Archive for November, 2013

Hostile Government Takeover of Health Care Sector Continues — Fight Back Do Not Enroll — Repeal Obamacare Now (ROT) — ROT NOW! — Videos

Posted on November 30, 2013. Filed under: American History, Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Catholic Church, Chemistry, College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Systems, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

shop_health_insurance

Healthcare.gov finally ready for prime-time?

Obamacare Delay – Critics – THE BIG QUESTION: Is Obama A President Or A King? – The Kelly File

ObamaCare: Three Years of Broken Promises

Henry Chao: 30-40% of HealthCare.gov Still Needs To Be Built

DHS Cannot Provide Answers Regarding the Security of Healthcare.gov

Obamacare Website Healthcare.gov Crashes During Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Visit

Pelosi taken apart by David Gregory on false Obamacare promises

Dennis Miller-special Nancy Pelosi

11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. I

11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. 2

11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. 3

Megyn Kelly Outraged Obama Lied about Americans being able to keep coverage, shows proof

Megyn Kelly Interviews Charles Krauthammer on Obamacare Outrage – Kelly File – 10/30/13

More Than a Website

Health Site Is Improving But Likely to Miss Saturday Deadline

By

Louise Radnofsky and Spencer E. Ante

Despite recent progress at HealthCare.gov, a raft of problems will remain beyond the Obama administration’s Saturday deadline to make the troubled federal insurance website work.

The news isn’t all bad: Users say the site looks better, pages load faster, and more people are getting through to sign up for health plans.

But technical problems still affect HealthCare.gov’s ability to verify users’ identities and transmit accurate enrollment data to insurers, officials say. The data center that supports the site faces continuing challenges, and tools for processing payments to insurers haven’t been built.

Technical staff in Washington have been racing up to the end-of-November deadline. In their last public pronouncement on the effort, three days before the deadline, officials said they had much to do to get the site into a condition where it functions smoothly for a majority of users.

The success of the White House’s signature domestic initiative is riding on the technicians’ ability to fix the site, as well as the rest of the federal technology supporting enrollment. Across the nation, that effort is being eyed hopefully by supporters of the law, since the site is the centerpiece of the effort to overhaul American health care and extend coverage to millions of people.

Those hopes were deflated by a series of blows for the administration right up until Nov. 30, and the site continued to experience outages, both planned and unplanned, in the week leading up to the deadline.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the administration was planning to change its Web-hosting provider from Verizon Communications Inc. VZ -0.62% Verizon Communications Inc. U.S.: NYSE $49.62 -0.31 -0.62% Nov. 29, 2013 1:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 4.30M AFTER HOURS $49.79 +0.17 +0.34% Nov. 29, 2013 4:42 pm Volume (Delayed 15m): 611,247 P/E Ratio 65.29 Market Cap $141.91 Billion Dividend Yield 4.27% Rev. per Employee $651,745 11/27/13 H-P Will Replace Verizon for W… 11/20/13 Investors Tell AT&T, Verizon t… 11/18/13 Supreme Court Declines to Hear… More quote details and news » VZ in Your Value Your Change Short position subsidiary Terremark to Hewlett-Packard Co. in the spring, a complex transition that could introduce new challenges and take months; and the same day, the administration said it was shelving for a year any attempts to operate an online exchange for small businesses. On Wednesday, Verizon declined to comment on its clients.

Officials mixed optimism with caution. “November 30th does not represent a relaunch of HealthCare.gov,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which operates the site. “It is not a magical date. There will be times after November 30th when the site, like any website, does not perform optimally.”

Find Your State’s Health-Insurance Exchange

For the fix-it drive that began in late October, the administration tapped former White House adviser Jeff Zients and QSSI, a unit of UnitedHealth Group, to act as the new lead contractor, establishing a 24-hour “war room” operations center to coordinate contractors who previously weren’t working well together. Since then, officials have focused on fixing the kinds of wrinkles that were most obvious to users.

They have reported success in speeding up the response time of the system, lowering it from an average of eight seconds at launch to less than one second for most users. They say they have eliminated a host of glitches in the software so that pages now load incorrectly less than 1% of the time. And they say they have added “visual cues” to help users navigate the system more easily.

Technicians have been racing to add new computer server, storage and database capacity to the website, hoping to get the site ready to withstand 50,000 simultaneous users by Sunday, as was originally intended, said people familiar with the work. “I think we are close,” said one.

Some people involved with enrollment say they have seen a notable uptick in recent weeks. Maine Community Health Options, a nonprofit plan based in Lewiston, Maine, now is getting “hundreds of enrollments” a day, rather than the dozens it saw trickling in earlier this month, said Chief Executive Kevin Lewis.

But problems with the performance of the site’s databases, storage and servers and their interaction with each other continue to slow the site or make it unavailable for short periods, according to government officials and contractors working on the project.

Explore how America’s health-care overhaul will affect you on this first-person adventure. CLICK THE IMAGE to start interactive experience.

Karen Egozi, CEO of the Epilepsy Foundation of Florida, which has trained nearly 50 people to help others enroll, said the performance of the website has improved in recent weeks but suffers from unpredictable glitches. On Nov. 19, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius visited a medical center in Miami and watched a member of Ms. Egozi’s staff help a couple fill out an application. The website failed, in front of a local TV camera crew.

On the weekend of Nov. 23 and 24, Ms. Egozi said her navigators were able to sign up a few people. But on Nov. 25, she said the site was down for a little while. “Sometimes, similar to when the secretary was here, the site does not let us through to the next section,” she said. “It was not working today, but yesterday it worked well.”

One source of early problems: The government had bought web-hosting services from Terremark subsidiary that initially gave it a highly virtualized system of servers shared by other groups within the Medicare center, rather than a dedicated group of computer servers for HealthCare.gov. Plans are in place to replace the Verizon unit with H-P this spring.

HHS also didn’t initially contract for a backup website or monitoring tools like those used by sophisticated consumer sites, according to people familiar with the matter.

The website still has no separate backup copy, but it did replace the virtual database with dedicated hardware, and bought and installed monitoring software.

Meanwhile, the site has a backlog of users who encountered problems in its first weeks of operation. Some appear to be locked out from the early stages unless they can get their account deleted. Others are stuck at the next big stage, persuading the federal government of their identity and their income so their application for tax credits can be processed. 

Yannette Castellano waits to talk to a navigator about health-care options available under the Affordable Care Act, at the North Shore Medical Center, on Nov. 19 in Miami. AP

Guy Dicharry of Los Lunas, N.M., said he had been in limbo at the identity-verification stage since Oct. 5, despite giving the site personal information several times so it can confirm his income. He hasn’t heard back about a paper application submitted Nov. 1.

“This has been botched and is not getting fixed. If it’s not fixed, I’ll be ringing in 2014 as a newly uninsured person. I suspect that is the opposite of what the ACA was supposed to achieve,” said Mr. Dicharry, who described himself as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act. Because of their age and income, Mr. Dicharry and his wife stand to gain valuable subsidies toward the cost of coverage, but only if he buys it through the website.

Ronald Gallagher of Paradise Valley, Ariz., said he had been helping his daughter shop for coverage. After 16 hours over four days starting Oct. 1, they were told her identity was verified and she could pick a plan. But when they logged in to the website, it said her application was “In Progress.”

After failing to get help from a call center, father and daughter filled out an application over the phone in early November, but they still haven’t received a letter telling what insurance plans she qualifies for. “So far, nothing the government has done has worked,” Mr. Gallagher said.

Even when people successfully enroll, insurers say they sometimes get incorrect data. Ms. Bataille, the government spokeswoman, said officials have seen “marked improvements” in the information transmitted to insurers but “we know there are still issues that remain.” An HHS official also said that there had been improvements in identity verification, but that the agency knew it wasn’t fully fixed.

Mr. Lewis of Maine Community Health Options also worried about a larger volume of applicants, especially since insurers have now been told to find ways to process applications that come in from people as late as Dec. 23 in time for their coverage to begin Jan. 1, rather than a previous Dec. 15 deadline.

