tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10420425529986805562024-03-13T07:17:25.510-07:00The Elephant in the RoomYour daily dose of conservative news, rants and political/economic analysis!LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.comBlogger524125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-70810820982130910322013-09-06T06:23:00.001-07:002013-09-06T06:57:27.764-07:00The August 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the August 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment rate fell to <b>7.3%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>169,000 new jobs</b>.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons decreased from 11.5 million in July to 11.3 million in August.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate decreased slightly from 63.4% in July to 63.2% in August. This is a sharp increase, and the chief contributor to the unemployment rate's decrease even with only 169k jobs created. It is also the lowest rate for civilian labor force participation since August, 1978.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) increased from 89,957,000 in July to 90,473,000... an increase of 516,000.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force dropped from 155,798,000 to 155,486,000, which is a massive drop of 312,000.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) fell from 8,200,000 in July to 7,900,000 in August.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings decreased by 5 cents. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 2.2% yearly rate.<br />
<br />
- June's jobs created numbers were revised downward from 188,000 to 172,000, while July's jobs created numbers were revised downward from 162,000 to 104,000. This is a total shortage of 74,000 jobs relative to what was reported.<br />
<br />
My quick take:<br />
<br />
And this is going to be quick:<br />
<br />
"Oh my!" This is bad. What positive notion can one take from these numbers? If the only plus side to these numbers is, "well, at least they didn't decline..." this is a <b>bad</b> jobs report. The unemployment rate when down, sure, but that's solely because people simply gave up for work... which is a trend we've seen under President Obama. Additionally, and this is truly sad, the jobs numbers for the previous two months were revised downward, with July's numbers coming in at a measly 104,000 jobs added. This is below the number needed to simply keep up with population growth.<br />
<br />
All in all, this is about as bad as it gets for a jobs report that still has some job growth in it. I'm dying to hear the media's spin.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-41025283193361004472013-08-02T07:31:00.000-07:002013-08-02T07:31:13.939-07:00The July 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the July 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment rate fell to <b>7.4%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>162,000 new jobs</b>.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons decreases from 11.8 million in June to 11.5 million in July.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate decreased slightly from 63.5% in June to 63.4% in July.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) increased from 89,717,000 in June to 89,957,000 in July, a decrease of 240,000.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force dropped from 155,835,000 to 155,798,000, or 37,000.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) remained flat a 8,200,000 in July.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings decreased by 2 cents. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 1.9% yearly rate.<br />
<br />
- May's jobs created numbers were revised downward from 195,000 to 176,000, while June's jobs created numbers were revised downward from 195,000 to 188,000.<br />
<br />
My quick take:<br />
<br />
This is relatively disastrous. Most economists predicted a "strong" jobs report with employers expanding their payrolls by between 180,000 - 200,000 workers. Not only did this fall 11% - 23% below expectations, but wages fell, and the number of people who stopped looking for work rose again. The total civilian labor force participation rate decrease to 63.4%, a number that represents the unemployment situation of 1979. On top of that, wages fell, and the number of jobs created for the previous two months were revised downward by about 26,000.<br />
<br />
What will the media say? Naturally, they will tout that the unemployment rate fell to 7.4%. But when we look at the data in the report itself, is there really anything at all to cheer about? I've stated this many times; we need 150,000 new jobs per month in job growth just to account for new employees entering the workforce. 162,000 jobs simply doesn't cut it. We also need 350,000 - 400,000 new jobs created, month over month, mind you, to bring the rate down to an acceptable level (< 6.0%) within the next 3 years.<br />
<br />
In short, this jobs report is heartbreaking. It's low-level mediocrity at its best. There is very little in this report with respect to positive news, and if the "positive" news broadcast by the media is something like, "well, at least we didn't lose jobs" or "the rate fell to 7.4%%" without giving the full context of the report, frankly, that's pathetic... just like this "recovery."LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-53272394042530739092013-07-05T05:45:00.000-07:002013-07-05T05:45:04.379-07:00The June 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the June 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment remained unchanged at <b>7.6%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>195,000 new jobs</b>.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons remained unchanged at 11.8 million in June.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate increased slightly from 63.4% in May to 63.5% in June.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) increased slightly from 89,705,000 in May to 89,717,000 in June.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) remained flat at increased by 322,000 from 7,900,000 in May to 8,200,000 in June.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings rose by 10 cents. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 2.2% yearly rate.<br />
<br />
- April's jobs created numbers were revised from 149,000 to 199,000, while May's jobs created numbers were revised upward from 175,000 to 195,000.<br />
<br />
My quick take:<br />
<br />
Overall, this is a decent jobs report, though nothing to sound the trumpets over. In my opinion, the best news from this is the revision of April's and May's jobs numbers. They both inched closer to the 200k new jobs per month number. While an improvement, these barely account for the population addition our country experiences every month. We need steady job growth of around 300-350k jobs per month, steadily, to bring the unemployment rate down significantly. The biggest negative, in my opinion, is the increase in persons employed for part-time reasons. This jumped heavily, and can only be looked at in a negative way. The summer employment period marks when new graduates hit the job market, and if the majority of jobs being taken are in the part-time job sectors, this isn't good news for many. Overall, this isn't a terrible jobs report, but it certainly isn't spectacular.<br />
