George Washington once said that “the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by the nation.”

As a nation we need to heed our first presidents words. We must take care of our veterans now.
What I fail to understand is why the VA is waiting for the study to conclude? If we have confirmed cases that this works, then why are we waiting? How many veterans have to commit suicide before the VA uses common sense instead of relying on studies?

So over the next few months I will talk with some veterans about how their service dogs have helped them. These are veterans suffering from PTSD whose lives have changed because of their service dogs.

My first stop will be with former Air Force Sergeant Justin Jordan. Justin details his struggle inhis book, And Then I Cried, Stories of a Mortuary NCO.

I asked quite a few questions in this piece. Please feel free to answer in the comments section.
I’ve very interested in your view on this issue.

Am I wrong?
Am I too emotionally attached to the issue?
Why do you believe the VA is right or wrong on this issue?
What can you do to help?

Please consider signing this petition to provide our Veterans the care they so urgently need.

http://www.change.org/petitions/department-of-veterans-affairs-reverse-the-policy-help-our-veterans-heal-with-service-dogs

 

Feckless POLS want $13 BILLION more from Massachusetts Taxpayers

Gov. Deval (Spend-It-All) Patrick came out with his $13 BILLION tax wish list.....it is no surprise that there is no suggestion of cutting gold plated benefits & lifetime everything for state Hacks......This idiot who is in charge of our state is clueless - His only way to improve things is to impoverish the taxpayers while lining the pockets of Union Hacks and his buddies who will gain contracts for transportation improvements.

I have two words for you Deval, and they ain't "Happy Birthday"

Take your plan and stick it - We need to stop putting it all on the taxpayers and stop spending like there is a bottomless supply of taxpayers' $$$ - Really.


Taxpayers to pick up the tab for MassDOT's $13B transportation plan

(FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has released a long-awaited plan to invest $13 billion in the state's aging transportation system over 10 years; however, in order to create the additional revenue, the report recommends certain tax increases, as well as additional fees.

The Department of Transportation initially planned to release the report earlier in the month, but Gov. Deval Patrick said he told officials that "a little more work" was needed after reviewing a draft version.

"What's plain as day is that we have to make choices. We can choose to invest in ourselves, to invest in a growth strategy that has been proven time and again to work. Or we can choose to do nothing. But let us be clear: doing nothing is a choice, too," said Gov. Patrick. "And that choice has consequences. It means longer commutes, cuts in services, larger fare and fee increases, and a continuation of the self-defeating economics of cutting off large parts of our population from opportunity and growth."

The plan calls for $5.2 billion over ten years in road, bridge and highway repair projects in order to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges and ease congestion on major arteries throughout the state. Another $3.8 billion will go to existing transit services, and $275 million for Registry and airport maintenance.

Officials said $1.02 billion will be spent annually on a number of high-impact transportation projects. Transportation officials said they hope the projects create thousands of jobs and spur economic development across the state.

The plan is also designed to address budget deficits at the MBTA, MassDOT and various other regional transportation agencies.

According to the report, the suggested revenue options, essentially certain tax hikes and fees, were proposed by members of the public and other stake holders over the last year.
"We have spent the last year engaging our customers, the business community and various stakeholders in a conversation about what kind of transportation system they want," said MassDOT Secretary and CEO Richard A. Davey. "What is clear is that we can't afford the system we have today, much less the system we all want. This plan clearly articulates our vision for a 21st-Century Transportation system and the steps we must take to achieves that."

The revenue recommendations include an increase in the gas tax, payroll tax, sales tax or income tax; a new green fee on vehicle registrations; a vehicle miles traveled tax; regular and modest fare, fee and toll increases; and new tolling mechanisms. The plan also assumes that tolls are maintained on the Western portion of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Officials said money will go toward helping MassDOT and other regional transit authorities end their practice of paying for general operating costs with loans, a practice that costs MassDOT about $1.76 in interest for each dollar borrowed.

In order to end the practice of borrowing and inflated interest, the MassDOT will receive $371 million during the 2014 fiscal year and $4.4 billion over 10 years. The Regional Transit Authorities will receive $100 million during the 2014 fiscal year and $1.1 billion over 10 years.