If “there’s an avalanche on that last date, I don’t know if the system will be able to support all that,” he said.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303332904579228413800602836

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pope Francis Attacks Unfettered Capitalism in Apostolic Exhortation or “The Joy of the Gospel” — Instead of Out of Control Government Spending and Government Failures — Videos

Posted on November 27, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Catholic Church, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Language, Law, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-176

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 1: Pope Francis Attacks Unfettered Capitalism in Apostolic Exhortation or “The Joy of the Gospel” — Instead of Out of Control Government Spending  and Government Failures — Videos

‘This Week’: Pope Francis’ Economic Critique

Pope Francis on the joy of the Gospel

RCE: Sort out your financial empire – other topics addressed – glass house attitude !!!

Pope Francis unveils new vision for Catholics

Pope Francis: Unfettered Capitalism Is Tyranny

Pope Francis Goes Off On Capitalism

Is Pope Francis Anti Capitalism

Pope Francis Calls Unfettered Capitalism ‘Tyranny’

November 26, 2013

by Joshua Holland

Earlier this month, Laurie Goodstein reported forThe New York Times that Pope Francis’ softer rhetoric on hot-button social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage were causing conservative Catholics no small amount of chagrin.

It looks like they can expect more cognitive dissonance, according to this report in The Guardian

Pope Francis has attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny”, urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality in the first major work he has authored alone as pontiff.

The 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official platform for his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks since he became the first non-European pontiff in 1,300 years in March.

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the “idolatry of money” and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens “dignified work, education and healthcare”.

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills,” Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

In a sense, the new pope is just grappling with the reality he faces. Polls show that American Catholics, at least, agree with the pontiff’s position that the church focuses too much on social issues. And Francis recently commissioned a survey of Catholics around the world to see where they fall on these questions.

Meanwhile, Dominic Barton, the Managing Director of McKinsey & Co., writes in today’s Wall Street Journal: ”In 2012, the top 1% of earners in the US collected 19.3% of the country’s total household income–an all-time high… The disparity is growing rapidly as well. Incomes of the top 1% grew by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, compared to just 0.4% for the remaining 99%.”

http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/26/pope-francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny/

Pope Francis’ new document, Evangelii Gaudium: 9 things to know and share

BY JIMMY AKIN

Pope Francis has just released a new document titled Evangelii Gaudium.

It is his first apostolic exhortation, and it is devoted to the theme of the new evangelization.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

1) What does “Evangelii Gaudium” mean?

It’s Latin for “The Joy of the Gospel.”

2) What is an apostolic exhortation?

It’s a papal document that, as the name suggests, exhorts people to implement a particular aspect of the Church’s life and teaching.

Its purpose is not to teach new doctrine, but to suggest how Church teachings and practices can be profitably applied today.

Some apostolic exhortations are devoted to the pastoral challenges faced in particular parts of the world (Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas). Others are devoted to particular themes.

Previous apostolic exhortations include:

  • Paul VI’s Evangelii Nuntiandi (on evangelization today)
  • John Paul II’s Christifideles Laici (on the role of the laity)
  • John Paul II’s Redemptoris Custos (on St. Joseph)
  • Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis (on the Eucharist)
  • Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini (on the Word of God)

3) How much authority does an apostolic exhortation have?

It is one of the more important papal documents—more important, for example, than a Wednesday audience or a homily.

As it is of a pastoral nature rather than a doctrinal or legal nature, though, it is ranked lower than an encyclical or an apostolic constitution.

As with everything official that the pope writes, it is to be taken very seriously.

4) What leads a pope to write an apostolic exhortation?

Frequently, apostolic exhortations are written after a meeting of the Synod of Bishops.

The Synod of Bishops is a group that gathers selected bishops from across the world to discuss a particular subject.

At the synod, the bishops write a document making recommendations for the pope. It is then given to him for his reflection, and he may then write an apostolic exhortation based on the bishops’ recommendations.

Exhortations that come about in this way are called “post-synodal” apostolic exhortations because they are written after (“post-”) a meeting of the synod.

There does not have to be such an exhortation. Sometimes they hold a meeting of the synod of bishops, but no apostolic exhortation is released.

Also, not all apostolic exhortations are written after a synod, though. Sometimes the pope may decide to write one on his own, without a synod being held on the subject. This was the case with John Paul II’s Redemptoris Custos.

5) Why did Pope Francis write Evangelii Gaudium?

It was written in response to the most recent meeting of the Synod of Bishops, which took place in October, 2012.

It was devoted to the subject of the new evangelization, so that is the subject of Evangelii Gaudium.

This synod took place before Pope Francis was elected in March 2013.

It sometimes happens that a synod is held and the pope who presided over it leaves office before the exhortation is released. His successor may then choose to go forward with the project.

For example, the 2005 synod on the Eucharist was held under John Paul II, but he had passed on before an exhortation was released. Benedict XVI then took the document that the bishops had prepared and had an exhortation written.

(Usually, the pope does not draft the document himself, but it is drafted based on his decisions, and he has final approval over what it says.)

Pope Francis’s decision in this case is similar to his decision to release the encyclical Lumen Fidei, which was primarily drafted by Pope Benedict, but which he completed.

Unlike that case, though, Pope Francis contributed much, much more to this document.

With Lumen Fidei, he did not add very much to what Pope Benedict had written. Evangelii Gaudium, by contrast, is much more a “Francis document.” It regularly emphasizes the distinctive thought and themes of the new pope.

6) What is Pope Francis’ main message in Evangelii Gaudium?

As suggested by the name, the principal theme involves the need for a joyful proclamation of the Gospel to the entire world.

Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who presented the document at a Vatican press conference, summarized its main message this way:

If we were to sum up Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium in a few words, we could say that it is an Apostolic Exhortation written around the theme of Christian joy in order that the Church may rediscover the original source of evangelization in the contemporary world.

Pope Francis offers this document to the Church as a map and guide to her pastoral mission in the near future.

It is an invitation to recover a prophetic and positive vision of reality without ignoring the current challenges.

Pope Francis instills courage and urges us to look ahead despite the present crisis, making the cross and the resurrection of Christ once again our “the victory banner” (source).

7) What particularly noteworthy things does the pope have to say in the document?

There is a mountain of them.

The document is 51,000 words long, which means that it is the length of a novel and takes at least 5 hours to read.

There are numerous important things that the pope says, some of which I will endeavor to unpack in future blog posts.

However, Archbishop Fisichella offers a summary of seven main themes that it covers:

The following seven points, gathered together in the five chapters of the Exhortation, constitute the fundamental pillars of Pope Francis’ vision of the new evangelization:

1.     the reform of the Church in a missionary key,

2.     the temptations of pastoral agents,

3.     the Church understood as the totality of the People of God which evangelizes,

4.     the homily and its preparation,

5.     the social inclusion of the poor,

6.     peace and social dialogue,

7.     and the spiritual motivations for the Church’s missionary action.

The cement which binds these themes together is concentrated in the merciful love of God which goes forth to meet every person in order to manifest the heart of his revelation: The life of every person acquires meaning in the encounter with Jesus Christ and in the joy of sharing this experience of love with others.

YOU CAN READ THE FULL DOCUMENT HERE.

8) Can you give a specific example of something notable he says?

Sure. It’s hard to pick just one!

Pro-lifers will be heartened to read what he has to say concerning unborn children and abortion:

213. Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us.

Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.

Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative.

Yet this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right.

It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.

Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems.

Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.

Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”.

214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question.

I want to be completely honest in this regard.

This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”.

It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.

On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty.

Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?

9) Is there an extra significance to the document?

It will take time to fully process the significance of the document, but one this is immediately clear: This document is not something that Pope Francis delegated to others and allowed to be written on auto-pilot. It contains far too much of his own thought and themes for that.

This means that Pope Francis was closely involved in the writing of this document, and that shows that he cares—powerfully—about the theme of evangelization.

This demolishes the wrongheaded claims that Pope Francis doesn’t take the task of evangelization seriously.

On the contrary, it’s one of the highest priorities of his pontificate.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-new-document-evangelii-gaudium-9-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz2lszGOH94

‘Not to share wealth with poor is to steal’: Pope slams capitalism as ‘new tyranny’

Pope Francis has taken aim at capitalism as “a new tyranny” and is urging world leaders to step up their efforts against poverty and inequality, saying “thou shall not kill” the economy. Francis calls on rich people to share their wealth.

