I do what I wanna do, **** it.

[ark steel]

what is this number? 257,000

The number of times you have been wrong this week? or today?

Some number which doesn't mean what you think it means? Some talking point you read and believe is gospel?

 

[SteelChip]

what is this number? 257,000

It is some convoluted jobs number....which should be of no surprise to anyone paying attention.

If this comes close to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Friday, it will signal a decent if unspectacular start to the New Year. ADP estimates that employers added 257,000 private-sector jobs last month, an increase of 40,000 jobs over its estimate for November, and the best result for all of 2015:

That was the good news, now the whole story, nuthin' but the story.

The news isn’t all good. In fact, it shows that 2015 closed out at a lower rate of job creation than 2014, at least on the ADP scale:

Neither of these levels suggest blockbuster growth. The US economy needs to generate around 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth at current workforce-participation rates. Coming in “just under 200,000 a month” isn’t enough growth to make significant dents in the ranks of sidelined workers from the Great Recession, and seeing the growth level subside over the last year doesn’t produce much confidence that December’s outlier result will sustain in 2016.

 

[ark steel]

It is some convoluted jobs number....which should be of no surprise to anyone paying attention.

If this comes close to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Friday, it will signal a decent if unspectacular start to the New Year. ADP estimates that employers added 257,000 private-sector jobs last month, an increase of 40,000 jobs over its estimate for November, and the best result for all of 2015:

That was the good news, now the whole story, nuthin' but the story.

The news isn’t all good. In fact, it shows that 2015 closed out at a lower rate of job creation than 2014, at least on the ADP scale:

Neither of these levels suggest blockbuster growth. The US economy needs to generate around 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth at current workforce-participation rates. Coming in “just under 200,000 a month” isn’t enough growth to make significant dents in the ranks of sidelined workers from the Great Recession, and seeing the growth level subside over the last year doesn’t produce much confidence that December’s outlier result will sustain in 2016.

257,000 private-sector jobs, 256,000 in the gun industry?

 

[SteelChip]

257,000 private-sector jobs, 256,000 in the gun industry?

Shh......Obama is the gun industry's secret weapon. Every time he opens his anti-gun mouth, they set another sales record.

 

[Vader]

The US economy needs to generate around 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth at current workforce-participation rates. Coming in “just under 200,000 a month” isn’t enough growth to make significant dents in the ranks of sidelined workers from the Great Recession, and seeing the growth level subside over the last year doesn’t produce much confidence that December’s outlier result will sustain in 2016.

That's keeping with the current labor force participation rate. If you want to get back to post 1978 participation rate then you need over 250,000 JPM just to stay afloat. Remember in the 1980s jobs were being created in the 3 and 4 hundred thousands and that's when there was more participation and much less people.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/opinions/taya-kyle-gun-control/index.html

Great read.

 

[ark steel]

I figure DBS, especially, will appreciate this.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-second-amendment-original-intent

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

No, there should be rational discourse between both sides until a consenus is reached. That's how I'd prefer the government to work. Since that basically never happens, I understand that presidents pass executive orders on occasion. The irony of the backlash against Obama is obviously the total disfunction of the Republicans in the House and Senate that spent years opposing anything - and literally everything - brought up by the President or the Democrats. Look at the voting record over the past 6-7 years. The notion that Obama may look to move on issues that have been bottlenecked for years in Congress, yet arguably have merit and support across the nation, well, that doesn't shock or alarm me. Obama has represented - fairly openly, during his entire tenure - a progressive stance in politics. A large segment of the country elected him president - two times around. He surely has the right - and responsibility - to stand on the issues that got him elected.

No worries, Obama will be gone in a blink of an eye and we'll all have something else to talk - mope - about. Cheers!

When has O had rational discourse? Obamacare passed with 0 Republican votes. He circumvents congress on a regular basis for major policies.

Is the discourse when he submits his absurd budget and the Republicans disagree with many parts of it and O refuses to change a thing so the government shuts down and then he complains that Reps hate old people and women and puppies.

Is the rational discourse when he allows the country to be set back 30 years on race relations over yellow journalism and lies about things like Ferguson?

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

12/14/2012 <<<
President Obama on Friday choked up during a statement in which he deplored the “heinous crime” that left 27 dead in a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

At least Clinton had the acting chops to produce tears on demand. O is not a good enough actor so he just wipes at his dry cheek and the media dutifully reports on the emperor's new tears.

 

[DBS1970]

I figure DBS, especially, will appreciate this.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-second-amendment-original-intent

Its from The New Yorker so...