Without new revenues to be generated by additional taxes and fees on state residents, the MassDOT Board of Directors will need to cut service at the MBTA and RTAs and significantly increase fares in order to approve a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 2014, which begins July 1

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/20581947/massdot-lays-out-13b-10-year-transportation-plan#ixzz2I0BSGbnu

Hurricane Sandy, Politics and How the President acted yesterday

The news over the last 24 hours has been grim.  75 million affected by Hurricane Sandy in an area from North Carolina to Maine.  By all accounts NJ, NYC, MD and Delaware took the worst of it.  Philly too.

It will take weeks to asses the totals.  The number of people lost will be the grim statistic of the storm as 60+ were lost in the tropics and more will be added to that total in areas of the East Coast effected.

Meanwhile, the political grandstanding goes on.  The President made sure to make himself highly visible yesterday, in a manner he did not do a year ago when Irene hit the East Coast or more importantly, when 4 Americans died in Benghazi.  That night instead of manning the Situation Room, he went back to bed and then after a small news conference, he went to Vegas.

Charles Krauthammer made a point of outlining his feelings about it last night:

“Well, he says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections. I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. But it is a little odd that he shows up in the Briefing Room where he hasn’t shown up in the Briefing Room for what, a month-and-a-half? 

For Libya or for anything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying I guess the utility crews who restore power all over America. 

Where you would think he might want to use the Situation Room to convene high level people during the night hours when our people were under attack in Benghazi. 

It’s hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in what’s a natural disaster that really doesn’t require a lot of from the White House. It’s up to the governors mostly. The White House and the government release money. That’s all they do and he’s really good at releasing money.”

8 more days until we can send a message to the White House that it is time for ADULT LEADERSHIP and not this immature pol who has been a utter failure.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack

Many knew that this was truth - The White House put out LIES, LIES and more damned LIES. The White House was aware from the very start that the Benghazi attack was the work of Terrorists.

Obama needs to go as he has failed as our President.  The Benghazi Cover-up is more serious than Watergate as 4 good men died and their deaths were preventable.  If we had Adult Leadership in place, they would have made sure our Ambassador in Libya had sufficient security.

Protecting our people and country is the first duty of the President.  Obama has failed.

REUTERS: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: email

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Esam Al-Fetori

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney

The Choice is Clear

This sign is at the Intersection of M40 and Blue Star near Saugatuck, MI

Pretty much sums it up - The Choice IS Clear

A Businessman who generated BILLIONS or a POL who wasted TRILLIONS ????

 

Mother of a Fallen US Navy SEAL speaks about what is important to her while a self absorbed POL focuses on only on himself

Thanks to Gateway pundit for putting this video front and center. It needs to be seen by all those who care about our nation and those who swore the oath to defend our nation against all enemies, foriegn and domestic.

All our prayers and thoughts to Karen and Billy Vaughn. True Patriots, Shipmates in the US Navy and all others will never forget the sacrifice your son made and your sacrifice for giving us your son to defend our nation and way of life.

Empty words from politicians and a self absorbed President mean little to the Mother of this fine Patriot. To Obama, this warrior was one more political pawn.

To a grieving Mother and Father, this was their little boy, a son who was only theirs for a short and meaingful life, given freely to preserve our Nation.

OBAMA MUCKS IT UP - Calls US NAVY SEAL ADM. McRAVEN " General McRaven"

What a clueless chump - Time to GO Mr. Obama - We've had enough of your stupidity.

From http://riehlworldview.com/2012/08/barack-obama-botches-rank-of-top-navy-seal-william-mcraven.html

Barack Obama botches rank of top Navy SEAL William McRaven August 23, 2012

Obama: ‘I’d advise that you talk to General McRaven, who’s in charge of our Special Ops. I think he has a point of view in terms of how deeply I care about what these folks do each and every day to protect our freedom.’

Oops: “The difficulty with this is that William McRaven is and admiral not a general. As a SEAL, he is member of the US Navy, not US Army or US Marines.” More via Barack Obama botches rank of top Navy SEAL William McRaven | Mail Online. Obama has made mistakes with military terminology before.

In February 2010, he mispronounced ‘corpsman’ – as ‘corpse-man’ instead of ‘core-man’ several times. Last year, he mixed up two Medal of Honor recipients, saying that ‘Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honour to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously’.

The "Oh Sh-t" moment.....we've been living it for the past three 1/2 years.....