The existing financial system that fuels the unequal distribution of wealth and violence must be changed, the Pope warned.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?” Pope Francis asked an audience at the Vatican.

The global economic crisis, which has gripped much of Europe and America, has the Pope asking how countries can function, or realize their full economic potential, if they are weighed down by the debts of capitalism.

“A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules,” the 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, said.

“To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits”, the pope’s document says.

He goes on to explain that in this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which has become the only rule we live by.

Shameful wealth

Inequality between the rich and the poor has reached a new threshold, and in his apostolic exhortation to mark the end of the “Year of Faith”, Pope Francis asks for better politicians to heal the scars capitalism made on society.

“Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills,” Francis wrote in the document issued Tuesday.

His calls to service go beyond general good Samaritan deeds, as he asks his followers for action“beyond a simple welfare mentality”.

“I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor,” Francis wrote.

A recent IRS report shows that the wealth of the US’s richest 1 percent has grown by 31 percent, while the rest of the population experienced an income rise of only 1 percent.

The most recent Oxfam data shows that up to 146 million Europeans are at risk of falling into poverty by 2025 and 50 million Americans are currently suffering from severe financial hardship.

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,” he wrote.

Named after the medieval saint who chose a life of poverty, Pope Francis has gone beyond general calls for fair work, education, and healthcare.

Newly-elected Pope Francis has stepped up the fight against corrupt capitalism that has hit close to home – he was the first Pope to go after the Vatican bank and openly accused it of fraud and shady offshore tax haven deals.

In October, Pope Francis removed Vatican bank head Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, after revelations of alleged mafia money laundering and financial impropriety.

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 176, November 26, 2013, Segment 0: Obamacare Success Story? Millions More Enrolled in Medicaid and Food Stamps — Government Dependency On The Rise — 30 Million Seeking Full Time Jobs — Wonder What Failure Looks Like? — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obamacare Success Story? Millions More Enrolled in Medicaid and Food Stamps — Government Dependency On The Rise — 30 Million Seeking Full Time Jobs — Wonder What Failure Looks Like? — Videos

Posted on November 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-176

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Obamacare Success Story? Millions More Enrolled in Medicaid and Food Stamps — Government Dependency On The Rise — 30 Million Seeking Full Time Jobs — Wonder What Failure Looks Like?

2013_US_poverty_linepoverty-guidelines-2013

US-Poverty-Rate

How Medicaid & Obamacare Hurt the Poor – and How to Fix Them

Medicaid Sign Ups Outnumber People Enrolling In Paid For Obamacare Plans Lou Dobbs

CBS: ObamaCare System Threatened From High Medicaid Enrollment In Many States

Obamacare: Medicaid enrollment outpacing private insurance could ca

Stimulus, Obamacare & The New Republic: May 2013 Reason Mag

Your Doctor Is Not In? ObamaCare may put your doctor out of business.

83% of Private Practice Doctors Quiting Due to Obamacare Main Stream Media Keeping Quiet

Obamacare Has Always Been About Killing Grandma & Grandpa

Government Payouts – Nick Gillespie

ObamaCare Event In Arkansas Hands Out Condoms As Prizes

[youtube3=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5AbKY4ZSY]

Is There a Silver Lining to the Supreme Court’s Obamacare Decision?

The History of Medicaid (According to Frank Thompson)

47 Years of Medicare & Medicaid

Heritage Hangout: Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion

Why new Medicaid enrollment is soaring

Christine Vestal

States are reporting far higher enrollment in Medicaid than in private insurance since the Affordable Care Act exchanges opened Oct. 1. In Maryland, for example, the number of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees is more than 25 times the number of people signed up for private coverage.

Even some Medicaid experts say they are surprised at the early numbers.

Stateline survey of the 25 expansion states and the District of Columbia provides clear explanations for the strong Medicaid rollout so far.

The biggest reason for the initial jump in Medicaid enrollment is that hundreds of thousands of people in the expansion states have been pre-qualified for expanded Medicaid because they are already enrolled in low-income state health care. Illinois, for example, will roll over 100,000 Cook County residents who have received expanded Medicaid benefits since 2011.

Another reason for the big numbers is aggressive outreach campaigns in many states, including mailings to residents enrolled in other safety net programs. Oregon, for example, signed up 70,000 enrollees in October by contacting residents who receive food stamps.

A much smaller number of people in expansion states are also signing up on state exchanges and Medicaid websites. The federal government has not yet released the number of Medicaid applications filed on federally-operated exchange sites in the 34 states that are not running their own exchanges.

To be sure, the rush to enroll in Medicaid indicates a strong demand for health care coverage. But the early spike is more a function of states’ proven ability to find, educate and enroll low-income residents than an indication of an imbalance with healthier people who can afford insurance, as has been suggested.

It is important to note that early enrollment numbers reflect so-called “low hanging fruit,” said Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. Future increases are expected to be smaller.

The states that chose to expand Medicaid, Salo said, are predisposed to aggressively reach out to potential beneficiaries. “Most have been more committed to Medicaid than the other states,” he said.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Medicaid expansion was up to states, the Congressional Budget Office downgraded its original projection that 13 million people would qualify for expanded Medicaid in 2014 and 17 million by 2020. Now, the federal estimate is 7 million by the end of 2014 and 11 million by 2020.

Stateline‘s survey indicates at least 1.5 million people have already signed up or have been pre-qualified for expanded Medicaid in the 19 states that provided counts. Expected total enrollment in those states is 3.7 million.

Following are the details available as of Nov. 5:

Arizona: The number of new applications is not available at this time. In total, Arizona expects 57,000 people to qualify for its expanded Medicaid program. In addition, the state expects 240,000 more individuals to enroll in its existing Medicaid program for childless adults with incomes at or below the federal poverty level ($11,490). Enrollment in that program was frozen in 2012 and currently totals 70,000.

Arkansas: Arkansas has received 70,595 applications for its expanded Medicaid program. Of those, 3,672 came through the state’s existing Medicaid website, 1,785 were paper or phone applications, and the rest were positive responses to a mailing to 132,000 households that receive food stamps. Ultimately, the state expects about 250,000 uninsured residents to qualify.

California: California plans to release enrollment numbers from its state-run website in mid-November. Newly eligible enrollment in expanded Medicaid is expected to total about 1.4 million. Of that number, 600,000 people will come from the state’s early expansion program approved by the federal government in 2011.

Colorado: Colorado has qualified more than 25,000 adults for its expanded Medicaid program. Of that number, approximately 9,000 were on a waiting list for an existing Medicaid program that covers adults with extremely low incomes. Another 10,000 people enrolled in that program will also be transferred to expanded Medicaid coverage in January. Combined, that comes to 35,000 individuals, more than 20 percent of the 160,000 uninsured residents Colorado expects to be eligible for its expanded Medicaid program.

Connecticut: Connecticut has enrolled 3,550 new people in its expanded Medicaid program through its state-run exchange and Medicaid website. In addition, at least 48,000 enrolled in a state-run low income-health program have already been moved into expanded Medicaid. Connecticut expects a total of 55,000 expanded Medicaid enrollees in 2014.

Delaware: No new enrollment data is available yet. Delaware already provides Medicaid coverage for 30,000 adults with incomes up to the federal poverty level ($11,490). Its expanded Medicaid program is expected to cover another 30,000 people with incomes between $11,490 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,856).

District of Columbia: D.C. began expanding its Medicaid program in June 2010. By June 2013, nearly 50,000 new people were enrolled. The District has not estimated how many people will ultimately enroll in expanded Medicaid.

Hawaii: Hawaii has approved 6,100 applications for expanded Medicaid. By 2014, the state expects a total of 54,000 enrollees.

Illinois: The Illinois Medicaid agency has received 30,124 applications for expanded Medicaid through its existing website. Illinois has an exchange partnership with the federal government so applications are also being filed on the federally-run exchange. In addition to online applications, 46,000 people responded to an August mailing to 123,000 food stamp recipients. Illinois has enrolled 26,000 of those respondents and is processing the balance. In addition, 100,000 people in Cook County who participate in a limited early Medicaid expansion enrollment group will automatically be rolled over to the expansion program on Jan. 1. Projected enrollment is 342,000.

