FMR CIA Chief on ‘Benghazi-Gate’: “The Democrats Are Very Good At Watching People Die”
Michael Scheuer: Mrs Clinton Has Blood on her Hands Everywhere
President Obama Speaks on Libya Attacks that killed US Ambassador(Chris Stevens)
CNN: Scheuer ‘Osama bin Laden died a success’
Ron Paul’s Secretary of State Michael Scheuer
Are We Arming Al-Qaeda?
Are we arming/helping Al Qaeda in Libya?- Michael Scheuer
Michael Scheuer: ‘US depended on tyrannies’
Michael Scheuer: The Decline of Al Qaeda?
Who Is Osama Bin Laden And Al-Qaeda? (Michael Scheuer, Former CIA)
World Affairs TODAY: Episode 10
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, discusses the U.S. pursuit of the al-Qaeda leader post 9/11 and prospects for catching him in the near future.
Former CIA Officer Michael Scheuer on the Economics of War with Iran
“Ultimately We Will Be Going To War With Iran If The Israelis Want Us To” Michael Scheuer
Michael Scheuer: Israel & Saudi Arabia Are Much More Dangerous Enemies To The US Than The Iran
Background Articles and Videos
WikiLeaks Reveals US Wanted to Keep Russia out of Libyan Oil
The Politics Behind the Latest Government Economic Report
US GDP grows 2% ahead of presidential election
GDP Rises 2% in 3rd Quarter, Consumer Spending Increases
3XSQ: U.S. GDP expands 2%
National Income and Product Accounts Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2012 (advance estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.
The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source
data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see box below). The
"second" estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29,
2012.
The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, and residential fixed
investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, and private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of
GDP, decreased.
The acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected an upturn in federal
government spending, a downturn in imports, an acceleration in PCE, a smaller decrease in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in residential fixed investment, and a smaller decrease in state and
local government spending that were partly offset by downturns in exports and in nonresidential fixed
investment.
____________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted
annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes
are differences between these published estimates. Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in
chained (2005) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related to this release.
____________
Final sales of computers added 0.17 percentage point to the third-quarter change in real GDP
after subtracting 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change. Motor vehicle output subtracted
0.47 percentage point from the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.20 percentage point to
the second-quarter change.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.7 percent in the second.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.3 percent in
the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the second.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.0 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.5 percent in the second. Durable goods increased 8.5 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 0.2 percent. Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6
percent. Services increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment decreased 1.3 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to an
increase of 3.6 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures decreased 4.4 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 0.6 percent. Equipment and software decreased less than 0.1 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 4.8 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 14.4 percent, compared with an
increase of 8.5 percent.
Real exports of goods and services decreased 1.6 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to an
increase of 5.3 percent in the second. Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.2 percent, in
contrast to an increase of 2.8 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6 percent
in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent in the second. National defense increased
13.0 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent. Nondefense increased 3.0 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 0.4 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 0.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.0 percent.
The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.12 percentage point from the third-quarter
change in real GDP after subtracting 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter change. Farm
inventories subtracted 0.42 percentage point from the third-quarter change after subtracting 0.17
percentage point from the second-quarter change. Nonfarm inventories added 0.30 percentage point to
the third-quarter change after subtracting 0.29 percentage point from the second-quarter change.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 2.1
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.7 percent in the second.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.0 percent in the
second.
Disposition of personal income
Current-dollar personal income increased $89.3 billion (2.7 percent) in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of $130.3 billion (4.0 percent) in the second.
Personal current taxes increased $13.2 billion in the third quarter, compared with an increase of
$20.2 billion in the second.
Disposable personal income increased $76.1 billion (2.6 percent) in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $110.0 billion (3.8 percent) in the second. Real disposable personal income
increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.1 percent.
Personal outlays increased $111.4 billion (4.0 percent) in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $57.4 billion (2.0 percent) in the second. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $445.0 billion in the third quarter, compared with $480.3 billion in the second.
The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was 3.7
percent in the third quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the second. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.0 percent, or $190.1 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $15,775.7 billion. In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $107.3 billion.
______________
BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that
is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key
Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis of
the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey
of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and
Their Major Components."