Bill Clinton isn't a genius, but he figured it out when the phrase " It's the economy, stupid!" became the catch phrase of his election to the White House.

It should be no surprise that the feckless fool in the White House doesn't have a clue when it comes to the economy.  He spent his time in office trying to wreck the economy and catering to his idiot supporters.

The key quote in this piece is "Another former administration official called it an “ 'Oh, sh-t' moment.” "

That's rich as the American Public has been having an "Oh Sh-t" moment  every day for the past three 1/2 years.

Time to go Mr. President.....really.  You haven't got a clue and it's over. 

Worst. President. Ever.


Jobs report upends 2012 race
 By Amie Parnes - TheHill.com

A dismal May jobs report is being perceived as a possible game-changer in the presidential battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney, with Republicans saying the numbers provide further proof that the economy isn’t improving.

 The report showing unemployment increasing to 8.2 percent and the creation of only 69,000 jobs shook some Democrats, crystallizing their fears that the economy could tip the election in Romney’s favor in November.

It also threatened to turn Obama’s argument that the economy is improving on its head and provided flashbacks to the spring economic slowdown of last year.
“It is a little scary,” said one former White House official. “There’s no sugarcoating this one.”

Another former administration official called it an “ 'Oh, sh-t' moment.”

“It’s not good,” the former official said. “I’ll say this, I’m glad it’s June and not October.”
The bleak report led to a terrible day on Wall Street, where the Dow Jones was down nearly 300 points in trading late Friday afternoon.

Romney seized on the report, calling it “devastating” in a CNBC interview and blasting Obama’s policies as ineffective.

“The president’s policies and his handling of the economy has been dealt a harsh indictment this morning,” Romney said in the interview. “Their policies have not worked; in many respects, their policies have made it harder for the economy to recover.

“And I think that’s why people are looking for a new direction,” Romney added. “The most significant thing we can do in the near term is get a new president.”

With their public remarks, Obama — along with White House officials and other top Democrats — sought to ease concerns that the economy isn’t rebounding fast enough.

In a speech in Minnesota on Friday, the president acknowledged that while the economy is “growing again … it’s not growing as fast as we want it to grow.”

“The economy still isn’t where it needs to be,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do until we are where we need to be."

But, speaking to a crowd at the Honeywell plant, Obama vowed, “We will come back stronger. We do have better days ahead.”

 Reaction to the report on the left and the right highlighted the concern for Obama. The conservative Drudge Report’s lead headline, under a photo of Obama, was “Hell Day.”

In a rare occurrence, the left-leaning Huffington Post went with a similar headline on its website, coupling a picture of a frowning Obama with the headline “Jobs Report Disaster.”

Political observers argued the latest report just doesn’t jibe with Obama’s latest campaign slogan, “Forward.”

“I think it’s a real problem for the president,” said Susan MacManus, a professor of political science at the University of South Florida. “The argument was that we’re going forward, and all of a sudden it comes to a screeching halt.”

And MacManus said the timing, right before the thick of summer, couldn’t be worse for Obama. “This is kind of the last big thing people will pay attention to before they tune out during the summer doldrums,” she said. “You’d rather enter the summer on a high note than a reverse note.”
 But one former White House aide said it’s a minor blip on what the White House and the campaign see as a broader picture.

“Look, we obviously wanted a bigger number, but it’s a continuum. It’s not a snapshot,” the former aide said. “But if we would’ve had today’s numbers in 2008, people would’ve been thrilled.

“Things have gotten better,” the former aide said. “That’s the bottom line.”
One prominent economist said the White House should take heart because Friday’s report didn't capture the true growth of the labor market.

"I really do think that underlying job growth is higher than this, and we're going to see that in the coming months," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.
Vicki Needham contributed.

Job recovery not occurring for Americans in prime working years

Some people asked me why I would accept working on a contract in a War Zone....The article below provides a good overview as professionals with my years of experience are not being employed at the same rate as before. Too many have been shut out in favor of less expensive workers with less experience.

Two key quotes sum it up - " real wages have been stagnant since 2008" and " The economy is just really messed up right now”

This should make your choice in the upcoming election down to the simple question,

" Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?? "  If not, vote the bums out.  Especially the Village Idiot from Chicago in the White House.