<br />
What's your take? Please share your thoughts below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-87792432604091921512013-06-26T12:21:00.002-07:002013-06-26T12:21:35.582-07:00The Supreme Court Rules on DOMA and Prop 8Today, June 26, 2013 will be a day that is defined differently depending on whom you talk to. The Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and sent Proposition 8 back to the State of California essentially ruling that the people who appealed the California Supreme Court's ruling that it was unconstitutional had no legal standing to challenge that decision. <br />
<br />
Here are the two official SCOTUS rulings:<br />
<br />
DOMA: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Prop 8: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf</a><br />
<br />
So, what do you think? Did the SCOTUS make the right decisions? Did it "legislate from the bench?" Did it open up any judicial cans of worms? Please share your thoughts below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-63410529853937569252013-06-10T08:59:00.000-07:002013-06-10T09:01:42.419-07:00Is Edward Snowden a Hero or a Traitor?As you've probably heard, whistle blower Edward Snowden is the man behind leaking the NSA's massive secret electronic/phone data capturing program to the British paper The Guardian. If you are unfamiliar with the story, here are a few links for reference:<br />
<br />
CNN: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1</a><br />
<br />
Fox News: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/10/report-nsa-contract-worker-is-surveillance-source/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/10/report-nsa-contract-worker-is-surveillance-source/</a><br />
<br />
ABC News: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowden-reported-nsa-leaker-face-extradition-hong/story?id=19362851" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowden-reported-nsa-leaker-face-extradition-hong/story?id=19362851</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This case has undoubtedly stirred up a whole plethora of issues. The main reason, however, I'm writing about this is that there seems to be a rush, in the media, to quickly label Edward Snowdon a "hero" or a "patriot." I heard it on the radio numerous times as I drove into work today and then I noticed it on both CNN's and Fox New's websites. They both prominently featured the following screen images. I've combined them into one screen grab:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iZK2UYKxU9w/UbX2xLwur3I/AAAAAAAABSk/4LDxctccLQE/s1600/Ed+Snowden+Hero.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iZK2UYKxU9w/UbX2xLwur3I/AAAAAAAABSk/4LDxctccLQE/s640/Ed+Snowden+Hero.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I figured this would make for a great discussion. Do you think Edward Snowden is a hero, or do you think he is a traitor? Obviously, your opinions of him are probably more rooted in your feelings about the NSA's secret programs in general. I would think people would believe Snowden is a hero if they're strongly against the NSA program while those who think it's a necessity for keeping us save will think he is a traitor.<br />
<br />
But is it as simple as that? Where do you stand? Please share your thoughts on the subject. The chat feature above works well for a quick back and forth discussion, or feel free to comment below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-16428473121498713262013-06-07T07:02:00.000-07:002013-06-07T07:43:52.541-07:00The May 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the May 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment rate increased slightly to <b>7.6%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>175,000 new jobs</b>.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons remained increased from 11.7 million in April to 11.8 million in May.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate increased slightly to 63.4%.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) decreased modestly from 89,936,000 in April to 89,705,000 in May.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) remained flat at 7,900,000.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings rose by 1 cent. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 2.0% yearly rate.<br />
<br />
- March's jobs created numbers were revised from 138,000 to 142,000, while April's jobs created numbers were revised downward from 165,000 to 149,000.<br />
<br />
While most of my analysis of previous jobs reports has been lengthy, to me, the best way to sum up May's report is: more of the same. We're puttering along, a lot of people are left out of the job market (though yes, some have came back into it), and many people are taking small, part-time jobs to make ends meet. We need robust, continuous hiring of around 300-350k jobs per month for the next 3 years to bring the unemployment rate down to 6%. We are nowhere close to this, but the media will make reports like this and subsequent similar reports to come out to be great news of a "recovery." Sadly, we really haven't experienced any such thing.<br />
<br />
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-17456526655681110462013-06-03T08:29:00.000-07:002013-06-03T08:44:40.812-07:00Oh How the Left Loves to Hide Anti-Rich Propaganda...You know why (well, one of the many reasons) the left teams up against the rich? It isn't just the jealousy, or the pure envy, but a mixture of those emotions and the fact that there are so few rich to compared to the amount of non-rich that exist.<br />
<br />
Frankly, there is a bullying element in it.<br />
<br />
But regardless, the left will stop at nothing to incorporate the "we hate the evil, stinking, filthy rich" feeling into everything they do. It feels too good not to. Those who pride themselves on "social" everything love banding together in groups (hello unions) in order to facilitate a change.<br />
<br />
Why did I bring this up? Well, it's because I wanted to discuss the article titled, "After Your Job is Gone." - (<a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/" target="_blank">http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/</a>)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It's a tech article warning readers about how advanced technology and robots will ultimately cause people to lose their jobs. It even hints at the reality of a 0% employment society. Of course, there is a LOT of class warfare incorporated, as expected, and the article itself is off base and relatively full of clueless assertions.<br />
<br />
How did I even find this article? A friend of mine posted it to my Facebook and wanted to know what I thought. It spawned a full-blown rebuttal, and I've decided to post it below. Chime in, and let me know what you think (yes, it's copied/pasted directly off of my Facebook, but it does amount to an actual written rebuttal and full synopsis of my feelings and response to the tech article):<br />