______________
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- November 29, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2012 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter (Preliminary Estimate)
* * *
Release Dates in 2013
2012: IV and 2012 annual 2013: I 2013: II 2013: III
Gross Domestic Product
Advance... January 30 April 26 July 31 October 30
Second... February 28 May 30 August 29 November 26
Third... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20
Corporate Profits
Preliminary... ........ May 30 August 29 November 26
Revised... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20
Comparisons of Revisions to GDP
Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.
Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.
The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.
Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]
Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign
____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2
Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0
________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5
Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2
Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0
NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Obama LIED About Benghazi Attack!!! (Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer Interview)
Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin suspects US Was Running Guns To Syrian Rebels Via Benghazi
2012.10.22 – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – Libya–The Real Story
GLEN BECK…… OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN !
Tempers Flare At Hearing On Benghazi Terror Attack Trey Gowdy Lou Dobbs
Trey Gowdy to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s emails
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: My sources tell me Obama was in the room watching Benghazi attack
GBR: Lies of the administration PART 1
GBR: Lies of the administration PART 2
GBTV: Charles Woods pt 1
GBTV: Charles Woods pt 2
Benghazi: The Truth Behind the Smokescreen
Treason Exposed! Obama Used Benghazi Attack to Cover Up Arms Shipments to Muslim Brotherhood
Benghazi Attack Cover Up! Obama Armed Al Qaeda?
Emails Reveal White House told of militant claim two hours after Benghazi, Libya attack ~ CBS
Libyan Emails Show: Obama Admin. Knew of Attack Immediately and Did Nothing (10/24/12)
Emails: Obama Admin Knew Libya Attack Was By Terror Group As It Happened!!
Emails Reveal: Obama Knew Benghazi Was Terror Attack 2 Hours After Attack
Obama Lies Regarding Sodomy Murder of Ambassador to Libya – No Protests – Now It’s Terrorism
Glenn Beck – Libya The Real Story
Glenn Beck Breaks Down: Obama’s ‘Lying’ on Libya in Fiery Segment
Glenn Beck explains how Obama is funneling weapons though Turkey
Glenn Beck exposes Obama resorting to lies in last debate.
NATO Arms Shipment FAIL – NATO caught sending tons of weapons to Al-QAEDA in Syria.
David Horowitz: Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood & ‘Rules for Revolution’
Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood (Part 1)
The Daily Charles – October 22, 2012
Fox News broadcast on 10/19/2012. Bret Baier hosts a special report detailing the events leading to the terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in which Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed on 9/11/2012.
Obama Likely Sent Susan Rice on Talk Shows to Lie, and Knew About Terrorist Attack on Day 1
It Was Never About A Video, It Was Never Spontaneous, This is Terror – Trey Gowdy on Benghazi
Death And Deceit In Benghazi – Did Obama Amind Try Hide The Truth? – W Bret Bair
Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 1 of 4
Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 2 of 4
Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 3 of 4
Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 4 of 4
Glenn Beck – What happened in Benghazi
Obama Benghazi cover-up unfolds
Background Articles and Videos
Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part1)
Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part2)
Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part3)
Admin. rejects new claim about Libya attack
By KIMBERLY DOZIER AP Intelligence Writer
“…Obama administration officials defended their response to the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, amid new claims that the White House failed to send help quickly enough as militants overran the mission. The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in the hourslong battle.
Fox News reported that security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound. Fox also reported that U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace.
In response to the report, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said the CIA “reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.”
She added: “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would “find out what happened” and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help.
“We’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but we’re also going to make sure we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks,” Obama said in an interview with Denver television station KUSA.
In the run-up to the presidential election, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of distorting the account of the attack on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Officials first blamed the attack on a mob set into motion by an anti-Islamic film, saying the mob had been infiltrated and overtaken by extremists. Officials later revised their account, describing the attack as a military-style operation that took place without a demonstration beforehand.
The new claims come as Republican senators demanded that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during and just after the attacks.
Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire wrote to the defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video from Sept. 11 and 12 be declassified. Pentagon and CIA officials declined to comment on the senators’ request. Justice Department officials did not respond to requests for comment. …”
New e-mails released today show that both the White House and State Department knew within 2 hours that an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group was behind the attack in Benghazi…but they lied about it anyway, blaming it on a stupid video for TWO WEEKS!
Why?
Frighteningly, it may be because Obama didn’t want anyone to know that he was using the Benghazi station to funnel arms to jihadists:
During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.
Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2012.
[…] The New York Times reported in July, 2012 that CIA officers were operating out of southern Turkey to help channel weapons to fighters supposedly not allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. In a October 14 piece, though, the Times asserted flatly that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups…” And while U.S. officials continue to stick to claims that they are not providing arms directly to the Syrian rebels, but only channeling weapons that come from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, reports that those rebels now have surface-to-air missiles call to mind the thousands of such weapons looted from Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the revolt that ousted him in October 2011.
Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador murdered in Libya, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials. …”
White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
By Mark Hosenball
“… Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.
U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.
Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.
MISSIVES FROM LIBYA
The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.
It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.
Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.
By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.
One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.” …”
Complete Third Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy 2012: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney Oct 22, 2012
Glenn Beck – Becoming presidential
Charles Krauthammer Tells Why Romney Won the 3rd Presidential Debate
Final Presidential Debate 2012: Mitt Romney Vs Barack Obama – Analysis – Oct 22, 2012
Debate 3: Romney’s economy-based reason for not being aggressive on Obama foreign policy (Limbaugh)
Background Articles and Videos
Fox News broadcast on 10/19/2012. Bret Baier hosts a special report detailing the events leading to the terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in which Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed on 9/11/2012.
Devaluation and debasement key to U.S., China currency wars
USG War on Iran: Hot or Cold, it’s All War
Iranians protest currency nosedive
Iranian rial on rebound against US dollar
Alex Exposes The Covert Financial War Against Iran
Background Articles and Videos
The currency war on Iran
A collapse in the rial, greeted with glee by some, is a cause not for celebration but for fear
Peter Beaumont
“…The continuing currency crisis in Iran, which has seen the rial go into freefall, has been cited, with some celebration in certain quarters, as proving that US-led sanctions are “working” against Tehran. Increasingly shut out from international banking and struggling to sell its oil, Iran has been forced to sell more cheaply while buying raw materials at a higher cash price. This, in turn, has led to currency speculation that the government has done nothing to halt, and to sharp devaluation.
But what does “sanctions are working” actually mean? Some hawks have read it as the possible beginning of the end for Iran’s nuclear programme and the collapse of the clerical regime. For others, including those anxious to avoid conflict over Iran, it has been seized on as a suggestion that the crisis might be resolved through negotiation and non-military pressure.
The reality is that the political, economic and social impact of sanctions can produce very different results from those allegedly desired, more often than not hurting ordinary people. And there is a third scenario, in which sanctions might actually make the confrontation with Iran more dangerous still.
The increasing popularity of economic sanctions, as Britain’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, has observed, is due to the perception that no other tool exists “between words and military action if you want to bring pressure upon a government”.
When three academics – Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey Scott and Kimberly Ann Elliott – examined the history of sanctions between 1914 and 1990, in Economic Sanctions Reconsidered they determined that out of 115 cases that they looked at, only a third had seen any measure of success. The US political scientist Robert Pape has challenged even this measure, claiming that of the 40, only five can be determined genuine successes for sanctions.
As Pape argued in his essay, Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work, “The … case that we should expect sanctions to be more effective in the future is also flawed, because it relies on the expectation that economic punishment can overwhelm a state’s commitment to its important policy goals.” Rather, he argues, at times of sanctions, the opposite is often true: “Pervasive nationalism often makes states and societies willing to endure considerable punishment rather than abandon what are seen as the interests of the nation.”
Even in cases where economic sanctions are generally considered to have had a positive impact – bringing about the end of white minority rule in South Africa and Rhodesia – there is disagreement over how decisive sanctions alone were in effecting that change. And if there is a disagreement over the efficacy of sanctions, what is also obvious is that they can come at a high price in terms of the impact on populations, and the risk that, far from undermining the legitimacy of regimes, they can entrench power – in a short term at least – around the regime elites being targeted. For Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which lived under a sanctions regime from August 1990 until 2003, that meant a sharp increase in childhood mortality for infants under five years old, even as Saddam’s regime used money earned from avoiding sanctions to reward supporters.
There is evidence too that states under sanctions have been able to use the cover provided by them to put the heaviest burden on unpopular groups and minorities.