Job recovery is scant for Americans in prime working years

By Peter Whoriskey, WASHINGTON POST -Published: May 30

The proportion of Americans in their prime working years who have jobs is smaller than it has been at any time in the 23 years before the recession, according to federal statistics, reflecting the profound and lasting effects that the downturn has had on the nation’s economic prospects.

By this measure, the jobs situation has improved little in recent years. The percentage of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 who have jobs now stands at 75.7 percent, just a percentage point over what it was at the downturn’s worst, according to federal statistics.

Before the recession the proportion hovered at 80 percent.

While the unemployment rate may be the most closely watched gauge of the economy in the presidential campaign, this measure of prime-age workers captures more of the ongoing turbulence in the job market. It reflects “missing workers” who have stopped looking for work and aren’t included in the unemployment rate.

During their prime years, Americans are supposed to be building careers and wealth to prepare for their retirement. Instead, as the indicator reveals, huge numbers are on the sidelines.

“What it shows is that we are still near the bottom of a very big hole that opened in the recession,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

The falloff has been sharpest for men, for whom the proportion had been on a slow decline before the recession. The percentage of prime-age men who are working is smaller now than it has been in any time before the recession, going all the way back to 1948, according to federal statistics. The proportion of prime-age women is at a low not seen since 1988.

The nation’s unemployment rate has shown signs of improvement, ticking down from 10 percent to 8.1 percent. But if it tallied people who have given up looking for jobs, it would certainly be higher.

The ratio of employment to population, which economists refer to as “epop,” “is a much better measure for what people are experiencing in the job market,” Shierholz said. “The unemployment rate is screwy right now because the labor market is so weak that people have stopped trying.”

For example, last month, the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent. Ordinarily, a drop in unemployment would be interpreted as a sign of improving economic health. But it dropped largely because so many people stopped looking for jobs.

Shierholz estimates that about 4 million workers have simply stopped looking, and so do not show up in the tally used for the unemployment rate.

As the presidential race heads into the summer, the health of the economy — and how voters view it — becomes critical, and for many people, the job market is their most significant contact with the economy.

According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, the issue of paramount interest to voters is the economy and jobs, with more than half describing it as the “single most important issue.”

By comparison, the next most important issue, health care, trailed far behind at 7 percent, and moral and family values followed at 5 percent.

The polls also show that, while the official statistics show improvement, voters offer gloomy economic diagnoses

About 83 percent of those in the poll, conducted in mid-May, rated the state of the economy as “poor” or “not so good,” a much higher portion of negative views than at any other time in the 10 years preceding the recession.

The job market “feels like a game of musical chairs — if you didn’t have a job when the market crashed, well, that chair is gone,” said Karen Akers, 50, of Vienna, who lost two jobs to budget cuts during the recession.

She just reentered the workforce in March, although at a lower salary in client relations at a sprinkler company.

“I don’t know that people trust any of these economic numbers these days, anyway, because they were all good before the crash,” she said. “Whatever economists are telling us, I don’t know that we can believe it any more than what we see in the job market — and what you find there is not good.”

Indeed, in interviews outside the unemployment office in Alexandria on Friday morning, people looking for work said that finding a job today, three years after the recession’s official end, seems just as hard as it did during the recession.

“In 2008, it was much easier — I got a job right away,” said 41-year-old Rob from Arlington, who last worked in sales for a defense contractor. Like other workers interviewed at the unemployment office, he declined to give his last name to protect his privacy.

“It’s definitely more negative, which really caught me off guard,” he said. “Employers have gotten used to doing pretty much what they want to do in this market.”

“I’m actually considering a position in retail,” said a 53-year-old Northern Virginia woman who had held a senior position in international sales and recently earned a master’s degree in management. She has been looking for a job for three years. “I can’t tell you how many women I know, one of whom was a bank vice president, who have already taken these kinds of jobs — they’re working at Joann’s Fabrics, Sur la Table and Crate & Barrel.”

The impact of these difficulties reaches far beyond those looking for work.

For those working, real wages have been stagnant since 2008, Shierholz said.

Moreover, the number of people quitting jobs — a figure that tends to rise when jobs seem plentiful and fall when they seem scarce — remains lower than it was at any time in the years leading up to the recession, according to government statistics.

Some of the workers have sensed a slight strengthening in their outlook, however: a few more calls, a few more openings, a few more interviews than they’d previously seen. Indeed, the “epop” figure for prime-age workers has risen since October.