<br />
--- My Rebuttal ---<br />
<br />
Tis a very interesting article... In all honesty, this is a social, "hey there, you vast majority of non-rich people… let's hate on the rich some more" article masked in a technology rant in an attempt to lend it some credibility to the rich-hating fury because the author doesn't come right out and say, "the rich suck; they're ruining the world."<br />
<br />
Before anyone says, "there goes Mike writing this off as rank liberalism," my simple preemptive response would be, "read his article, then read response." (not saying, of course, that you, [name hidden], would say this... but anyone in general).<br />
<br />
There are three notions here that stand out, quite vividly, and they're all unique and unrelated, in this article. They're inserted in the article as either a pseudo-mask of the author's real intent as I said, or as a complete ignorance to how the economy works, technology and "robots" aside.<br />
<br />
The first is the notion of the non-rich vs. the rich. For example, within the article we see, albeit a quotation, “Simply put, while the ultra-rich are getting richer, record numbers of Silicon Valley residents are slipping into poverty.” To start, why does this even make it into an article about technology rendering many, many jobs obsolete? This talk of the “rich” is plastered throughout the article, and it absolutely shows this is really about my original feeling that the article is about social “justice” more than anything. But look further:<br />
<br />
“Tech has brought very young, very rich people to the Bay Area like never before. And the changes to our cultural and economic landscape aren’t necessarily for the better.”<br />
<br />
And:<br />
<br />
“If this scenario plays out, the world will divide into a dwindling minority of the very rich — tech workers, finance barons, and those who inherited their wealth, mostly — living in a handful of idyllic cities dripping with wealth, and/or their summer homes on nearby beaches, lakes, and mountains … and the majority who barely get by, doing occasional contract work or odd jobs for a little extra money, too poor to even visit the places where the rich live, work, and play. Aside from those few with government jobs, there’ll be hardly any middle class at all between those two groups.”<br />
<br />
Oh really? Yawn? I hate to repeat, but what does this have to do with anything? These are wonderful assertions, but they’re completely devoid of any economic understanding whatsoever. (Just a quick side-rebut to entertain these ridiculous assertions… who would service any of the needs of these so called “very rich?” Do you think they’d grow their own food, build their own homes, produce their own washers and driers, and screw the bolts into the sheet metal of their own cars? Hogwash…). Good luck, to the author, to show that his very-rich-would-live-in-their-own-isolated-society nightmare would ever really exist. For me, I’ll stick to reality and economic truth over trying to scare the populace about the pitfalls of how some rich folks might, albeit incorrectly, live.<br />
<br />
Moving on, as I said, why do these notions of rich vs poor make it into a tech article about the advancement of technology eliminating jobs? Hmmm is all I really have to say about that. Lastly, on this notion (there is a LOT to say about this part, but I don’t have all day to write), the fact that the author has the stones to call out “right wingers” as in this pejorative… come on. Tipping the hand much?<br />
<br />
The second major notion is that the author, perhaps intentionally to prove his point, (though it shamelessly leaves his article open to ridicule), does not mention, at all, how technological advancements have created many, many jobs, even as it eliminated others, while ultimately (again, why is this in here), creating wealth for all.<br />
<br />
It is this second notion, as it is simple to utilize, that makes the author’s article look silly: technology has advanced throughout history. Duh! But what does that mean? Have jobs gone away and, most importantly, as the author would like to assert, stayed away? Absolutely not! For the author’s inference that technology will eliminate jobs AND keep them eliminated to be true, we’d have to believe that technological advancements just started, well, now. We’d have to believe that technology has not advanced up until this point? Why? Because, quite simply, according to the author, if technology did advance for the past oh, 1,000 years, we wouldn’t have any jobs today. He tries to rectify this fallacy with, “Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades.” Come on, really? You mean the 63.5% employment participation late is as low as it is (yes, this is a trough) because of, oh boy, technology is eliminating more jobs than it’s creating? It has nothing to do with a recession, and a government hell-bent on pushing people towards dependency for the sake of holding power? To me, the fact that the author even inserted the aforementioned line about employment participation rate, as if we’re all stupid, kills his credibility, and my position that technology simply changes the nature of employment instead of eliminates it holds absolutely true.<br />
<br />
But let’s look further at this notion of “technology is having a net-negative effect on jobs” joke of a position. The fact is, technology has advanced over time, and it has made more jobs and wealth each and every time it has. For example, is anyone complaining that one can overnight a package from New York City to Los Angeles? Is it a shame that the Pony Express was replaced, through the years, by advanced technology, leading to where we are now with the shipping services we have? Nope. Oh, that poor Pony Express employee. Did anyone cry for him? Probably not. But where are we now? Yes, shipping services are technology-based services, employing the tools of technology, but, with respect to employment, giving people jobs. Where there once was a mail guy, a stamp guy, a pony-rider, there is a sorter, a tech support, a pilot, an airplane mechanic, a delivery guy... well, you get the point.<br />
<br />