Iowa: No new numbers are available on Medicaid applications. In all, 150,000 uninsured Iowans are expected to qualify under the proposed expansion. About 63,000 residents with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($22,980) are currently enrolled in a Medicaid health plan with limited benefits. Most are expected to qualify for expanded Medicaid. Iowa has not yet received federal approval for its Medicaid expansion plan, which is similar to Arkansas’ so-called private option.

Kentucky: Kentucky has received 25,654 applications for expanded Medicaid through its state-run exchange. Ultimately, the state expects 308,000 low-income individuals to qualify.

Maryland: The number of applications from its state-run website is not yet available. However, Maryland has an existing, limited-benefit health plan known as Primary Adult Care (PAC) available to all adults with incomes up to 123 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,133). As of Sept. 30, enrollment in the plan was 82,423. Maryland expects enrollment in PAC to expand to 88,000 by Jan. 1, 2014, when the entire population will automatically convert to full Medicaid benefits. In addition, residents in a narrow income band (124 percent to 138 percent of poverty) can sign up for expanded Medicaid on the state exchange. Overall, Maryland expects 110,000 people to be enrolled by the end of 2014.

Massachusetts: No enrollment numbers are available at this time. As a result of its own health care reforms launched in 2006, Massachusetts has a 97 percent insured rate. Still, the state expects about 45,000 people to obtain Medicaid coverage as a result of the expansion.

Michigan: No enrollment numbers are available. The Michigan legislature approved Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed Medicaid expansion in September but postponed implementation until April 2014.

Minnesota: The federal government granted Minnesota special permission to enroll 84,000 individuals in the expanded Medicaid program in 2011. Another 2,496 newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries completed applications on the state-run exchange in the first two weeks of October. Ultimately, Minnesota expects to cover 265,000 adults in its expansion. In addition, it is the only state that has opted to provide a so-called “Basic Health Plan” for people with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($22,980). Under the ACA, the federal government will pay 85 percent of the costs starting in 2015. That program is expected to grow to 160,000.

Nevada: No information is available at this time.

New Jersey: No information is available at this time.

New Mexico: New Mexico has approved 2,507 applications for expanded Medicaid through the federally operated exchange and its existing Medicaid website. In addition, 100,000 enrollees in two limited-benefit state health care programs will be rolled into the expanded Medicaid. New Mexico expects 130,000 people will be in the expanded program by 2015.

New York: No enrollment numbers are available yet. New York already covers parents with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty line ($17,235) and childless adults with incomes up to the poverty line ($11,490).

North Dakota: The Medicaid agency has received 147 applications for expanded Medicaid. In December, the state plans to send letters to 36,000 households that receive food stamps or home heating assistance, inviting eligible adults to sign up for expanded Medicaid. Total enrollment in expanded Medicaid is expected to reach 32,000.

Ohio: The most recent state to expand Medicaid, Ohio expects to sign up 275,000 newly eligible Medicaid enrollees. Republican Gov. John Kasich sidestepped the state legislature and won approval for expansion Oct. 21 from an executive branch Controlling Board. The state has not yet begun enrollment. The Medicaid agency says it will announce soon when enrollment will begin.

Oregon: Oregon has approved 70,000 applications for expanded Medicaid. Its state-run website had some initial technical difficulties, but new applications were filed over the phone, in person and through the mail. The vast majority of enrollments came from a mailing in late September that went to 260,000 residents who either receive food stamps or have children enrolled in Medicaid. The state expects roughly 223,000 adults to be enrolled in its expanded Medicaid program by 2015.

Rhode Island: Rhode Island has approved 3,213 new applications for its expanded Medicaid program. Another 835 are in progress. Projected enrollment is 23,428.

Vermont: About 1,000 individuals have signed up for Medicaid on Vermont’s exchange or by submitting paper applications. In addition, 30,000 adults enrolled in two state-run low-income health plans will be rolled into the expanded Medicaid program. By 2015, Vermont expects enrollment to reach 160,000.

Washington: Through its state-run exchange and Medicaid sites, Washington has signed up 26,336 people. Another 30,000 people enrolled in a low-income health program will be automatically enrolled in expanded Medicaid, bringing the total to 56,336. The state expects 270,000 people to qualify by the end of 2014.

West Virginia: West Virginia has pre-qualified 52,056 residents for its expanded Medicaid program. Projected new enrollment is 63,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/new-medicaid-enrollment-healthcare/3453929/

About Medicaid


Medicaid Home
About Medicaid
Medicaid Expansion
Medicaid Defense
Waivers

Since 1965, Medicaid has been the backbone of this country’s health care safety net. Jointly funded by the states and the federal government, Medicaid covers more than 58 million low-income Americans, including families, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Today, Medicaid provides coverage for almost 29 million children and pays for approximately half of all long-term care costs.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the states and the federal government. Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to cover certain categories of individuals and services. Beyond that, states have wide flexibility in the design and implementation of their Medicaid programs.

Medicaid Today: Even though Medicaid has helped millions gain access to health care, many low-income people have been left out.  In 30 states, income eligibility for parents is set below 50 percent of poverty (in 2012, that’s an annual income of $9,545 for a family of three). In most states, adults without dependent children, no matter how poor, cannot get Medicaid coverage at all.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, states can get substantial federal funding to expand Medicaid to all residents with incomes at or below 133 percent of poverty, thus extending Medicaid coverage to individuals who have been left out of the program. [Note: Since 5 percent of income is not included—is “disregarded”—when eligibility is determined, the expansion, in effect, applies to those with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty.]

For more on how Medicaid works today, and how it will work under the Medicaid expansion, see:

Financing 

Medicaid Today: Generally speaking, each state receives matching dollars from the federal government, and those matching rates vary across the states from 50 to 76 percent. This means that, for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid, the federal government contributes between $1.00 and $3.17. Federal matching rates are based on the per capita income of the states, so states with lower per capita incomes get higher matching rates.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, the Affordable Care Act gives states the opportunity to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all individuals with incomes at or below 138 percent of poverty (see note above), an income of about $31,809 for a family of four in 2012. That will extend coverage to many low-income adults currently left out of the program and simplify eligibility determinations across the program.

Eligibility 

Medicaid Today:

Federal Requirements
Federal law requires states to cover certain categories of people in Medicaid. In general, there are six categories of so-called “mandatory” individuals: 1) children, 2) pregnant women, 3) very low-income parents, 4) the elderly, and individuals who are 5) blind or 6) disabled. Eligibility levels for these groups of people varies by income:

  • Children under age six with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($25,390 for a family of three in 2012)
  • Children ages 6-19 with family incomes up to 100 percent of poverty ($19.090 for a family of three in 2012)
  • Pregnant women with family incomes up to 133 percent of poverty
  • Parents whose income meets the state’s AFDC (former welfare program) criteria in place as of July 1996
  • People who are elderly, blind, or who have disabilities and who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) may have incomes up to 74 percent of poverty ($8,266 for an individual in 2012)
  • Certain people with severe disabilities who would qualify for SSI if they did not work
    Elderly individuals and people with disabilities whose Medicare premiums are paid by Medicaid through the “QMB,” ”SLMB,” and “QI” programs—generally speaking, these are individuals who have incomes below 150 percent of poverty

State Options
States have the flexibility to increase these income limits to allow more people to qualify for Medicaid for several general categories of people, as follows:

  • Low-income children, parents, and pregnant women with family incomes above mandatory cutoff levels and up to whatever income limit the states decide
  • People who are blind, elderly, or disabled with incomes above the SSI level but below 100 percent of poverty ($10,830 for an individual in 2010)
  • Nursing home residents with incomes above SSI levels but below 300 percent of poverty ($32,490 for an individual in 2010)
  • People with disabilities who work and have incomes above the SSI limit
  • Medically needy individuals who require institutional care but who have incomes that are too high to qualify for SSI—these individuals can deduct the cost of their institutional care from their income in order to qualify for Medicaid

The Affordable Care Act requires states to maintain the Medicaid eligibility levels, policies, and procedures that were in place in March 2010 (the date the Affordable Care Act was enacted) until the state has an operational exchange.