Mark, 50, a heating and AC technician from Alexandria, was out of work in 2009 but found a job right away. He was laid off again about six months ago and, standing outside the Alexandria unemployment office, said it seems harder this time around.

“The economy is just really messed up right now,” he said

If the Feds stopped " cooking the books", the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%

This should come as no surprise to anyone....They are cooking the books to try to make things " look" better for OHB electioneering.....what a scam.

Lies, damned lies and government liars.

Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data
By Elizabeth MacDonald


Emac's Bottom Line - Published May 02, 2012 - FOXBusiness

There is lots of talk about the "fiscal cliff" the U.S. faces at year end, as stimulus and tax cuts go away.



So the last thing the government needs now is market distrust in its job numbers. But, as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates.


For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.


Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison, more so since the markets often treat the prior week’s revision as an afterthought.


And there is statistical manipulation in the unemployment rate, too. The government’s reported unemployment number doesn’t include people who stopped looking for work, but who want jobs.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the unemployment rate is dropping, and fell from 10% in October 2009 to 8.2% now. That’s got the White House and media pundits saying an economic recovery has taken place, and that the President’s stimulus bill, which cost more than $750 billion to date, has driven unemployment down towards 8% as promised.


However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.


So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


The statistic to look at simply counts the people who are either working or not working. It sets aside the idiosyncratic manipulation whether they’re actively looking for work or not.


If the adult labor force participation rate stayed the same today as it was when the Great Recession ended in June 2009, at 67.5%, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%.


“Some 80% of the reduction” in the unemployment rate from 10% hit in October 2009 to today’s 8.2% “has been from adults quitting the labor force,” says economist Peter Morici.


Morici adds the unemployment rate “rises to 14.5% if you factor back in those who’ve stopped looking for work but would re-enter if there were jobs, as well as part-time workers who would prefer full-time positions.”


Yes, the number of people who have given up looking for work include retiring baby boomers. Still, there is no decent government data showing the number of actual, retiring baby boomers, only estimates. And there are no solid data showing the number of boomers retiring who still want to work.


Overall, government estimates show we have less people wanting to look for work as the population ages, and that’s bad for Social Security, which depends on workers funding it. The “labor force participation rate is declining as baby boomers retire, and what is striking is that decline even includes the number of students and immigrants looking for jobs,” says James Farrell, FOX News analyst.


So ask yourself this: As more people drop out looking for a job, is it right that the government counts it so the unemployment rate looks lower than it really is?


What’s important is the broader trend. Since President Obama took office, America has lost a net 740,000 jobs. But during the first 30 months of President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery, which started in December 1982, total U.S. employment increased by 8.9 million jobs.


All of this was borne out in the disappointing April ADP employment report today on new private sector jobs, which arrives two days before the Dept. of Labor’s payrolls report for last month.


The ADP number came in showing 119,000 jobs were created in the private sector in April, while analysts had expected it would show that U.S. employers added 177,000 workers (still lower than the 209,000 increase recorded in March.)


It's important to note that the ADP jobs report has tracked the Labor Department’s numbers closely for the last 10 years, according to Charles Brady, senior editor at FOX Business.


“While there is often a wide variance between the two readings, the directional correlation is very strong -- they move in the same direction,” Brady says.


The engine of U.S. job growth, small businesses (those with 1-49 employees), reported a weak 58,000 jobs created, the third straight monthly decline and the lowest since August. Small businesses that produce goods lost jobs, too. Large businesses with more than 500 employees added just 4,000 jobs.


ADP says weather may have played a factor. Better hiring in the mild winter months could be leading to a “payback” in the spring, as businesses have already done the hiring they need for now. Still, all of this means it is unlikely there will be a decline in the unemployment rate Friday, unless the labor force shrinks again, which would not be good, either.


This Friday, forecasters expect the Labor Department to report the economy added 165,000 jobs in April -- better than the 120,000 in March, but still under the 212,000 rate for the first quarter, when the U.S. economy grew at just a 2.2% annualized rate.


The U.S. economy is creating jobs, but it is struggling, adding jobs at a rate of just 131,000 a month in 2011, which is not enough to reduce the unemployment rate.