This is just one example of many. Take record players and recording devices, too. Prior to their existence, there was nothing with respect to jobs in these fields. Well, maybe the printing press would be “in this field,” but the phonograph, e.g. a new technology, came along, and not only bettered people’s lives, but created a new set of skills to learn and jobs to have. But when technology pushed phonographs out the door (and further pocket tape recorders paving the way for digital recorders), did anyone complain about those jobs being lost? Nope. Again, new technology bred new jobs, new specialties, and new levels of wealth. The only thing that hinders economic growth is government interference into the market. Period. For example, ever notice there are more and more automatic checkouts at grocery stores? Why? Is it a result of technology? Kind of… but it’s more the result of the government increasing minimum wage which would force employers to hire low skilled workers (cashiers) at a higher wage than they are worth. Retailers have cut down on these jobs (hello extremely high teen unemployment rate) and replaced them with machines because it simply cuts down on cost, insurance, etc. This leads to low-skilled employee candidates not getting hired at all and not having the opportunity to learn skills, earn a wage, and progress over time. Instead, the government, in an appearance that it is helping people (of course, in exchange for a vote), enforces a minimum wage that, as I’ve explained, has led to more technology being inserted in this space (there are many, many examples of this). Again, it has little to do with technology. Technology is the mechanism of demand, not a hindrance of it.<br />
<br />
For these effects, I could go on and on all day. Regardless, no matter the amount of “machines” or technology or “robots” that come along, the jobs will simply evolve, specialties will develop, and people will be employed directly in using these tools or indirectly by working in a field parallel (repair, upkeep, development) of them. Besides, who makes, designs, welds, molds, installs, etc. the “robots?” The author failed to mention this parallel employment I have described. Jobs will change, not be eliminated, by technology.<br />
<br />
Lastly, on this notion, and it’s a silly one… there are things that, most likely, could never be replaced with robots or machines. Would you go watch a Skins game played and ref’d by robots? Doubtful. While pro sports is a fun example of this, there are other more “solid” examples to look at.<br />
<br />
The last notion that completely makes the author’s article nothing but mush is the fact that it ignores simple economic principles. Basically, we, as a society, create demand… the demand for technology, goods, services, etc. Every robot, technology, or machine that has been made was the result of the demand for its creation.<br />
<br />
Take the example of the phonograph. Someone had to make that device. It didn’t make itself. Because the demand had existed for a phonograph, it was created by someone who wanted to supply it. It’s economics 101. Someone decided, “gee, people want this, and I can make money making it.” If that principle didn’t exist, no one would produce it. Now when cassette tape recorders came along, somewhere down the road, the produce/supplier of those had the same idea. The same goes for the maker of the automatic checkout systems seen at grocery stores. Why do all these exist? Is it because the rich want to get richer and push the poor out of the way? Not really. Is it because we want to eliminate peoples’ jobs with robots? Ha! Man wants to created wealth for himself, plain and simple, and the only way he can do it is by selling to someone something that the buyer wants. That’s it. Automatic checkout machines don’t breed themselves; they’re made because someone wants them, and someone wants to make them. For technology, the simple fact that production costs exist in the realm of supplying things is the reason technology goes on. People are always looking for a way to build the better mousetrap (not only in quality but in more efficiently production-wise; duh… it lowers costs and increases wealth), and for that simple cause-effect proposition, the better mousetrap will be made. Will it cause the original maker of the mousetrap to lose his job (or the loss of the whole business in general)? Sure. But he’ll move on and find a different type of job, as I have said. Will a new technology be employed in the production of the machines that make the mousetraps, in the jobs of people that draw up the designs for them… in the operators of the machines, and on and on? Absolutely. This is the way the world has worked since the beginning of time, and unlike what the author says, this is the way it will keep on working so long as we do not let power (government interference step in and destroy it).<br />
<br />
So yes, to me, this article is nothing but a social article, trying to mask something gitchy like “technology and robots will take all your jobs” over “let’s hate the rich; they are really, really bad.” This tends to be the way of the left, sadly, and, like any of these, “look at this cause I take, give me attention because I want to look like I care about things” articles, do you notice, as is usually the case, there is no mention of a solution? Perhaps, it’s because there really isn’t a problem… just a manufactured issue to “care” about, warning people that those evil rich are doing it again, and the only way to stop it is to… well, hand over a little more power to control things to those who request it. Granted, the article does not yet say that, (again, no solution is mentioned), but this article wreaks of it, and it’s right up in our faces for us to take a big whiff.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-496466457374543702013-05-03T07:31:00.000-07:002013-05-03T07:31:52.796-07:00The April 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the April 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment rate dropped to 7.5<b>%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>165,000 new jobs</b>, beating analysts' predictions.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons remained unchanged at 11.7 million in April.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate remained unchanged at 63.3%. In spite of the better-than-expected jobs numbers, this figure is concerning.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) decrease modestly from 89,967,000 in March to 89,936,000.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) increased by 278,000 to 7,900,000.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings rose by 4 cent. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 1.9% yearly rate.<br />
<br />
The good:<br />
<br />
The unemployment rate fell and 165,000 jobs were added, beating analysts' predictions. This is the first time in a while that a decrease in the unemployment rate was not a result of people giving up looking for work and leaving the labor force. Additionally, February's and March's numbers were revised upward to 332,000 and 138,000, respectively. These are good signs.<br />
<br />
The bad:<br />
<br />
The labor force participation rate remains high. This number needs to increase... it's just that simple. Also, the part-time labor force increased, and that's undesirable. The economy needs to add full-time jobs, not part-time ones, or ones that people are taking simply because they can't find work elsewhere. This, coupled with the decrease in work hours, could be a sign that employers of low-wage workers are making shifts in hiring and employee retention with the upcoming health care bill kicking in full swing next year. Additionally, the economy needs to add 150,000 jobs per month to simply keep up with population growth. While 165,000 beats that number, it's not enough to consider this an expansion. This is slow job growth. It's mediocre or bare minimum at best. We might not be slipping into another recession, but we surely not pulling out of one quickly.<br />