Medicaid Expansion: In 2014, states can expand their Medicaid programs to cover virtually all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of poverty. Income eligibility for those over 65 will remain unchanged. For those newly eligible through this expansion, the federal government will cover 100 percent of costs for 2014 through 2016, gradually falling to 90 percent in 2020. The federal contribution will remain at 90 percent thereafter. States have the option to implement this expansion sooner.

In states that expand Medicaid, the historic federal Medicaid matching formula will still apply to individuals who meet the Medicaid eligibility criteria in place as of December 1, 2009.

For more information on current state-by-state eligibility, see Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Eligibility by State (May 2010) or Kaiser’s statehealthfacts.org and scroll down to “Medicaid Eligibility.”

Benefits

Medicaid Today:

Federal Requirements
Federal law requires states to provide a minimum benefit package in Medicaid. So-called “mandatory” benefits include physician services, hospital services, family planning, health center services, and nursing facility services. The benefit package for children is more comprehensive than the one for adults because federal law requires states to provide coverage for certain health screenings and services that are medically necessary. This requirement is called the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit.

State Options
States are permitted to provide coverage for certain other health care services that are approved by the federal government. Such “optional” services include dental care, mental health care, eye glasses and vision care, coverage for prescription drugs, home health care, case management, and rehabilitation services. For a detailed list of what benefits state Medicaid programs cover, click here.

Medicaid Expansion: In states that take advantage of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there are specific benefit requirements for those who are newly eligible. For those individuals, states must provide a set of essential health benefits. For more information on Medicaid’s essential health benefits, see Designing the Essential Health Benefits for Your State: An Advocate’s Guide.

Additional Resources

Medicaid


Medicaid Home
About Medicaid
Medicaid Expansion
Medicaid Defense
Waivers

Medicaid provides health coverage for low-income children and adults, medical and long-term care coverage for people with disabilities, and assistance with health and long-term care expenses for low-income seniors. More than 58 million people rely on Medicaid services today, and millions more will qualify for Medicaid when the provisions of the Affordable Care Act take effect in 2014.

Children receive health coverage through Medicaid and the state Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To learn more about CHIP, see the Children’s Healthsection.

This section of our website provides resources on Medicaid laws and regulations and keeps you up-to-date on the battle to sustain and improve this important program.

Medicaid Expansion Center
States that plan to expand Medicaid coverage in 2014 have much to do to prepare. In many states, advocates need support in making the case for expansion. The Medicaid Expansion Center offers information on everything from the Supreme Court decision’s effect on Medicaid to news from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), plus the best tools for helping your state make the most of the expansion.

Medicaid Defense Center
While some states move ahead to expand their Medicaid programs, the existing Medicaid program remains under fire at both the federal and state level. Many in Congress—and some governors, as well—seek to make deep cuts in Medicaid funding and to change the structure of the Medicaid program through proposals for block grants, per capita caps, and similar schemes. The Medicaid Defense Center features the latest news on the federal budget battle plus tools to help you fight for Medicaid funding in your state.

http://familiesusa.org/issues/medicaid/

Obamacare Event Hands Out Condoms as Prizes

The Obamacare event took place at the University of Central Arkansas last weekend. It was hosted by a group called the Living Affected Corporation, which apparently has received a grant from the federal government to educate the public about Obamacare.

The event organizer spilled out a bag of condoms — as a couple whoops and hollers could be heard from the small crowd.

Then she says, “Ok, if anyone wants a paper application,” but she interrupts herself to pickup condoms that had fallen on the floor. “I have those as well.”

“So when you’re leaving, you can stop by my table and I’ll give you whatever — condoms — that box has a bunch in it. Anyway … Our corporation, LA Corp … And I’m waiting on my dental dams and female condom order that still hasn’t come in. If you ever need condoms, let me know because we have thousands — boxes of magnums, we get magnums a lot. So here is the prize table.”

The condom give-away was a training event with young Democrats, I’m told.

Is Obamacare on the rebound? Media turn to positive stories. (+video)

Positive headlines are creeping into the news coverage of Obamacare, amid a Democratic counteroffensive and signs the program could be turning a corner. But tough tests lie ahead.

Bit by bit, the media narrative around the travails of Obamacare and its main enrollment vehicle, HealthCare.gov, is starting to look up. Or to put it more precisely, it is no longer so crushingly negative.

After weeks of stories about website crashes and canceled health plans – and an extraordinary mea culpa from President Obama – a competing story line is starting to emerge. Slowly but surely, people are navigating the exchanges and getting insurance – for some, cheaper and better than what they had. Last week, The New York Times and Los Angeles Timestouted a “surge” in enrollment figures, especially in states that have their own exchanges.

This week, a Washington Post story described almost an Obamacare nirvana – people in rural Kentucky lining up and getting coverage, some for the first time in their lives.

Part of this wave of positive stories may be a media effect: Reporters (and the public) get tired of all the wall-to-wall negativity, and to keep interest up, seek out happy stories for a change of pace.

The Obama administration has also ramped up its public relations efforts on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), going around the national media and directly into local markets. On Tuesday, the administration

announced that seniors saved $8.9 billion on prescription drugs thanks to the ACA. And Democratic senators have headed off for Thanksgiving with marching orders: Find and publicize the ACA success stories. At the very least, say Democrats, they need to counter the Republican message machine and story-gathering.

“It’s true, the Democrats are more on the offensive than they were,” says Terry Madonna, a professor of public affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “But they still have serious problems. No one knows where this is going. And for Democrats, the last thing they want is for this to dominate the elections next year.”

This Saturday, Nov. 30, will be one moment of truth. That is the day the Obama administration promised HealthCare.gov would work smoothly for the vast majority of users, after the disastrous Oct. 1 launch. The definition of “vast majority” was later downgraded to 80 percent – with the remaining 20 percent enrolling by other means or still encountering slow loads and error messages.

On Tuesday, in a conference call with state and local elected officials, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promised a “significantly different user experience” on HealthCare.gov by the end of the month. And with reporters on the line, she urged the officials “to not hesitate to recommend that people go to HealthCare.gov and get signed up.”

Secretary Sebelius has put her credibility on the line at a time when she can ill afford to see it go any lower. The problem for the Obama administration is that by announcing a hard deadline – Nov. 30 – for vast improvements on a once-profoundly dysfunctional website, it has raised expectations (again) for how well the site will work. As with the initial rollout, Obamacare opponents will be on the lookout for failures, and the media will surely cover them.

Another moment of truth will come when the administration reveals demographic data of people who have enrolled in coverage via the exchanges, possibly with the next official enrollment numbers in mid-December. The ACA will work only if less-healthy enrollees are balanced by enrollees without expensive health issues. On Tuesday’s conference call, Sebelius said she didn’t have demographic information on enrollees, but promised it “very soon.” Then she urged the county executive from Milwaukee to reach out to “young and healthy individuals.”

The daily report Tuesday from Kaiser Health News (KHN) was noteworthy for its positive stories:

  •  “Health law may offer part-time workers better options,” said one headline. The story talked about “mini-med” plans – low-cost, low-benefit plans that are no longer allowable under the ACA – and cited the case of a woman with a serious health problem who is likely to get better, subsidized coverage on the exchange.
  • Another piece reported on Californians happy to have their insurance policies canceled. Some people, the story reported, had felt trapped with subpar plans but had kept them because of preexisting medical conditions. Now, under the ACA, people with health problems cannot be denied coverage.
  • A story out of Philadelphia, highlighted websites that have been set up that allow people to calculate their health-care subsidy without going on HealthCare.gov – and if they’re not eligible, allow them to buy coverage directly from the site.

If they are eligible, however, they have to buy their coverage on the federal exchange. So ultimately, for those living in the 36 states that are served by HealthCare.gov, all roads lead back to that site. Among the challenges ahead for the federal site:

  • By Saturday, the Obama administration says HealthCare.gov should be able to handle 50,000 users simultaneously. Whether that will be enough capacity is an open question. But it’s safe to say that if too many people wait till the last minute to sign up, there could be another wave of embarrassing website failures.
  • People who want their insurance to begin on Jan. 1 now have until Dec. 23 to enroll. But again, if everyone waits until Dec. 23, that leaves the insurers just eight days – right during the holidays – to process all that paperwork.
  • And about that paperwork… The “834” forms that are supposed to go to the insurance companies after consumers enroll on HealthCare.gov still need work, the HHS agency in charge of the site said Monday.
  • Then there’s the issue of Healthcare.gov’s “back-office system,” which a week ago was still unbuilt. On Nov. 19, Henry Chao, a top official at HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that between 30 and 40 percent of the IT system for the marketplace remained to be constructed. That sounded alarming, but a CMS spokeswoman said that that portion of the website is involved in paying federal subsidies to insurance companies and will not affect individuals.