Morici says the U.S. economy “must add 13 million jobs over the next three years -- 362,000 each month -- to bring unemployment down to 6%. GDP would have to increase at a 4% to 5% pace.”


So there you have it.


Since when does a nation’s labor force shrink during a recovery? It should not shrink, it should grow in a recovery. The labor force participation rate is at the rate it was in 1979 and 1982, even around the same rate it was back in 1969, while the worker population has grown dramatically since.


The rate now is 63.8%, trending at the 30-year low it just hit this past January, at 63.7%. Today there are 154.7 million people over age 16 who either have jobs or want jobs, but out of a much bigger total U.S. population of 16 or older, 242.6 million.


That’s around the same level in July 1982, when the labor force participation rate was 65.3%. There were 110.3 million people working or who wanted to work out of a smaller population of 172.2 million people aged 16 or older.


The labor force participation rate has stayed pretty much the same as it was in 1969, at 60.1%, and 63.8% in February 1979, when the total U.S. population of 16 or older was smaller. The same holds true for more than a decade ago, in April, 2000, when the employment-to-population ratio was 64.7%. That’s when the overall population was lower. at 282 million, versus the 310 million today

We need to elect an adult as President

The media is trying to tee up the 2012 Election as " The Popular Kids" ( Obama and his ilk) vs. "The Squares" ( Romney & the GOP)


REALLY ?  Although this is the CRAP you would expect from the media.  The same fools who provide us with updates on stupid reality shows as "news" and who push the dumbing down of America on our citizens while laughing behind their backs at us.


Obama is NOT the person who should be in the Oval Office as the election is NOT High School.  WE need the best person for the job, not the most popular.  We need someone who isn't about being popular but about being the best in creating jobs and fixing the economy.

The enclosed writer gets it....For far too long we have had a complete lack of adult leadership in government.  We need to stop the BS and get back to the nation being a place where jobs & a strong economy are the priorities, not the BS of those who are elected allowing the stupidity we have witnessed in the last 3 1/2 years.


The enclosed picture shows two members of Obama's staff - The man on the left is Obama's newly-designated chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  The picture speaks volumes about the type of people who are in charge of our government.


Here's the link to the LA Times story


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-favreau.html



Wednesday April 18, 2012



Partying on the public dime is endless
Under Obama, some federal workers have no shame at all - Don Surber


The Obama administration sent 11 elite Secret Service agents to Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of a presidential visit for an international conference.


The agents stayed at the swank Hotel Caribe, where it is alleged they partied with hookers until the dawn's early light.


Once again, we have a Democratic president and once again the editorial pages are filled with sex talk.


These are not 11 bad apples. These are the best of the best in Washington.


The party-time attitude of the Secret Service reflects a president who blows millions on vacations to exotic locations hither and yon. He spent $250,000 of taxpayer money so he could fly to New York City to catch a Broadway show.


Even after the Secret Service party became an international scandal - an embarrassment that made the United States look like an imperial state slumming in Colombia - Hillary Rodham Clinton kicked up her heels and partied all night at a night club in Cartagena.


The disgust was felt worldwide.


"It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger 'livin' la vida loca' on the world stage," wrote Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph in London.


"This was less an example of 'smart power' than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of 'Jersey Shore.'


"Hillary Clinton's Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State.


"Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses."


The conference was about illicit drugs, which are destroying democracies across the Western Hemisphere.


No accord was reached.


Actual agreement was the last thing the president wanted. He joked with Colombian officials that he was there to scout out his next vacation with Michelle.


Yuk, yuk, yuck.


The joke is on the taxpayer. This was not a real conference but another spring break for our immature president - another taxpayer-funded embarrassment.


This is just another scandal from an administration that gives billions in government money for crackpot "alternative energy" schemes run by billionaire donors to President Obama's political campaign.


President Obama famously warned CEOs that they could not go to Las Vegas on the public dime.Now we learn why he said that. Government officials want Las Vegas for themselves.


The General Services Administration blew more than $800,000 on a "conference" in Las Vegas.


There are no adults in the White House. None.


The partying will not end until voters elect an adult as president.


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber.

Government Spending is the key issue of our time

This picture and the enclosed details are not what our country needs. It's time to take control of the runaway spending that have marked the last three years. We cannot allow our children's future to be spent by the feckless pols.