But one thing should be clear to all from the experience of global recession, ensuing austerity programmes, and recent global disturbances prompted by high grain prices. While it is easy to predict that people may become angry as they feel rapidly poorer, in such times of febrile politics how they will react is far harder to predict.
So to those celebrating Iranian pain, be careful what you wish for in desiring a crisis. It was hyperinflation under a regime of reparations that contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Few foresaw then what might occur. And few, now, are considering what a sanctions-triggered economic crisis might really mean for Iran and the region. …”
“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.”
Proverbs 29:9
Chris Wallace: ‘Most Disrespectful Debate Performance In My Lifetime’
Brit Hume: Biden is a ‘Rude’, ‘Cranky Old Man’
VP Debate Reaction: Biden Smirk v. Ryan Sincerity, Who won?
Vice Presidential Debate short version – Joe Biden the Fool vs Paul Ryan the Statesmen
PART 1: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
PART 2: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
PART 3: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
PART 4: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
PART 5: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
PART 6: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
Joe Biden Says Obama Should be Impeached
12/2/2011 In Congress: Ron Paul Condemns Iran Sanctions Bill As Prelude To War
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy and Iran and War Preparation
“The Best of Joe Biden’s Gaffe’s; A Continuing Series…”
Doris Day – Fools Rush In
The Vice Presidential debate of 2012
By Michael Vass
“…On Oct 11, 2012 Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) will meet in a debate that will seek to either re-ignite support for the re-election of President Obama, or solidify the lead and likelihood of a win by Mitt Romney. That’s what both political parties are stating about their respective candidates, but a far more realistic view is that while it may be quite entertaining and informative, it has little direct impact on the election if history holds true.
Presidential elections are won and lost by the head of the ticket in most cases. The average American can’t remember what VP Al Gore or Dick Cheney said in a debate, or if President Ford had a Vice President at all (a bit of a trick question there). While the results of Biden vs. Ryan may blip the election polls, that will be eclipsed by any result from the 2nd Presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney. …”
Background Articles and Videos
Vice Presidential Debate 2012, Paul Ryan Vs Joe Biden; ‘This Week’ Roundtable Discussion
Describing “Shadow Government Statistics” — John Williams
Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8% on New Jobs Report
BREAKING: U.S. Adds 114,000 Jobs, Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8
October 5th 2012 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (September Jobs Report)
Today’s report includes a surprise drop in the unemployment rate-but it is statistically questionable. Payroll numbers continued modest improvement. The unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 7.8 percent, following a decline to 8.1 percent in August. Payroll jobs in September gained about as expected with a modest 114,000 increase, following an rise in August of 142,000 (originally up 96,000) and an increase of 181,000 in July (previous estimate of 141,000). The net revisions for July and August were up 86,000. Market expectations were for a 113,000 boost for September.
Private payrolls advanced 104,000 in September after increasing 97,000 the month before. The consensus projected a 130,000 increase.
Wage inflation has been volatile and the latest number was on the up side. Average hourly earnings growth improved to 0.3 percent in September, following no change in August. Analysts forecast a 0.2 percent rise. The average workweek nudged up to 34.5 hours in September from 34.4 hours in August. Expectations were for 34.4 hours.
Turning to the household survey, the unemployment rate drop reflected an 873,000 spike in household employment versus a 368,000 drop in August. The labor force rebounded 418,000 after a 368,000 decrease in August. The household survey is much smaller than the payroll survey and is more volatile
September Unemployment Falls to 7.8%
Jack Welch Hardball w/Chris Matthews 10/5/12
Jack Welch, the lionized former chairman of General Electric Co, provoked cries of outrage in Washington on Friday when he appeared to accuse the White House of manipulating September job figures for political gains.
White House officials dismissed as “ludicrous” a tweet Welch sent to his more than 1.3 million followers that suggested U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration rigged the data as a way of recovering from a poor Wednesday night showing in a debate against Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger for the White House.
“Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch said in a posting on Twitter, apparently referring to Obama, who formerly served as a senator from Illinois.
The tweet was repeated more than 2,000 times, with many mocking posts comparing Welch to New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump – who during his failed bid for the presidency loudly argued that Obama was not born in the United States – and Clint Eastwood, who gave a widely panned speech to an empty chair at the Republican National Convention in August.