Getting HealthCare.gov fully functioning in time still sounds like a high-wire act. If there are more major stumbles, the bad headlines will come roaring back.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1126/Is-Obamacare-on-the-rebound-Media-turn-to-positive-stories.-video

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 176, November 27, 2013, Segment 1: Pope Francis Attacks Unfettered Capitalism in Apostolic Exhortation or “The Joy of the Gospel” — Instead of Out of Control Government Spending  and Government Failures — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Iran Accuses White House of Lying About Nuclear Deal — Right To Enrichment of Uranium — Videos

Posted on November 26, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil | Tags: , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-175

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Iran Accuses White House of Lying About Nuclear Deal — Right To Enrich Uranium — Videos

1118-iran-Arak-nuclear-reactor_full_600

nuclear_enrichment

iran_enrichment_facility_natzantz

iran-uranium-enrichment-plant-at-natanz

FORDO-nuclear-enrichment-plant

Uranium enrichment explained

Policy Brief: Gary Samore on Iran’s “Right to Enrich” Uranium

Iran Nuclear Deal | Is the Iran Deal Scientifically Possible?

Daily English News ‘Iran has right to enrich uranium as NPT signatory’

Iranian official: Deal ’98 percent’ done, but uranium enrichment still a sticking point

Uranium enrichment ‘a red line’ for Iran

Making A Nuclear Weapon – Uranium vs Plutonium

In an address to Parliament in Tehran on Sunday, the Iranian President said the country made progress with world powers during talks over Tehran’s nuclear programme, but insisted the nation cannot be pushed to give up uranium enrichment.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran have not bowed to threats by any power and it will not do so,” he said.

Mr Rouhani repeated past declarations the country has a right to produce nuclear fuel, seeking to assure hard-line critics at home that Iran will not make sweeping concessions in the negotiations.

Talks ended without agreement in Geneva early on Sunday morning, but all sides said progress had been made and negotiations are scheduled to resume next week.
The West and its allies fear Iran’s uranium enrichment labs could one day produce weapons-grade material.

Iran insists it does not seek nuclear weapons and says its reactors are only for electricity and medical applications.

Mr Rouhani said asking Iran to end all uranium enrichment would be crossing a red line.
“National interests are our red line. Among those rights are nuclear rights within the framework of international law, including the right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil,” he said.

The US and others are considering easing economic sanctions in return for a possible suspension of 20 percent enrichment.

Rouhani said this proved sanctions had failed.

“They have come to the negotiating table to talk to us because they have realised that sanctions are not the answer,” he told Parliament.

The six powers party to the talks, especially France, expressed concern about a new reactor under construction that will make a plutonium by-product that could be used to build nuclear weapons, although Iran does not currently possess the technology required.

Source: APTN

Get the latest headlines http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Subscribe to The Telegraphhttp://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/telegraph.co.uk
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/telegraph
Follow us on Google+ https://plus.google.com/1028913550727…

Telegraph.co.uk and YouTube.com/TelegraphTV are websites of The Daily Telegraph, the UK’s best-selling quality daily newspaper providing news and analysis on UK and world events, business, sport, lifestyle and culture.

Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal

Iranian officials say White House fact sheet is ‘invalid’

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkhamtold the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Iran’s objection to the deal raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.

The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.

“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”

The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.

As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.

“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”

The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.

The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 175, November 26, 2013, Segment 1: Obama’s Credibility and Competence Crumbling — Democrats Damaged Goods — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Credibility and Competence Crumbling — Democrats Damaged Goods — Videos

Posted on November 26, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Obamacare, People, Photos, Politics, Press, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-175

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 1: Obama’s Credibility and Competence Crumbling — Democrats Damaged Goods — Videos

obamacare-turkey

Obamacare_happiness

The News Reader

obamacare-

Obamacare-cartoon

Obamacare-Rollout-Worry

OBAMACARE, obamacartoon

NBC: ObamaCare Sticker Shock Hitting Americans Receiving Insurance Through Employers

Obama’s Image Takes Major Hit in New CNN Poll

Media now attacking Obama’s credibility

Nearly 80 million more could lose coverage under ObamaCare

White House switches media strategy for ObamaCare coverage

Judge Jeanine: President Obama lies yet again

ObamaCare outrage: Millions scrambling to find coverage

Will Democrats stage a post holiday ObamaCare revolt

Lawmakers debate future of ObamaCare

Democratic Union Activist Aaron De Groot on Obama’s Plummeting Poll Numbers

Krauthammer Dems could be death knell for ObamaCare

MSNBC: Obama Poll Numbers At All Time Lows, Dragging Down 2014 Democrats

Almost 80 million with employer health care plans could have coverage canceled, experts predict

By Jim Angle

Almost 80 million people with employer health plans could find their coverage canceled because they are not compliant with ObamaCare, several experts predicted.

Their losses would be in addition to the millions who found their individual coverage cancelled for the same reason.

Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute said that in addition to the individual cancellations, “at least half the people on employer plans would by 2014 start losing plans as well.” There are approximately 157 million employer health care policy holders.

Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute added, “the administration estimated that approximately 78 million Americans with employer sponsored insurance would lose their existing coverage due to the Affordable Care Act.”

Last week, an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, showed the administration anticipates half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies canceled or be compelled to send workers onto the ObamaCare exchanges. They predicted up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year.

According to projections the administration itself issued back in July 2010, it was clear officials knew the impact of ObamaCare three years ago.

In fact, according to the Federal Register, its mid-range estimate was that by the end of 2014, 76 percent of small group plans would be cancelled, along with 55 percent of large employer plans.

The reason behind the losses is that current plans don’t meet the requirements of ObamaCare, which dictate that each plan must cover a list of essential benefits, whether people want them or not.

“Things like maternity care or acupuncture or extensive drug coverage,” said Veuger. “And so now the law is going to force them to buy policies that they could have gotten in the past if they wanted to but they chose not to.”

Some plans already have been canceled and employers are getting sticker shock at the new, higher prices under ObamaCare.

One of them is David Allen, president of a company bearing his name in Boulder, Colorado. He told a Congressional hearing recently that his carrier discontinued his company policy because it wasn’t compliant with ObamaCare.

“It does not meet the minimum standards as stipulated under the law. Due to this one change,” he said, “our premiums are now scheduled to increase by 52.3 percent in January 2014.”

Roy said that is not unusual. “The old plans that are being cancelled are meaningfully cheaper than the new plans that are ObamaCare compliant.”

A new wave of cancellations and sticker shock will emerge just before next year’s elections.

“They’re going to start doing that in the summer or early fall but certainly before the midterm elections,” said Veuger.

Jim Angle currently serves as chief national correspondent for Fox News Channel (FNC). He joined FNC in 1996 as a senior White House correspondent.