<br />
The ugly:<br />
<br />
My prediction might seem redundant, but the press will champion this. Get ready for the tidal wave of fawning coming from the press claiming how wonderful it is. Live I've said, the numbers are decent... they certainly aren't terrible, but they're nothing to write home about, either.<br />
<br />
What do YOU think? Please share your thoughts below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-84680407293423244592013-05-01T09:04:00.000-07:002013-05-01T09:04:07.339-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
We start May off strong with a great, and maybe controversial, discussion about <b>rights</b>. I'm going to be sharing my views that our rights, our American rights, are really privileges, and that the notion of "human rights" isn't real but yet a political tool used to sway minds and push legislation.<br />
<br />
Be sure to join us at 10:00pm EST! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week. Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.the405radio.blogspot.com/p/opinionation.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "Live Stream Players")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. I'm sure there will be some disagreement on the subject matter of this show. Be sure to express your views live! Call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners. We hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.<br />
<br />
P.S. Speaking of rights, be sure to vote in our gay marriage poll on the left side of the blog!</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-33490980627012462302013-04-29T08:51:00.002-07:002013-04-29T08:51:45.391-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum 4/29/13Without an election, the political discourse in the country seems to have calmed to a light simmer recently. That being said, there are always news topics to discuss.<br />
<br />
The purpose of these forums is to have an open space for people to debate these topics and to share whatever is on their mind. Here are a few things that caught my eye; please feel free to comment and/or share your own:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-26/senate-passes-last-ditch-bill-to-end-controller-furloughs.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-26/senate-passes-last-ditch-bill-to-end-controller-furloughs.html</a><br />
<br />
- I actually agree that this is simply a "Band-Aid" and that it will simply open the door for more exemptions rending the spending cuts that actually kicked in worthless.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/</a><br />
<br />
- UGH. I talk about this constantly on our radio show OpinioNation. It disgusts me that our elected leaders obtain and retain their positions by giving something to people, via the government, in exchange for votes. This is no different. The army has said they don't want these tanks, but our elected leaders don't want to be the voice of the party that says, "no" and threatens to close up shop in ever-so-important Ohio. Power and politics over reality and logic. Disgusting.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-78638297190607563372013-04-24T14:08:00.004-07:002013-04-24T14:08:54.612-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
Our fan base is growing, and it's not because we're pretty. We give the straight talk with no balk. Be sure to join us at 10:00pm EST! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week. Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.the405radio.blogspot.com/p/opinionation.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "Live Stream Players")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. From Boston to West, Texas, gay marriage to gun control, taxes to inflation, and everything in between, whatever your opinions, our show is your platform. Call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners. We hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-22455048337569732702013-04-22T09:17:00.002-07:002013-04-22T09:17:15.769-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum 4/22/13After a tough, fear-filled, emotion-packed week, we take a step back and try to restore a sense of normalcy to everyday life. The Boston Marathon bombings sent us through a whirlwind of emotions from fear to shock to tension to a sense of victory (even in the smallest sense) as we watched last weeks events unfold.<br />
<br />
As we move forward, new issues are sure to come up. While the tragedy in Boston won't be forgotten, other social, economic, and political issues remain.<br />
<br />
As usual, please share any and all comments and opinions below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-81423944428471917352013-04-17T06:35:00.000-07:002013-04-17T06:35:14.218-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
With heavy hearts we will be going on the air tonight<b>.</b> Join us at 10:00pm EST! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week. Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.the405radio.blogspot.com/p/opinionation.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "Live Stream Players")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. Whatever your opinions, our show is your platform. If you want to rant, let off some steam, share a viewpoint, or flat out disagree with us, call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners... it doesn't matter - we're here for you, and we hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.<br />
<br />
P.S. Due to work constraints, I missed posting the weekly debate forum on Monday. But don't worry; a new one will be up next Monday, and any comment section is open for debate. If you'd like, you can call in to the show to debate, too! My apologies on missing this post.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-46983789578515670992013-04-10T09:21:00.000-07:002013-04-10T09:21:14.539-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
Here we go again... lots of topics to talk about. See our discussion list <b><a href="http://www.the405radio.blogspot.com/2013/04/opinionation-041013-107pm-the405radio.html" style="text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">here</a>.</b> Join us at 10:00pm EST! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week. Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.the405radio.blogspot.com/2013/04/opinionation-041013-107pm-the405radio.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "The 405 Radio - Live Stream")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. Whatever your opinions, our show is your platform. If you want to rant, let off some steam, share a viewpoint, or flat out disagree with us, call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners... it doesn't matter - we're here for you, and we hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-40002144509569513152013-04-09T10:37:00.001-07:002013-04-09T10:37:23.727-07:00"Gun Control" Fueled by Emotion and not LogicI've said this many times: I'm a conservative republican, and while I love our party and its ideals, I don't believe, by any means, that it's perfect. In that regard, I've also said many times that I think there are some positions the GOP holds that are losing propositions (the GOP's position on gay marriage, for example, I think, regardless of anyone's personal feelings, is a losing position to have in the party of smaller government), and while these political "losers" are small in number, there are many, many winners.<br />