The latest chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, showing that under President Obama's budget plan, debt would be $73,000 per American in 2022:

By contrast, debt per person was still an astonishing $33,000 in 2008, at the end of George W. Bush's term, and $20,000 in 2000, at the beginning of Bush's presidency.

In just four years, President Obama’s policies will have added $6.4 trillion in new gross debt, for a total debt of $16.4 trillion by the end of this year.

· Per-household debt will have risen from $85,500 at the end of 2008 to $135,100 by the end of 2012.

· Average spending under the Obama Administration will be 33 percent higher than the four years preceding his term.

· Spending in 2012 will be $800 billion higher than 2008.

· Per-household spending in 2012 will be $7,000 greater than 2008—a 23 percent increase.

· Per-household spending in 2022 under the president’s budget will be $44,000, nearly $20,000 higher than in 2008.

· Per-household debt in 2022 under the president’s budget will be $195,000, more than double what it was in 2008

Vichy Obama

Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller nails it. Brilliantly.

The fools in Washington, especially the Chief Idiot in the White House are spending our great, great grandchildren's $$$ and do not care about it as they will not have to be around to clean up the mess they leave behind.

And if the President is " outraged by the excessive spending ", he might want to speak to the First Lady who is one of the leading spendaholics of our tax dollars, 2nd only to himself of course.

Obama in Casablanca: Mickey Kaus
The Daily Caller

President Obama is shocked, shocked to learn there is a September Spending Spree in the federal government, leading agencies like the General Service Administration do things like blow $823,000 on a BS “training conference” in Las Vegas.

Chief of Staff Jacob J. Lew briefed President Obama before last week’s trip to South Korea.

Obama “was outraged by the excessive spending, questionable dealings with contractors, and disregard for taxpayer dollars,” Lew said in a statement to The Washington Post, calling for “all those responsible to be held fully accountable.”

P.S.: What’s worse, the idea that Obama is pretending to be surprised at routine government overspending, or the possibility that he actually is surprised? Put this down next to him learning that there is “no such thing as shovel ready projects.” …

P.P.S.: Yes, I know the big money is in entitlements, not in the discretionary budget. But before you cut grandma’s Social Security check, or her Medicare–and before you raise taxes–you have to convince voters you’ve really gotten the message to the GS-13s and 14s that we are in austere times and they can’t waste a dime. It’s serious! No funny business! … This is a message Obama has pointedly failed to get across. Go to Washington–it’s still Fat City and people are living like it’s Fat City, in part because they know D.C.-based columnists will always argue ‘the money’s in entitlements’ and defend them against cuts.

Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit chimes in:

D.C. — now not just “Hollywood for ugly people,” but “Hollywood for ugly people who party on your dime!”

MORE: Reader Rick Giovanelli writes: “Hmm, packed, expensive restaurants in the Capitol? People there spending lavishly and being out of touch with the rest of the country which is toughing out rough economic conditions? Pretty sure my daughter just saw a movie about this. Can’t think of the name of it, though. If only it had gotten some publicity recently.”

POLS aim to shrink the US Navy just when we need it most...

Playing politics with our national defense is not what we should have to worry about but for those in the White House, the military has always been in the " cross hairs ".

They want to somehow justify downsizing the US Navy while still expecting the fleet to ensure we will be able to defend ourselves and that is a tall order.

I agree with the opinion of at least on politician who sums it up pretty succinctly -

“It makes little sense to be shrinking our Navy just months after the announcement of a strategy that would shift emphasis to Asia, the Pacific, and the Mideast — areas where a strong naval presence is an imperative,” Rep. Todd Akin, the chairman of the House subcommittee on seapower.

The idiots in charge will be the cause of our decline in Superpower status and they will blame everyone else when the biggest threat we face at present is short sighted POLS who are driven by their own egos and stupidity.


Shrinkage: Navy Won’t Build as Many Ships as It Planned
By Spencer Ackerman - Wired.com /Danger Room - 03/29/12

President Obama wants the U.S. Navy to patrol the vast Pacific Ocean and build itself up in the Middle East. Which is a nice dream. But the Navy is conceding it won’t build many ships to make it a reality — especially over the next five years. The Navy’s acknowledged as much — tensely, defensively, and always with a retort — for months. But now it’s officially revised its long-term shipbuilding plan downward and provided details about what’s effectively a five-year shipyard freeze.