Officials in Washington quickly dismissed the idea that the Labor Department report – which showed U.S. unemployment falling to a four-year low of 7.8 percent – could be rigged.
“That’s a ludicrous comment. No serious person believes that the bureau of labor statistics manipulates its statistics,” said Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. “The jobs report and all of their other statistics are prepared by career employees. They use the same process every month. They use the same process for Republican and Democratic administrations.”
The tweet was by no means Welch’s first criticism of Obama on his Twitter feed, where he has regularly spoken out in favor of Romney, as well as weighing in on sports. During the presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, on Wednesday night, Welch tweeted: “HOW can anyone vote for Obama after this performance..he has demonstrated his incompetence.”
Word of the Day: Unemployment (U3 and U6)
FACT CHECK: LABOR SECRETARY SOLIS MISLEADS ON JOBS REVISIONS
The AFL-CIO Reacts to the September BLS Jobs Report
Employment Level
142,974,000
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Employment Level
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
136559(1)
136598
136701
137270
136630
136940
136531
136662
136893
137088
137322
137614
2001
137778
137612
137783
137299
137092
136873
137071
136241
136846
136392
136238
136047
2002
135701
136438
136177
136126
136539
136415
136413
136705
137302
137008
136521
136426
2003
137417(1)
137482
137434
137633
137544
137790
137474
137549
137609
137984
138424
138411
2004
138472(1)
138542
138453
138680
138852
139174
139556
139573
139487
139732
140231
140125
2005
140245(1)
140385
140654
141254
141609
141714
142026
142434
142401
142548
142499
142752
2006
143150(1)
143457
143741
143761
144089
144353
144202
144625
144815
145314
145534
145970
2007
146028(1)
146057
146320
145586
145903
146063
145905
145682
146244
145946
146595
146273
2008
146397(1)
146157
146108
146130
145929
145738
145530
145196
145059
144792
144078
143328
2009
142187(1)
141660
140754
140654
140294
140003
139891
139458
138775
138401
138607
137968
2010
138500(1)
138665
138836
139306
139340
139137
139139
139338
139344
139072
138937
139220
2011
139330(1)
139551
139764
139628
139808
139385
139450
139754
140107
140297
140614
140790
2012
141637(1)
142065
142034
141865
142287
142415
142220
142101
142974
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Civilian Labor Force
155,063,000
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
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
142267(1)
142456
142434
142751
142388
142591
142278
142514
142518
142622
142962
143248
2001
143800
143701
143924
143569
143318
143357
143654
143284
143989
144086
144240
144305
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
155013
154645
155063
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.6%
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Labor Force Participation Rate
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
66.0
65.8
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.1
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.5
64.3
2011
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.2
64.1
64.0
64.1
64.1
64.1
64.0
64.0
2012
63.7
63.9
63.8
63.6
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
Unemployment Level
12,088,000
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
Unemployment Level
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
5708
5858
5733
5481
5758
5651
5747
5853
5625
5534
5639
5634
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
12794
12544
12088
Unemployment Rate U-3
7.8%
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2001
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.7
2002
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.0
2003
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
2004
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
2005
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
2006
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
2007
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
2008
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
2009
7.8
8.3
8.7
8.9
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.9
2010
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.8
9.4
2011
9.1
9.0
8.9
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.5
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.1
7.8
Unemployment Rate U-6
14.7%
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force
plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force
plus marg attached
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
2000
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
2001
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
2002
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
2003
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
2004
9.9
9.7
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.2
2005
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
9.0
8.7
8.7
8.6
2006
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.9
2007
8.4
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.8
2008
9.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.7
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.1
11.8
12.7
13.5
2009
14.2
15.1
15.7
15.8
16.4
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.8
17.2
17.1
17.1
2010
16.7
16.9
16.9
17.0
16.6
16.5
16.5
16.6
16.9
16.8
16.9
16.6
2011
16.1
15.9
15.7
15.9
15.8
16.2
16.1
16.2
16.4
16.0
15.6
15.2
2012
15.1
14.9
14.5
14.5
14.8
14.9
15.0
14.7
14.7
Background Articles and Videos
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-1981
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 5, 2012
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2012
The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing
but changed little in most other major industries.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September.
For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1
and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by
456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent),
adult women (7.0 percent), and whites (7.0 percent) declined over the month.