<br />
Simply put, gun rights is one of these winners. In my opinion, the GOP has the winning position. Hands down.<br />
<br />
Much has been said in this arena since the tragic massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, and that tragedy should never be forgotten. No one can fathom the loss and grief the families and friends of the 26 victims are feeling. It's unquestionably a sorrow few know, and this brief article is, in no way, an attempt to downplay that aspect of one of the darkest events in American history.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Sadly, however, since this tragedy occurred, people have turned to government and requested it to do something. They are turning to the government to react, and just as sad, they're requesting this reaction to be based on emotion rather than logic. Aside from all the rhetoric that has been tossed around from both sides, from "if no guns existed this wouldn't have happened" to "dictators in Germany, China, et. al. took guns away from their citizens before they killed them," I want to focus, instead, on something I noticed... something that shows that the democrats' push for further "gun control" is completely devoid of logic. It comes from President Obama's emotional campaign-style speech in Hartford, Connecticut yesterday. The full transcript can be seen here: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/08/remarks-president-reducing-gun-violence-hartford-ct" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/08/remarks-president-reducing-gun-violence-hartford-ct</a><br />
<br />
In his speech, President Obama claims that if we enacted these tougher "gun control" measures, criminals wouldn't be able to (or they would have a harder time) "get their hands on a gun." He made this claim four times:<br />
<br />
- "We have to tell Congress it's time to require a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that people who are dangerous to themselves and others <b>cannot get their hands on a gun</b>."<br />
<br />
- "Over the past 20 years, background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from <b>getting their hands on a gun</b>."<br />
<br />
- "Shouldn't we make it harder, not easier, for somebody who is convicted of domestic abuse to <b>get his hands on a gun?</b>"<br />
<br />
- "Why wouldn't you want to make it harder for a dangerous person to <b>get his or her hands on a gun?</b>"<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious, glaring facts that render these claims embarrassingly false (none of these so-called background checks could have stopped Adam Lanza - he nor his mother, the purchaser of the guns, had any criminal record - from carrying out this massacre), the emotional plea that background checks would stop some bad people from "getting their hands on a gun" is so far from the truth that it would barely produce the results its intended to produce.<br />
<br />
What President Obama is doing is greatly stretching what would happen: possibly preventing a potentially bad person from <b>purchasing a gun at a specific time and place</b> into ensuring that <b>bad person does not get his hands on a gun at all</b>. As you can undoubtedly see, these two things are not the same. All a background check would do, should it produce the information that shows that a potential buyer should not be purchasing a gun legally, is prohibit the buyer from purchasing the gun at that specific time and place. Surely, the bad person would be stopped there, but if he is truly determined to "get his hands on a gun," do you really think he will stop at his local gun store? Do you really think he would walk out of the store and say, "oh, okay... that's it... I guess I'm done. I can't buy this gun, so that's that?" This is the precise problem with Obama's position. A bad person, hell-bent on getting a gun, will simply turn to the black market to get that gun. He will buy it <b>illegally</b>, off the streets, in one illegal method or another, and guess what... he will still be able to <b>get his hands on a gun</b>. The universal background check will be rendered ineffective and worthless, and all it will have done was created another government control infringing on our Second Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
Please keep this in mind: there is no law that comes without a sacrifice in freedom. The more power the government gets, the less free the people are. "Gun control" and universal background checks are no exceptions. The potential system of universal background checks the government is proposing (some states are worse: Maryland wants to fingerprint all gun purchasers, for example) is completely hollow and will do virtually nothing to prevent bad people from "getting their hands on a gun," all while establishing another government control and another government regulation that puts up a barrier to a citizen exercising his or her Second Amendment right. "Infringe" was a word carefully inserted into the Second Amendment, and it was done for a reason. The <i>right of the people to keep and bear arms</i>, a measure installed in the Second Amendment to protect the citizens from a potentially tyrannical government, was not worded, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be controlled, limited, and made unduly difficult by the very government this Amendment is designed to protect the people from," it was worded in the simplest text possible: <b>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.</b><br />
<br />
The government, in such a brazen, logic-less, emotion-based, feel-good rush, is pushing to trample this Amendment, and if the citizens stay quiet on this issue, they're simply paving the way for further government expansion. This is no "hysterical" rant. This is a call to get people to return to logic and common sense. I urge people to share this, talk to friends, talk to family, write their elected representatives, and be heard. If we let the government alter the citizens' rights as it sees fit, we are allowing it to remove the very safeguards we have, as a population, that protect us from that government. And for those who say, "no way... it wouldn't happen; our government would never turn on its people..." I beg of you to look at history. Perhaps you know someone who is related to a fellow American who felt the wrath of Executive Order 9066.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-45551877968074054482013-04-08T10:18:00.000-07:002013-04-08T10:22:27.220-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum 4/8/13First, a sendoff to the Iron Lady:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WWAfA-OA2ao/UWL8njz_tMI/AAAAAAAABRo/gMSSMTVXPyY/s1600/Margaret_Thatcher.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WWAfA-OA2ao/UWL8njz_tMI/AAAAAAAABRo/gMSSMTVXPyY/s320/Margaret_Thatcher.png" width="229" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">source: wikipedia</span></i></div>