According to the new shipbuilding plan (.pdf), released Wednesday by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the Navy won’t build any new ballistic missile submarines until 2021. It won’t build any big-deck amphibious assault ships, key for the Navy and the Marines to fight as a team, until 2017, when it will build… one more. After next year, the Navy won’t fund the construction of ships above replacement levels until 2018. All told, the Navy’s downgrading the total number of ships in 30 years it wants to maybe 300, a drop of at least 13 ships. And all this will occur as the Navy surges in the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific.

“It makes little sense to be shrinking our Navy just months after the announcement of a strategy that would shift emphasis to Asia, the Pacific, and the Mideast — areas where a strong naval presence is an imperative,” Rep. Todd Akin, the chairman of the House subcommittee on seapower, said at a Thursday hearing. The likely presidential nominee of Akin’s political party, Mitt Romney, is proposing a big (and expensive) increase in shipbuilding. On Navy issues, U.S. voters will face a clear choice.

The last time the Navy set its long-term goals, in 2006, its plan for the mid-2030s was to create a fleet of 313 ships. That was the target number the Navy set for meeting the anticipated threats of the future. But since January, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of Naval operations, has talked instead about getting to “approximately 300″ ships over that time frame. Aboard the U.S.S. Wasp that month for a huge Navy war game, Greenert told reporters that the Navy would hold steady at 285 ships until 2018 — with a bit of a dip in the next two years — only to start enlarging the fleet again afterward.


The reason is financial. The military has to cut at least $487 billion from its ledgers over the next decade as a matter of law. Navy ships are big ticket items. And since the military budgets for five years at a time, punting the Navy’s shipbuilding surge another five years is, effectively, an accounting trick — and one that makes the current defense budget look small enough to be legal.

But that doesn’t satisfy members of the congressional committees that oversee defense. (Yes, even though many of those legislators voted for the budget constraints in the first place. Don’t try to apply logic or consistency with Congress; you’ll get a headache and nothing will change.) The moneymen on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense were incredulous that the Navy’s leadership came to them earlier this month to ask for a slightly smaller fleet that has to do more around the world.

Greenert and his civilian counterpart, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, have a response at the ready. The current Navy strategic plan envisions stationing more ships permanently outside U.S. ports, reducing the strain on the rest of the fleet for rotational deployments. Over the next few years, four Aegis cruisers will call Spain their home. Singapore will host two of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships.

That’s too clever, says seapower blogger Raymond Pritchett, who’s facepalming over the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan. His problem is that he’s seen this movie before: the Navy promises that someday it’s going to ramp up its ships, only to scale back its expensive plans as the date for the ramp-up approaches. Meanwhile, the Navy takes on more and more global responsibility — and struggles to keep up with technological advances in propulsion and design, which drives up the costs of shipbuilding and fuels a repeat of the whole sorry cycle.

“The Navy is now officially doing the same thing again and again with their shipbuilding plans in the 21st century and expecting everyone to believe the result will be different this time,” Pritchett blogs. “The new plan — same as the old plan — is to meet a specific number of ships determined by requirement (313 or approximately 300) by loading all of the construction of the ships needed to meet that number in the budget years beyond the [Five Year Defense Plan]. If the new ‘approximately 300-ship’ shipbuilding plan is doing exactly what failed in the old 313-ship shipbuilding plan, then how can the Navy claim to have a plan — or for that matter — how can the Navy claim to have a valid ship requirement that needs a plan if the Navy doesn’t have a legitimate plan intended to meet that requirement?”

Pritchett might actually be understating things. If Congress doesn’t come up with a way to balance defense cuts and entitlement cuts by January, then according to the very law it passed in August, the defense budget will have to lose another $600 billion-plus over ten years. There is no evidence Congress will do so. The Navy’s “approximately 300″ ship fleet might be more “approximate” than the Navy brass is letting on.

In fact, buried in the new plan is a warning about precisely that. “If the [Navy Department] is unable to sustain average annual shipbuilding budgets of $19.5 [billion] over the course of the mid-term planning period,” the plan states, “plans to recapitalize the Nation’s secure second-strike nuclear deterrent [i.e., subs] and the Navy’s conventional battle force will have to be dramatically changed, and the overall size of the battle force will drop below the levels needed to meet all naval presence and warfighting requirements