The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and
Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed. The jobless rate for Asians, at
4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), fell over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)
In September, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
decreased by 468,000 to 6.5 million. (See table A-11.)
The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks declined by 302,000 over
the month to 2.5 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for
27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1
percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because
their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)
In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012,
employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average
monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care
and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)
Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.
In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).
Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).
Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek edged up by
0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 7 cents to $23.58. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of
private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents
to $19.81. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
+141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
+142,000.
____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on
Friday, November 2, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmEmployment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category
Sept. 2011
July 2012
Aug. 2012
Sept. 2012
Change from: Aug. 2012- Sept. 2012
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
240,071
243,354
243,566
243,772
206
Civilian labor force
154,004
155,013
154,645
155,063
418
Participation rate
64.1
63.7
63.5
63.6
0.1
Employed
140,107
142,220
142,101
142,974
873
Employment-population ratio
58.4
58.4
58.3
58.7
0.4
Unemployed
13,897
12,794
12,544
12,088
-456
Unemployment rate
9.0
8.3
8.1
7.8
-0.3
Not in labor force
86,067
88,340
88,921
88,710
-211
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
9.0
8.3
8.1
7.8
-0.3
Adult men (20 years and over)
8.7
7.7
7.6
7.3
-0.3
Adult women (20 years and over)
8.1
7.5
7.3
7.0
-0.3
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
24.5
23.8
24.6
23.7
-0.9
White
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.0
-0.2
Black or African American
15.9
14.1
14.1
13.4
-0.7
Asian (not seasonally adjusted)
7.8
6.2
5.9
4.8
–
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.9
-0.3
Total, 25 years and over
7.7
6.9
6.8
6.6
-0.2
Less than a high school diploma
13.9
12.7
12.0
11.3
-0.7
High school graduates, no college
9.6
8.7
8.8
8.7
-0.1
Some college or associate degree
8.4
7.1
6.6
6.5
-0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
0.0
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
8,028
7,123
7,003
6,535
-468
Job leavers
972
878
942
957
15
Reentrants
3,484
3,380
3,318
3,306
-12
New entrants
1,323
1,311
1,277
1,247
-30
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,743
2,711
2,844
2,542
-302
5 to 14 weeks
2,902
3,092
2,868
2,826
-42
15 to 26 weeks
2,029
1,760
1,845
1,860
15
27 weeks and over
6,197
5,185
5,033
4,844
-189
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
9,270
8,246
8,031
8,613
582
Slack work or business conditions
5,900
5,342
5,217
5,523
306
Could only find part-time work
2,844
2,576
2,507
2,572
65
Part time for noneconomic reasons
18,329
18,866
18,996
18,736
-260
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
2,511
2,529
2,561
2,517
–
Discouraged workers
1,037
852
844
802
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
ESTABLISHMENT DATA Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary
Recovery 2020! We’re Barely on Pace to Close the Jobs Gap This Decade
“…At this rate, we’ll close the jobs gap in roughly … eight years.
Eight years!?
Yep, that is the conclusion from Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney at the Hamilton Project. Today the country faces a 11 million-person jobs gap. This “jobs gap” represents the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to return to pre-recession employment rates while also (this part is key!) absorbing everybody joining the labor force.
It’s not just enough to make jobs for everybody seeking work this year. We also have to account for the millions of people joining the workforce over the next decade. Filling the jobs gap is like filling a bucket that gets deeper every minute. How much deeper? Greenstone and Looney balance an influx of immigrant workers against the retirement of the baby boomers and conclude that labor force is likely to expand at a slowing pace. Before the Great Recession, it was growing at about 130,000 people per month. In the next few years, it will slow to 90,000 a month, they project. …”
CBS: “This Is The Worst Economic Recovery America Has Ever Had”
Vice Chairman Brady Questions BLS Commissioner at JEC Hearing on the Employment Situation
At a Joint Economic Committee Hearing on the Employment Situation, Representative Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, questions Witness Dr. Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics about the effect of government spending on private sector job growth.
Vice Chairman Brady Questions Commissioner Hall about Labor Force Participation Rate at JEC Hearing
Background Articles and Videos
Rep. Brady Questions BLS Commissioner on the Need for Private Sector Job Growth
Rep. Brady questions BLS Commissioner Hall on the jump in the April unemployment rate at JEC hearing
Bar Chart Data Source: Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) published by the U. S. Treasury Department. WE DON’T MAKE THIS UP! IT COMES FROM THE U. S. GOVERNMENT! NO ADJUSTMENTS.