<br />
Margaret Thatcher, October 13 1925 - April 9 2013 - - - The first female Prime Minister of Great Britain... a trailblazer to many. Thank you.<br />
<br />
What do YOU think of Margaret Thatcher? Her policies... her style... her portrayal in the media... her legacy? Be sure to share your thoughts below.<br />
<br />
As usual, there is a whole gamut of news topics to discuss from the dismal employment numbers to North Korea's continued provocation to the death of another American diplomat. Whatever it is, share your opinions and engage others below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-54450706878000171492013-04-05T06:56:00.000-07:002013-04-05T07:03:32.191-07:00The March 2013 Jobs ReportHere is the March 2013 employment situation report from the BLS: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<b><u>Key Highlights</u></b>:<br />
<br />
- The unemployment rate dropped to 7.6<b>%</b>. Non-farm employers added <b>88,000 new jobs</b>, falling well short of analysts' predictions.<br />
<br />
- The number of unemployed persons edged downward to 11.7 million in March from 12 million in February.<br />
<br />
- The civilian labor force participation rate dropped to 63.3% form 63.5% in February. This is the lowest level of labor force participation this country has seen since May 1979.<br />
<br />
- The "not in labor force" count (those who have no job and have stopped looking for work) increased by 663,000 from 89,304,000 in February to 89,967,000 in March.<br />
<br />
- The number of persons employed for part-time economic reasons (those that are considered part-time involuntary workers) fell by 350,000 to 7,600,000.<br />
<br />
- Average hourly earnings rose by 1 cent. The 12-month average for hourly earnings have risen at a 1.8% yearly rate.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
- <b>The change in total non-farm payroll employment for January was revised upward from +119,000 to +148,000, and the change for February was revised downward from +236,000 to +268,000.</b><br />
<br />
So what do I think? Ummm, can you say déja vu? This is a disaster! The unemployment rate is now 7.6%, something the democrats will probably brag about, but the key facet that will get overlooked: nearly 500,000 people stopped looking for work! This is tragic. These people, who are no longer counted in the unemployment rate, simply gave up. Since they're not trying to find work anymore, they're not counted in the unemployment rate, and this gives the UE rate an artificially low reading. This becomes apparent when we look at the civilian labor force participation rate... which is now at its lowest level since May, 1979. Moreover, the employment-to-population ratio is 58.5%. How can a country continue when nearly half the population isn't producing?<br />
<br />
Sadly, the media will trumpet this 7.6% rate as a victory. It's not. It's a tragedy. Millions of people are giving up looking for work, and the poverty level in this country is at its highest level since 1960. And all this has happened BEFORE Obamacare has kicked in. The CBO estimates the ACA will cost 850,000 jobs over the next 10 years.<br />
<br />
It's clear: the government is not helping... it's hurting. Obama's policies are not a boon to employment; they're a destroyer of it. But hey... when you're unemployed and destitute, you turn to the government for support... and when one party of the government promises to "help" and "take care of you"... when it comes time to vote, you won't bite the hand that feeds you. This is the way of the democratic party.<br />
<br />
What do you think? Share your thoughts below.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-6159859415746919652013-04-03T07:42:00.001-07:002013-04-03T07:42:24.872-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
North Korea, gun control, Hillary is "back," budget woes, NCAA athletics, and more on tonight's show. Be sure to join us at 10:00pm EST! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week. Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://the405radio.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "The 405 Radio - Live Stream")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. Whatever your opinions, our show is your platform. Call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners. We hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-11226266341435844272013-04-01T11:10:00.001-07:002013-04-01T11:10:31.570-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum 4/1/13April Fool's!<br />
<br />
Well, I really have nothing to fool anyone with, but I thought that it would be fun to center come of this week's discussion board on foolish things. For example:<br />
<br />
"It's foolish that we send millions of dollars overseas while not being able to balance our budget."<br />
<br />
You know... stuff like this.<br />
<br />
What do you think? Share your thoughts on government/political foolishness, or anything of that matter, however you like, below.LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-4428364245927001222013-03-27T11:13:00.001-07:002013-03-27T11:13:54.302-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
Yes, your new wave political radio is on at 10:00pm EST tonight! Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss all the major news headlines of the week - and there are a LOT! You won't want to miss it! Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://the405radio.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "The 405 Radio - Live Stream")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. Want to express your views on the recent Supreme Court hearings on gay marriage... or feel the need to chime in gun control... do you love/hate Obamacare? Whatever your opinions, our show is your platform. Call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners. We hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-28417678334504838112013-03-25T09:33:00.001-07:002013-03-25T09:33:32.558-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum - 3/25/13Another week down, and another one is beginning with new, relevant topics. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Out with the old: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- What do you make of Obama's trip to Israel? The media seems to be fawning over his trip while claiming it was a success. What do you think?</div>
<div>
- Harry Reid shutters the assault weapons ban, and the liberal media's head explodes...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In with the new: </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- The Supreme Court hears gay marriage arguments. Should this be maintained as a states' rights issue, or should it be a federally-protected right? Vote in our poll on the left side of the blog.</div>
<div>