 

[Omar10213245]

Glad to see President Obama make a stand and take executive action on tightening gun control. Gun violence has become an epidemic; it's spun out of control. Thus it's for the common good to take steps to reel it in. Thank you Mr. President, yet another step in cementing his legacy as one of our all-time great presidents. All sane citizens, including gun owners, should applaud this move. Those against it are on the fringes, like the rightwing nutjob terrorists up in Oregon and our very own raging lunatics here at SN.

 

[Tibs]

 

[Yinzerlyn]

That is shedding a tear and choking up?

I've chopped onions and gotten more teary-eyed than that.

Where is the tear? He's looking down....Big deal. And yes, I too have chopped onions and ended up looking like I just watched a horrifically sad movie. If that picture is choking up and tearing up, then I guess I missed the memo.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Sorry, I don't believe The Big O "honestly believes" in anything other than big government control over everything. He may care about the pain the parents are going through, but his ultimate goal is CONTROL. He doesn't care what it takes to achieve that goal and he is, absolutely, an opportunist in doing so,

IMO, if he was really that broken up about it, it'd be a lot more than a choke up with a few tears. But, I can tell you this to: If it were me, there would have been a lot of tears AND, at every press conference before that, I would have been shedding those tears, too. Was The Big O? I don't think so.

He didn't shed a single tear over Ft. Hood. Same with San Bernardino, and the marines killed in Chattanooga.

 

[Stewey]

Glad to see President Obama make a stand and take executive action on tightening gun control. Gun violence has become an epidemic; it's spun out of control. Thus it's for the common good to take steps to reel it in. Thank you Mr. President, yet another step in cementing his legacy as one of our all-time great presidents. All sane citizens, including gun owners, should applaud this move. Those against it are on the fringes, like the rightwing nutjob terrorists up in Oregon and our very own raging lunatics here at SN.

That was beautiful.

 

[SteelChip]

My pic of the day falls directly into the path of this discussion.......

and we can indeed cut gun violence and save a bunch of bailout money too, if we.....

 

[SteelerSask2]

I really don't know some of the subtle nuances of this thing. What I saw last night was him trying to get public support for a very simple piece of executive order legislation (because he can pass no legislation through regular channels). Now I do think that is problematic as it will create precedent for future presidents to do the same. He isn't pushing for registration or licensing of firearms. He freely admits the country is too divided for that. He wants to make it mandatory in all states to have a background check before purchase of a firearm. PERIOD.
As to the woman who was raped I thought he very subtly made two key arguments:
1. Yes the gun could have saved you from being raped, but it also could have escalated things and you might be dead.
2. A gun in the home of a parent used for protection (Unlocked, no trigger guards) is statistically more dangerous than the home invasion it is trying to protect.
The woman's answer was that she has one of those guns with a safety on it. Really, one of those guns with a safety on it. I've been around firearms my whole life. Every gun has a safety on it.

 

[Superman]

If there are 101 firearms per 100 people in this country, then how is it statistically more unsafe to have a gun? Seems to me that all these evil guns would be killing killing every gun owner out there.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

 

[Tibs]

Your opinions are ****

 

[SteelerSask2]

If there are 101 firearms per 100 people in this country, then how is it statistically more unsafe to have a gun? Seems to me that all these evil guns would be killing killing every gun owner out there.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I guess you would have to look at the Statistics of people who are actually saved from violent crime by wielding or using a gun and compare them to accidental shootings.

 

[DBS1970]

Why can't you grasp that it is just a small step towards eventual confiscation? An announced round up of people's fire arms would start a shooting war. Backing up on it is like boiling a frog. By the time the water boils the frog is already cooked.

 

[DBS1970]

I guess you would have to look at the Statistics of people who are actually saved from violent crime by wielding or using a gun and compare them to accidental shootings.

That information is out there if you look for it. Defensive gun uses far outstrip accidental shootings though.

 

[Tibs]

Why can't you grasp that it is just a small step towards eventual confiscation?.

Why can't you grasp that's an unfounded, paranoid right-wing conspiracy that's simply not going to happen?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Why can't you grasp that's an unfounded, paranoid right-wing conspiracy that's simply not going to happen?

It has happened before many times in history. It can happen again.

Your infinite trust in your Government is scary.

 

[SteelerSask2]

That information is out there if you look for it. Defensive gun uses far outstrip accidental shootings though.

So you can positively say that defensive gun uses by average citizens save their own life more frequently then accidental shootings occur. That is an impossible statistic. The accidental shooting is a for sure event. There is absolutely no way to say that the use of a firearm by a citizen in say the death of a perpetrator didn't simply escalate a bad situation. That is a useless statistic.