This is not what leadership looks like

[nathanm]

I mostly enjoy what I do so it isn't punishment to continue working but if I were to win the lottery big time I would have a difficult time working past my present project.  I wouldn't want to leave my co-workers and friends in the lurch.

Pretty much the same here. I mostly like what I do, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to spend all my time on the hobbies instead.

[Conan71]

Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year. It doesn't change the ridiculousness of erfalf's mathematically impossible assertion, though. It would indeed be possible for there to be 6% unemployment with fewer employed than in the 60s if the labor participation rate were low enough. Unfortunately for his argument, he specified that this was possible "on the same trajectory we are going," which is not actually true. The current trajectory is a monthly increase in the number of employed. Fewer than most anyone would like, to be sure, but still an increase.

To illustrate the outlandishness of the claim, it would take over seven and a half years of job losses like what we saw at the peak of the financial crisis to get us back to the number of employed persons we had in the middle 60s.

I'd read somewhere recently (USA Today or something like that, not a moonbat rag) that many are turning from the u/e rolls to SS disability benefits claiming anything from heart conditions to chronic depression as their disabilities.  I'm quite certain that's what my morbidly obese neighbor did after his u/e benefits ran out.

I've not checked the change in disability roll numbers in the last four years as of yet.  Just saying not all people going on SS these days are of retirement age.  Some are simply figuring they are no longer employable and are figuring out which disability fits.

[Conan71]

Pretty much the same here. I mostly like what I do, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to spend all my time in the hobbies the BVI's or Rockies instead.

FIFM

[nathanm]

I've not checked the change in disability roll numbers in the last four years as of yet.  Just saying not all people going on SS these days are of retirement age.  Some are simply figuring they are no longer employable and are figuring out which disability fits.

There has indeed been an increase in SSDI claims. I left that out of the number of retired. You can get actual figures from the yearly Trustee's Report. News articles I've read talk about it as if the increase in SSDI beneficiaries is greater than would be expected simply due to population growth and aging, but I haven't verified that.

[erfalf]

I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.

Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?

[nathanm]

I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.

Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?

Romney thinks they won't do that.

[RecycleMichael]

I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.

Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when they filibuster and delay?

Yes

[Hoss]

I was thinking this today and wondering what you all think.

Ok, let's assume (hypothetically) of course that the republicans sweep it all, keep the house, get a simple majority in the Senate and take the Presidency. Will the Dems in the Senate then be labeled as obstructionists when if they filibuster and delay?

FIFY

[erfalf]

Romney thinks they won't do that.

Man who wrote that headline, cause when I read it, the point he was making was that he was going to work with congress better so they would be more likely to work with him, not that Democrats are inherently more patriotic or whatever. That's quit a leap the author is making in my opinion. The stage was set and he was off as soon as he assumed Romney said that Dems were less partisan. From that point on it was a fact to him. Funny stuff.

[erfalf]

FIFY

You're more optimistic than I.

[nathanm]

Man who wrote that headline, cause when I read it, the point he was making was that he was going to work with congress better so they would be more likely to work with him, not that Democrats are inherently more patriotic or whatever. That's quit a leap the author is making in my opinion. The stage was set and he was off as soon as he assumed Romney said that Dems were less partisan. From that point on it was a fact to him. Funny stuff.

The part that was responsive to your question was a direct quote from Romney. Feel free to find a more complete quote if you think he was taken out of context or something.

[erfalf]

The part that was responsive to your question was a direct quote from Romney. Feel free to find a more complete quote if you think he was taken out of context or something.

I saw the quote, I guess I don't know the context. I just thought that the conclusion the author drew was wildly out of line with what he actually said. What he said (in my opinion) was a slam on Obama. In that he would better work with congress so that the dems would want to work with him because of him, not themselves. The inverse being that Obama has basically shut out the Republicans so naturally they are not willing to work with him.

I'm not saying the above is fact or anything, I am saying that is how I interpreted Romney's remark.

[erfalf]

Here is some of that bang up foreign policy experience:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/obama-won-t-meet-with-netanyahu-in-u-s-white-house-aide-says.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman

[Hoss]

Here is some of that bang up foreign policy experience:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/obama-won-t-meet-with-netanyahu-in-u-s-white-house-aide-says.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/11/obama-back-letterman

Matched in part by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/us/politics/romney-angers-palestinians-with-comments-in-israel.html?pagewanted=all

Let's remember how despised by much of the world America was after the start of the war with Iraq.

Took at least 8 years to create the mess...seems to me it's better to take 8 years to clean it up than to give it back to the same policies for 4 years.  The classic 'one step forward, two steps back'  method of the Republicans.

[erfalf]

Matched in part by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/us/politics/romney-angers-palestinians-with-comments-in-israel.html?pagewanted=all

Let's remember how despised by much of the world America was after the start of the war with Iraq.

Took at least 8 years to create the mess...seems to me it's better to take 8 years to clean it up than to give it back to the same policies for 4 years.  The classic 'one step forward, two steps back'  method of the Republicans.

He pissed of some occupiers that we as well as the United Nations don't recognize (while telling the truth) and Obama snubbed the country that they are occupying. You make my point well.