Egyptians pelt Clinton motorcade with tomatoes

Quote from RCG Trader:

I thought was because they did not know the history of India. Pakistan is a result of the Muslims breaking from the Hindis. So, it follows that East Indians would be the Pakistanis.
Both good theories, I don't know which is right. I do know they don't mean native Canadians, as those folks are called "First Nations". (To which I began jokingly calling myself as part of the Final Nation, but it appears that I was definitely wrong. I'm merely part of the Interim Nation.)
 
Whoa! that is a long list of 'achievements' by obama. Is this you futurecurrents? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA

The reality of obama's term so far:

Quote from PiggyBank:

here is the big picture, straight from the BLS..

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154075(1) 153648 153925 153761 154325 154316 154480 154646 154559 154875 154622 154626
2009 154236(1) 154521 154143 154450 154800 154730 154538 154319 153786 153822 153833 153091
2010 153454(1) 153704 153964 154528 154216 153653 153748 154073 153918 153709 154041 153613
2011 153250(1) 153302 153392 153420 153700 153409 153358 153674 154004 154057 153937 153887
2012 154395(1) 154871 154707 154365 155007 155163
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12758 12806 12673 12500 12720 12749

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.5 58.2
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.5
2012 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.6

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id: CES0500000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 111631 111623 111556 111227 111146 110910 110737 110549 110282 109918 109572 109365
2002 109214 109055 108990 108894 108814 108826 108731 108675 108663 108771 108757 108587
2003 108644 108487 108288 108254 108273 108234 108232 108264 108425 108568 108605 108713
2004 108883 108915 109214 109437 109747 109841 109882 109984 110136 110463 110490 110623
2005 110718 110949 111094 111440 111583 111844 112124 112311 112395 112491 112795 112935
2006 113250 113535 113793 113958 113965 114045 114203 114348 114434 114439 114628 114794
2007 115023 115080 115252 115298 115419 115480 115476 115403 115423 115484 115559 115606
2008 115647 115511 115399 115184 114968 114737 114478 114184 113759 113279 112482 111824
2009 110985 110260 109473 108671 108359 107933 107637 107418 107234 107002 106960 106840
2010 106800 106773 106914 107107 107191 107283 107375 107503 107618 107814 107948 108088
2011 108207 108464 108725 108989 109097 109199 109374 109426 109642 109781 109959 110193
2012 110470 110724 110871 110956 111061(P) 111145(P)
P : preliminary


Series Id: LNS15026639
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 4803 4559 4598 4609 4825 4766 4847 4627 4687 4429 4733 4567
2003 4632 4600 4916 4451 4810 4740 4855 4830 4832 4760 4534 4695
2004 4769 4750 4816 4690 4741 4648 4661 4933 4930 5277 5113 4949
2005 4992 4968 5018 5114 4771 5222 4947 4813 4990 4993 4818 5183
2006 4964 4901 4918 4719 4635 4726 4862 4951 4666 4868 4818 4390
2007 4506 4706 4565 4794 4968 4857 4737 4827 4750 4352 4648 4657
2008 4837 4739 4714 4728 4839 4924 5023 4927 5161 5104 5438 5452
2009 5682 5620 5798 5924 5961 5913 6010 5660 5949 6016 6001 6225
2010 5903 6110 5973 5903 5780 5920 5913 6048 6260 6300 6226 6482
2011 6412 6416 6500 6518 6216 6531 6556 6469 6240 6407 6595 6385
2012 6319 6378 6299 6366 6291 6520


Spending:

usgs_line.php


Since obama took office there is only a net employment increase of 227k jobs.. in 3 1/2 years.. with stimulus.. and bailouts.. and 'shovel ready jobs'. This doesn't include the number of people looking for work now, but aren't included in the labor force, which I added above. The population is increasing faster than jobs by 2%. The private sector has added a grand total of 160k jobs. both total federal spending and the deficit have jumped significantly in absolute $$ under BO. Just judging by the chart, by the end of his term obama will have spent almost as much as Bush, in half the time. If you still think he is doing a good job (your head is up your ass), wait until obamacare goes into effect in 2014: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156659733/weekly-standard-obamacare-cost-estimates-rise
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

This economy is growing (debatable) IN SPITE of obama, not because of him.. stimulus etc was meant to boost the economy, it didn't do much. there is no reason to think we wouldn't be in the same spot or better without it. Just remember all the crying over the cost of the wars, and then look at BO's spending. lol. he has also increased the number of federal employees since taking office, during the 2nd largest economic contraction in US history.

and he IS a fucking liar, there is no data set, anywhere on the BLS where he added 4.4 mil jobs. he is cherry picking the low.
 
Labor Force Participation Rate
<img src="http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2012_all_period_M06_data.gif">

FY 2013 Discretionary U.S. Federal Budget
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm
By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide

What Is Discretionary Spending?:
Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare. (See Federal Budget - Mandatory Spending)
What Was Proposed in the FY 2013 Discretionary Budget?:
Discretionary spending in the FY 2013 budget was slashed to $1.264 trillion. The request for military spending was lowered to $851 billion. This includes the Defense Department, Overseas Contingency Operations and other defense-related departments like Homeland Security and the State Department.