The MTS published in October of each year contains the total “actuals” for the FY just ended. The MTS covering through September 2011 was released on 14 October 2011, so this chart shows Actuals for FY2011.
Normally the chart also shows the proposed budget line for the next fiscal year, but there is no U. S. budget for FY2013 (wasn’t one for 2011 or 2012 either). The Federal Budget is a responsibility spelled out in the U. S. Constitution. The Senate is breaking the law! The Senate has a leader.
As part of the “War Supplement Bill for FY2011“, The House of Representatives “deemed” the 2011 Budget, and the Senate completely discarded the Presidential Budget Proposal. So there was no Federal Budget for FY2011.
Similarly, the President submitted a budget for FY2012, but Senator Reid tossed it, and would not let Congress vote on it. The House of Representatives also sent a 2012 budget proposal to the Senate. Same result. There is no U.S. Federal Budget for FY2012.
For 2013, not only did the Senate reject the President’s proposed budget and the House proposed budget, it even rejected its own Senate Budget Committee proposal. There is no budget for FY2013.
The U. S. Constitution is our Supreme Law. It requires a Federal Budget. Here it is for you to read. It’s a short, smart document! Don’t let Congress fool you.
Instead of a budget, we have a series of “continuing resolutions”, allowing Congress to continue spending without the guidelines of a budget.
The Congressional Budget Office reported on the Federal Debt and the Risk of a Financial Crisis in this report on the 2011 non-budget. and it was updated in May 2012.
On 4 October 2011, a Congressional Panel Hearing suggested that Congress skip the entire budget process.
– – – – – – –
NDAC studies the Budget Proposals submitted to Congress each year by the President of the United States. One of the documents that goes along with the Budget Proposal, “Historical Tables“, is published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our analysis is discussed on the home page of this web site.
Just for clarification: “entitlement” expenditures are handled by several federal agencies, not just Health and Human Services. Agriculture Department administers “food stamps”, HUD is all welfare.
Some suggest “tax the rich to make up the deficit”. The total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. Forget the Buffet Rule, we could just take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn’t dent our national debt. It wouldn’t even pay this year deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year’s deficit, what would we do next year? We’ve already spent too much. Here’s a videoto explain better.
“…According to the U.S. Treasury, the debt of the U.S. government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which ended yesterday.
That means the federal government borrowed approximately an additional $10,855 for each household in the United States just over the past twelve months.
The total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per household.
In fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401 less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.
The $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about $47.18 billion more than $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2011.
The federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.
At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the U.S. government was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury. At the close of business on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal 2012, it was $16,066,241,407,385.89
That meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by $1,275,901,078,828.74.
At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt ahd stood at $13,561,623,030,891.79. Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept. 30, 2011.
The fiscal 2012 increase of $1,275,901,078,828.74 exceeded the fiscal 2011 increase $1,228,717,297,665.36 by $47,183,781,163.38. …”
Debt held by the public includes Treasury securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by individuals, corporations, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments.
Debt held by government accounts or intragovernmental debt includes non-marketable Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government that are owed to program beneficiaries, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Debt held by government accounts represents the cumulative surpluses, including interest earnings, of these accounts that have been invested in Treasury securities.
Public debt increases or decreases as a result of the annual unified budget deficit or surplus.[2] The federal government budget deficit or surplus is the difference between government receipts and spending, ignoring intra-governmental transfers. However, some spending that is excluded from the deficit (supplemental appropriations) also adds to the debt.
Historically, the US has incurred debt during wars and recessions, but then debt subsequently declined afterwards. For example, debt held by the public as a share of GDP peaked just after World War II (113% of GDP in 1945), but then fell over the next 30 years. In recent decades however, large budget deficits and the resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the long-term sustainability of the federal government’s fiscal policies.[3]
At the beginning of September 2012, debt held by the public was approximately $11.27 trillion or about 72% of GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $4.74 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.02 trillion[4][5][6] As of July 2012, $5.3 trillion or approximately 48% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.[7]
You must be logged in to post a comment.