Cianfrocca points to a lefty-leaning outfit for a take on the "jobs" numbers SCOAMF has to deal with.
...Jobs are covered in the Establishment survey, but we can use data
from the Household survey (people) to estimate how many jobs are needed
to keep up with population growth in the working age labor population
(also known as the non-institutional population over 16).
From January
2008 to August 2012, the last month for which we have data, the
non-institutional population over 16 increased by 10.950 million.
Multiplying this by the average of the employment-population ratio over
this period (59.4) gives us our estimate of jobs needed to keep up with
population growth: 6.504 million.
Add the uncounted 2008 part of the cliff and jobs needed just for
population growth and credit Obama with his net 125,000 jobs and you arrive at a jobs deficit from January 2008 through August 2012 of 10.837 million. --quoted at RedState
And if it's 70% Obozo's fault, then he and his cabal of pointy-headed jackasses, scoundrels, and wet-pants spenders (not to mention frauds, cheats, and criminals) are on the hook for 7 million of those missing jobs.
You did the same analysis during the Bush 43 administration, right? I mean, apples to apples, right?
ReplyDeleteYou're invited to do it, Jim.
ReplyDeleteOR you could look here:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333368.php
I know the following is off topic, but I wanted to make sure you were all aware of this latest ruling.
ReplyDeleteRemember when we were all atwitter over the infringement on religious freedom that was requiring health insurance policies to cover preventative care including contraception? And remember my argument that if employers didn't pay for coverage but employees bought it with their own wages, the employer was still paying for it? And you said the argument was crazy or words to that effect?
Remember?
Well a Bush 41-apointed judge just ruled against an employer who sued to be able to not provide coverage that included contraception. Here is an excerpt from the ruling:
The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .
[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.
In short, from Think Progress: An employer cannot assert a religious objection to how their employees choose to use their own benefits or their own money, because religious freedom is not a license to “force one’s religious practices upon others.”
Nobody gives a fuck what you think, Jim. Please commit suicide.
ReplyDeleteMeh.
ReplyDeleteLotsa lawsuits over Compulsory Murder Facilitation, Jimbo.
It's going to SCOTUS, assuming that Romney doesn't kill it on Day One.