The non-security budget request was cut to only $410 billion. All departments were cut or stayed about the same, except for the Department of Education, which increased to $69.8 billion. The largest departments were cut the most:

Health and Human Services, reduced more than 10% to $71.7 billion.
Housing and Urban Development, also reduced 10% to $35.3 billion.
The Justice Department, which was slashed 33% to $17.9 billion.

Spending was cut to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion. This was mandated by the Congressional deficit reduction committee to end the crisis over raising the debt ceiling that erupted in the summer of 2011.(Source: OMB, FY 2013 Budget, Table S-12)

What Was Approved in the FY 2012 Discretionary Budget?:
In FY 2012, discretionary spending was approved at $1.319 trillion, slightly less than the $1.344 trillion requested in the FY 2012 budget. The security budget was taken down to $868 billion, while non-security spending was reduced to $450 billion. However, it's unclear where the savings came from, since most departments saw their spending levels remain about the same.
What Was Spent in the 2011 Discretionary Budget?:
In FY 2011, discretionary spending was just $1.3 trillion. Non-Security spending came in at $462 billion.

Security spending was at $838 billion. Overseas contingency funds in the amount of $159 billion were allocated for the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The budget expanded benefits for 9 million retired military personnel and veterans with disabilities. It allowed for improved care for wounded service members, especially those with mental health needs. Traumatic head injuries had become much more widespread, as improved field medical procedures allowed doctors to save many soldiers who had died from head wounds in previous wars. (Source: Source: OMB,Table S-3; FY 2012 Military Budget)

...and in FY 2010:
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.306 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which included the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84.4 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25.1 billion). (Source: OMB, FY 2012 Budget,Table S-11, FY 2010 Actual Spending)
What About the Economic Stimulus Package?:
In FY 2013, the TARP program was budgeted at $12 billion. These expenditures did not go to bail out banks, but instead to bail out homeowners to prevent foreclosures. This was part of the Homeowner Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. As of FY 2012, spending from the Economic Stimulus Package was moved to Mandatory spending, which is the budget category for spending that is mandated by law. That year, the total cost was $35 billion, which included $12 billion in tax cuts and $12 billion in jobs initiatives. In FY 2011, TARP actually provided a surplus to the budget, as banks paid back the bailout. To understand why, see Bank Bailout Bill.
Although the Economic Stimulus Package was not technically part of the Discretionary Budget, many government agencies benefited from it. In FY 2009, $253 billion was spent through the stimulus package. The agencies which benefited the most were Education ($81 billion), Transportation ($48 billion) and Energy ($37 billion). This spending helped boost the economy to positive economic growth in the second half of calendar year 2010, ending the recession.

Since unemployment was still at a 10% level, the budget included $147 billion in temporary recovery measures for FY 2011. (Source: OMB, FY 2011 budget, Table S-2)
How Did the Discretionary Budget Affect the U.S. Economy?:
Although stimulus spending has been blamed for increasing the budget deficit, in fact military spending has been the largest contributor to deficit spending. This deficit spending, which has been ongoing since 2002 thanks to the War on Terror, created more than a $15 trillion debt.

When the debt to GDP ratio reaches 100%, it can threaten economic growth. It puts downward pressure on the dollar's value, increasing the price of imports. It decreases the expectation that this debt will be paid, acting as a tax and hampering on economic growth. (Article updated February 16, 2012)
 
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate
http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/march_296.cfm
Daniel Aaronson, Jonathan Davis, Luojia Hu

"The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns, such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting LFPR improvements due to economic recovery."
 
Quote from wildchild:

"CAIRO (Reuters) - Protesters threw tomatoes and shoes at U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade on Sunday during her first visit to Egypt since the election of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi."

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-talks-democracy-head-egypt-army-142600571.html

After 3 and a half years of Obama ... muslim ... and we still get this.

Let me be clear, Obama is an abject failure folks.
=============
Wow,W -child ;
Tomatoes & shoes. Shoes are a deep , deep sign of disrespect in Arab nations:D

But looking on both sides of the trade;
President Barack's bow/cow/tow before the king of Arabia, maybe helped keep the price of gas & oil downtrending:D [Source =The Amateur,ByMr .Klein]

b]But playing the king of Sodom, ruined black support with most black churches.

c]Dont know if Muslims blame President Barcak , for all the Arab killing by US military. They probably do blame him.Pres Bush was right to fight.

The US Military shot another trouble maker today. Not sure if it was an Arab;
it was off the coast of Dubai[.CBN ,CNN & FOX news]

:cool: :cool:
 
Discretionary spending dropped under Bush's whole term as well, according to your chart. The problem is not with discretionary spending, it is with the mandatory entitlement spending. The military has always been the biggest cost of the federal govt, now that is changing:

From the NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph

Entitlements are going to be the downfall of Western civ dude.. but you might be hoping for that judging by your posts. What about the rest of my post, you choose to address only spending, and only a portion of that. Do you really think obamanomics are working?
 
Quote from Ricter:

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate
http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/march_296.cfm
Daniel Aaronson, Jonathan Davis, Luojia Hu

"The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns, such as the retirement of baby boomers. These patterns are expected to continue, offsetting LFPR improvements due to economic recovery."

that seems somewhat reasonable but do you think that it just happened to drop by 4% in the last 5 years due to demographics? Look at it historically http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet Also, what about the steady increase of people looking for work that aren't counted as part of the labor force?

I gotta run but I will be back later.
 
Back
Top