- Furlough notices are beginning to go out to federal employees. What impact will this have?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As always, share any and all relevant opinions, rants, positions, etc. below. Thank you!</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-61302094243490078002013-03-20T17:51:00.001-07:002013-03-20T18:57:27.983-07:00Listen to OpinioNation LIVE at 10:00PM EST Tonight!<div style="text-align: center;">
Listen to me <b>(<a href="https://twitter.com/LMElephantBlog" target="_blank">Mike - LME</a>), <a href="https://twitter.com/CAAmyO" target="_blank">Amy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/GayPatriot" target="_blank">Bruce</a>, </b>and host, <b><a href="https://twitter.com/Jon_Rollings" target="_blank">Jon Rollings</a>, </b>as we discuss Cyprus, guns, CPAC, and anything we want! You won't want to miss it! Click the image to listen in:<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.the405radio.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="56" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0mzGI5osLWE/UL9Zzzf9JaI/AAAAAAAABNY/r1XOWTBv94I/s320/OpinioNation+Logo.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(the Live365 radio panel will be on the right - it says "The 405 Radio - Live Stream")</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This is a great opportunity for you to share your thoughts. Our show is your platform. Call us at <b>877-297-8022</b>, and you'll promptly be put on the air.<b> </b>Engage the panel, share your views, or ask a question to our listeners. We hope to hear from you.<br />
<br />
Finally, be sure to stick around for our final, lightning-round segment <b>The Bottom Line</b>.</div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-62903172799581965202013-03-18T07:52:00.000-07:002013-03-18T12:52:23.886-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum - 3/18/13Another week down, another news cycle. What have we seen in the past week:<br />
<br />
- Obama has reinstated a missile defense system that Bush supported and Obama scrapped.<br />
- CPAC winds down, and all the media can say is that the GOP is tearing itself apart... of course. Why would they say anything else.<br />
<br />
But on top of all that, I wanted to highlight this article: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/18/news/economy/europe-cyprus-bailout/index.html" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/18/news/economy/europe-cyprus-bailout/index.html</a><br />
<br />
In case you haven't heard, here is the quick rundown: The country of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus" target="_blank">Cyprus</a>, in an effort to save itself from a crippling debt crisis and secure new "bailout" financing from the EU, had proposed a tax on band deposits. If a deposit held in a Cypriot held more than 100,000 Euros, it would be subject to a one-time 9.9% tax. If a deposit held less than 100,000 Euros, it would be subject to a one time 6.75% tax. As expected, hundreds of Cypriots fled to ATMs to make withdrawals, and, as expected, this created bank runs.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The outrage has mounted, however, and it looks like a parliamentary move is in place to either reduce the tax rate being implemented or scrap it altogether.<br />
<br />
To me, there are three things to take from this:<br />
<br />
1. Debt is bad. End of story. It's okay to run up and manage some debt, in a temporary fashion, especially if you will soon have the funds to replay that debt, but crippling debt is just that... crippling. The definition of what is "crippling" is subject to debate, but it's hard to debate away the fact that if a country continues to rack up debt without maintaining the production needed to pay this off (often, as it is done here in the US, the debt is used to pay for social programs that yield NO production in return, further exacerbating the debt problem), eventually the debt will consume the country, and lenders will no longer supply the country with the money it needs to run itself.<br />
<br />
2. Imagine if this was proposed here. Could you envision the outrage?! The government seizing the assets (assets that have already been taxed, mind you) of its citizens to run itself - crazy! Wouldn't that be a case of the government usurping the power from the people to simply maintain that power? Holy cow, this would be disgusting. I seriously hope this is never implemented in Cyprus, let alone the US or any other place.<br />
<br />
3. People dislike taxes. Period. If you impose more taxes on the citizens, they will react. Rarely is there a time in our modern history where the citizens of a country say, "yes, please, tax me more... I'll just sit back and take it." Look at France in the last 8 months.<br />
<br />
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>*** Be sure to vote in our new pool on the left side of this blog ***</b></div>
LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-33912000700793493042013-03-13T08:50:00.000-07:002013-03-13T08:50:05.783-07:00Obama says "There is no Immediate Debt Crisis"And then claims, "in fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place."<br />
<br />
Wait, WHAT?!<br />
<br />
I just had to post this. It seemed so "out of whack" that I figured it would be something worth talking about: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/</a><br />
<br />
Take a look at The President's interview, and share your thoughts. I will say, upon looking at some of the comments in the article, these sum it up the best:<br />
<br />
- "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. <b>America has a debt problem</b>, and a failure of leadership. America deserves better." - Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">- "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt form $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." - Candidate Barack Obama, July 3, 2008</span></span><br />
<br />
What do YOU think?LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-32823161440008790852013-03-11T11:10:00.000-07:002013-03-11T11:10:02.875-07:00Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum - 3/11/13Well, the new jobs report is out, and many media pundits are claiming this is an Obama success: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-february-2013-jobs-report.html<br />
<br />
I don't see the report as a thing to leap about, but it does contain some positive news. Of course, that can fade if the numbers get revised next month.<br /><br />But for me, here is the big topic of discussion: With all the doom and gloom painted by Team Obama regarding the sequester, how will this play out? If unemployment keeps falling, Obama looks like he severely over-exaggerated the sequester claims but is a "hero" for having the unemployment rate decline (this is subject to interpretation). If unemployment increases, Obama can claim he was right about the sequester, but is not the hero of decreasing unemployment.<br />
<br />
Hmmmmm. The x-factor, of course, is the media. What do you think?LMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.com1