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 175, November 26, 2013, Segment 0: Iran Accuses White House Of Lying About Nuclear Deal — Right To Enrich Uranium — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Malcolm Gladwell — David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and The Art of Battling Giants — Videos

Posted on November 25, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Heroes, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Non-Fiction, People, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

gladwell_david-and-goliath

gladwell-sot-david-and-goliath

malcolmgladwell

Malcolm-Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell On How He Got the Idea for David & Goliath

Malcolm Gladwell: The unheard story of David and Goliath

Glenn Beck & Malcolm Gladwell (part 1) discuss David and Goliath Underdogs Misfits Battling Giants

Malcolm Gladwell & Glenn Beck (part 2) discuss David and Goliath Underdogs Misfits Battling Giants

malcolm gladwell david and goliath

Malcolm Gladwell, “David and Goliath” | Talks at Google

Malcolm Gladwell Explains Why Human Potential Is Being Squandered

Outliers The Story of Success Malcolm Gladwell Audiobook

How We Think Without Thinking: Malcolm Gladwell on Great Decision Makers (2005)

Malcolm Gladwell at University of Pennsylvania 2/14/2013

The Bible PREVIEW — David and Goliath

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSlWXMJD9Zs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

U.S. Unfreezes $8 Billion in Iranian Assets — Iran Continues to Enrich Uranium Approaching Weapons Grade — Will Not Give Up Right to Enrich Uranium — Videos

Posted on November 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Iran_enriched_uranium_stockpileUranium-enriched

percentofu235

countries_enriched_uranium

Uranium enrichment ‘a red line’ for Iran

In an address to Parliament in Tehran on Sunday, the Iranian President said the country made progress with world powers during talks over Tehran’s nuclear programme, but insisted the nation cannot be pushed to give up uranium enrichment.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran have not bowed to threats by any power and it will not do so,” he said.

Mr Rouhani repeated past declarations the country has a right to produce nuclear fuel, seeking to assure hard-line critics at home that Iran will not make sweeping concessions in the negotiations.

Talks ended without agreement in Geneva early on Sunday morning, but all sides said progress had been made and negotiations are scheduled to resume next week.
The West and its allies fear Iran’s uranium enrichment labs could one day produce weapons-grade material.

Iran insists it does not seek nuclear weapons and says its reactors are only for electricity and medical applications.

Mr Rouhani said asking Iran to end all uranium enrichment would be crossing a red line.
“National interests are our red line. Among those rights are nuclear rights within the framework of international law, including the right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil,” he said.

The US and others are considering easing economic sanctions in return for a possible suspension of 20 percent enrichment.

Rouhani said this proved sanctions had failed.

“They have come to the negotiating table to talk to us because they have realised that sanctions are not the answer,” he told Parliament.

The six powers party to the talks, especially France, expressed concern about a new reactor under construction that will make a plutonium by-product that could be used to build nuclear weapons, although Iran does not currently possess the technology required.

Making a nuclear weapon

How to enrich Uranium – Periodic Table of Videos

President Obama’s Statement on Iran Nuclear Program Deal: The World Will Be Safer

BREAKING: Deal Reached With Iran Halts Its Nuclear Program –

11/25/13 Former Amb. Bolton on the Obama’s Iran deal lies

Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor

Breaking: Explosion at Iran’s Nuclear Facility! Was it Israel?

UN Nuclear Watchdog says Iran can Double Uranium Enrichment

Iran’s ability to enrich Uranium in Qom to 20% doesn’t say anything about any nuclear bomb

Nuclear Power – Virtual Tour of Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility

Cold War Nuclear Factories [FULL VIDEO]

Reports: U.S. Unfreezes $8 Billion in Iranian Assets

Iranian officials praise ‘new path towards Iran’

The United States released $8 billion in frozen assets to Iran on Sunday in a move meant to ensure Tehran’s compliance with a nuclear pact signed over the weekend, according to top Iranian officials.

Iranian government spokesman Mohammad Baqer Nobakht confirmedon Monday morning that the U.S. government had unfrozen $8 billion in assets that had been previously blocked by the Obama administration.

The confirmation followed multiple reports of the release on Sunday in the Arab and Iranian news outlets.

Iran will be provided with about $7 billion in sanctions relief, gold, and oil sales under anuclear deal inked late Saturday in Geneva with Western nations.

Iranian officials lauded the deal as a path to opening up greater trade relations between Iran and the world.

“The agreement will open a new path towards Iran,” Alinaqi Khamoushi, the former head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce said on Sunday as he announced the release by the United States of some $8 billion in assets, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Nobakht confirmed the figure early Monday during a briefing with reporters in Tehran.

“The agreement will ease the anti-Iran sanctions, which will have significant impacts on the Iranian economy,” the state-run Fars News Agency quoted him as saying.

One senior GOP aide on Capitol Hill was not pleased with the reports.

“It’s pretty clear the White House and State Department have been lying to the American people since the beginning of this process so it wouldn’t shock me to learn they are lying about how much sanctions relief they’re giving Iran now,” said the aide.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) criticized the deal on Sunday, when he said to a Jewish audience that both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were united in opposition.

“Democrats and Republicans are going to work to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions … until Iran gives up not only all of their weapons but all nuclear weapon capabilities,” Schumer said. “I want to leave you with that assurance.”

A State Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on the reported assets relief.

Additionally, Iran announced on Sunday that its nuclear work will continue despite the deal, which aimed to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who helped ink the deal, praised it for recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a key sticking point that had delayed the deal until Saturday evening.

“The [nuclear] program has been recognized and the Iranian people’s right to use the peaceful nuclear technology based on the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and as an inalienable right has been recognized and countries are necessitated not to create any obstacle on its way,” Zarif told reporters over the weekend.

“The program will continue, and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” he added.

Iran’s most well-known nuclear sites will remain operational under the deal, according to Zarif, who presented a very different version of the agreement than that described by the White House on Saturday.

Over the next six months, Iran will see “the full removal of all [United Nations] Security Council, unilateral and multilateral sanctions, while the country’s enrichment program will be maintained,” Zarif said.

The Fordo and Natanz nuclear sites will also continue to run, he said.

“None of the enrichment centers will be closed and Fordo and Natanz will continue their work and the Arak heavy water [nuclear reactor] program will continue in its present form and no material [enriched uranium stockpiles] will be taken out of the country and all the enriched materials will remain inside the country,” Zarif said. “The current sanctions will move towards decrease, no sanctions will be imposed and Iran’s financial resources will return.”

America recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium up to 5 percent under the deal, according to both the Iranians and a White House brief on the deal.

The United States agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to a fact sheet provided by the White House.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

The State Department denied that sanctions have been altered since an interim deal with Iran was announced.

“This report is false. Sanctions today are same as they were last week,” a senior State Department official said in response to the Fars report. “We will be forthcoming with guidance on how the technical terms of the relief package are worked out once all that is determined.”

Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own

Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own

By 

A senior advisor to the Saudi royal family has accused its Western allies of deceiving the oil rich kingdom in striking the nuclear accord withIran and said Riyadh would follow an independent foreign policy.

Nawaf Obaid told a think tank meeting in London that Saudi Arabia was determined to pursue its own foreign and policy goals. Having in the past been reactive to events, the leading Sunni Muslim nation was determined to be pro-active in future.

Mr Obaid said that while Saudi Arabia knew that the US was talking directly to Iran through a channel in the Gulf state of Oman, Washington had not directly briefed its ally.

“We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” he said. “The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done.”

In a statement the Saudi government gave a cautious welcome to the Geneva nuclear deal. It said “good intentions” could lead to a comprehensive agreement on Tehran’s atomic programme. “This agreement could be a first step towards a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear programme, if there are good intentions,” the Saudi government said

But it warned that a comprehensive solution should lead to the “removal of all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear, from the Middle East and the Gulf”.

A fellow of Harvard University’s Belfer Centre and adviser to Prince Mohammad, the Saudi ambassador to London, Mr Obaid said Saudi Arabia would continue to resist Iranian involvement in the Syrian civil war. In particular he pointed to Iranian Revolutionary Guards involvement in battles in Syria on behalf of the regime.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) hugs French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius

“[Saudi Arabia] will be there to stop them wherever they are in Arab countries,” he said. “We cannot accept Revolutionary Guards running round Homs.”

Saudi Arabia’s fury at the diplomatic detente with Iran is commonly held with Israel. While both countries are in the same posion Saudi Arabia disavows any suggestion of an open alliance. Until the Palestinians have a state, Saudi Arabia will not work with Israel.

Saudi Arabia is increasingly at odds with Washington over Syria. It rejected a seat on the UN Security Council in protest at the body’s failure to “save” Syria.

Qatar is the latest Gulf Arab state to welcome the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, calling it a step toward greater stability in the region.

Saudi Arabia, has previously expressed unease about US overtures to Iran. The dialogue helped pushed along efforts by Washington and others to strike a deal with Iran seeking to ease Western concerns that Tehran could move toward nuclear weapons.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the deal is an “important step toward safeguarding peace and stability in the region”.

Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have issued similar statements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html

Iran nuclear deal ‘loophole’ may allow off-site reactor work

Nuclear agreement bans “further advances” at Arak reactor but off-site component work not explicitly banned.

Sunday’s agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program contains an apparent gap that could allow Tehran to build components off-site to install later in a nuclear reactor where it has promised to halt work, experts said.

They said any impact of the omission is likely to be small if Iran follows other undertakings in the interim accord, which is designed to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program for six months in return for limited sanctions relief.

But the gap, which one diplomat described as a potential “loophole”, could provide a test of Iran’s intentions, and demonstrates how difficult it will be to reach a final deal to resolve Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West once and for all.

Iran’s uncompleted heavy-water research reactor near the town of Arak emerged as one of the most important issues in marathon negotiations in Geneva last week that ended early on Sunday with a breakthrough deal.

Tehran has earlier said it could open the reactor as soon as next year. It says its purpose is only to make medical isotopes, but Western countries say it could also produce plutonium, one of two materials, along with enriched uranium, that can be used to make the fissile core of a nuclear bomb.

Much of the final day of negotiations was taken up with the major powers pressing hard for language that would stop Iran from completing the reactor.

In the deal, Iran agreed that it will “not make any further advances of its activities” at Arak, language that also covers its two big uranium enrichment plants, Fordow and Natanz.

Footnotes hammered out in the final hours of the talks set out a range of activities that would be forbidden at the reactor. For the half year covered by the agreement, Iran is barred from starting the reactor up, bringing fuel or heavy water to it, testing or producing more fuel for it, or installing any remaining components.

But no language explicitly prevents it from making components elsewhere, which could then be installed later.

Former chief UN nuclear inspector Olli Heinonen, now at Harvard university, said the measures were good, but could have been better: “I would have also included the manufacturing of key components,” he told Reuters in an e-mail.

“NOT FATAL”

One Western diplomat, who deals with nuclear issues but is not from one of the six world powers that negotiated the deal with Iran, said he did not see the gap as big.

While it was one of several possible “loopholes” in a very complicated agreement, the accord would still achieve its main aims, provided that Iran abides by it.

“If Iran is committed then none of these loopholes are fatal,” said the diplomat, who is based in Vienna, headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency which will play an expanded role monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.

Among other steps, Iran has agreed to the suspension of its most sensitive enrichment of uranium, to constraints on other atomic activities and to improved monitoring by the IAEA.

International inspectors say they are confident they can keep tabs on Iran’s declared nuclear activities at known sites, although without wider access they cannot rule out undeclared activity at secret locations.

The diplomat said the most important work to complete Arak is the work to be done at the plant which is barred by the accord, meaning that any manufacturing of components at another location may not be that significant for the timeline.

“The estimate of one to two years to actually get the thing going assumes everything required offsite is already procured and/or manufactured,” the diplomat said.

Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the non-proliferation program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank, also noted the lack of prohibition on the manufacture of components but said most parts had probably already been built.

“I expect that most of the work on those components has already been completed, but no doubt some such work will continue,” he said. “Iran adheres to the principle that what is not prohibited is allowed.”

“DEVIL IN THE DETAIL”

Iran appears to have largely built the facility’s external structure in a valley among barren desert highlands, gradually installing key components over the years.

In May, UN nuclear inspectors observed that the reactor vessel had been delivered to the site.

But the IAEA’s latest quarterly report on Iran said other major parts – such as control room equipment, the refuelling machine and reactor cooling pumps – had yet to be put in place.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told Reuters on Nov. 13 that Iran still had “quite a lot to do” to complete the plant, which the U.S. Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said has been under construction since mid-2004.

While attention has long focused on Iran’s established uranium enrichment work, its progress at Arak also rang alarm bells, raising concern that Tehran could pursue both possible bomb core alternatives – uranium and plutonium – simultaneously.

To make a plutonium bomb, Iran would also need to build a reprocessing plant to extract the material, and it has no declared plans to do so.

Nuclear analyst Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank said Iran might be able to do some Arak-related work off-site under Sunday’s interim accord.

“But the agreement puts a firewall around the reactor, meaning that no equipment will be installed … and no fuel will be loaded,” Hibbs said.

Middle East expert Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said it could be argued that the deal also covers building components at another location.

“Of course, the fact that we are having this argument is itself acknowledgment of a possible loophole. Remember the US-DPRK ‘leap day’ deal? Devil in the detail,” Joshi said, referring to an ultimately failed agreement between North Korea and the United States early last year.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-nuclear-deal-loophole-may-allow-off-site-reactor-work-332975

Source: Netanyahu Scolded Obama in Phone Call on Iran Deal

by Joel B. Pollak

“The prime minister made it clear to the most powerful man on earth that if he intends to stay the most powerful man on earth, it’s important to make a change in American policy because the practical result of his current policy is liable to lead him to the same failure that the Americans absorbed in North Korea and Pakistan, and Iran could be next in line.”

That was the message conveyed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Barack Obama in a private telephone call Sunday to discuss the interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a senior Israeli lawmaker in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, as reported by the Jerusalem Post.

The White House’s own official statement on the telephone call made no mention of any disagreement being aired, merely referring to “their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile, Netanyahu said that he would send a high-level diplomatic team to the U.S. to lobby for a tough final agreement with Iran that sees that country’s entire nuclear enrichment program dismantled.

In a development that may be related, British Foreign Secretary William Hague warned Israel not to interfere with the emerging deal, perhaps voicing a sentiment shared by Obama and other diplomatic partners.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/25/Source-Netanyahu-Scolded-Obama-in-Phone-Call-on-Iran-Deal

Enriched uranium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proportions of uranium-238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found naturally versus enriched grades

Enriched uranium is a type of uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased through the process ofisotope separation. Natural uranium is 99.284% U238 isotope, with U235 only constituting about 0.711% of its weight. U235 is the onlynuclide existing in nature (in any appreciable amount) that is fissile with thermal neutrons.[1]

Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control enriched uranium supplies and processes in its efforts to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.

During the Manhattan Project enriched uranium was given the codename oralloy, a shortened version of Oak Ridge alloy, after the location of the plants where the uranium was enriched.[citation needed] The term oralloy is still occasionally used to refer to enriched uranium. There are about 2,000 tonnes (t, Mg) of highly enriched uranium in the world,[2] produced mostly for nuclear weapons, naval propulsion, and smaller quantities for research reactors.

The U238 remaining after enrichment is known as depleted uranium (DU), and is considerably less radioactive than even natural uranium, though still very dense and extremely hazardous in granulated form – such granules are a natural by-product of the shearing action that makes it useful for armor-penetrating weapons and radiation shielding. At present, 95% of the world’s stocks of depleted uranium remain in secure storage.

Slightly enriched uranium (SEU)

A drum of yellowcake (a mixture of uranium precipitates)

Slightly enriched uranium (SEU) has a 235U concentration of 0.9% to 2%. This new grade can be used to replace natural uranium (NU) fuel in some heavy water reactors like the CANDU. Fuel designed with SEU could provide additional benefits such as safety improvements or operational flexibility, normally the benefits were considered in safety area while retaining the same operational envelope. Safety improvements could lower positive reactivity feedback such as reactivity void coefficient. Operational improvements would consist in increasing the fuel burnup allowing fuel costs reduction because less uranium and fewer bundles are needed to fuel the reactor. This in turn reduces the quantity of used fuel and its subsequent management costs.[citation needed]

Reprocessed uranium (RepU)

Main article: Reprocessed uranium

Reprocessed uranium (RepU) is a product of nuclear fuel cycles involving nuclear reprocessing of spent fuel. RepU recovered from light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel typically contains slightly more U-235 than natural uranium, and therefore could be used to fuel reactors that customarily use natural uranium as fuel, such as CANDU reactors. It also contains the undesirable isotope uranium-236 which undergoes neutron capture, wasting neutrons (and requiring higher U-235 enrichment) and creating neptunium-237 which would be one of the more mobile and troublesome radionuclides in deep geological repository disposal of nuclear waste.

Low-enriched uranium (LEU)

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

A billet of highly enriched uranium metal

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable);[3][4] in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6% 235U.[5] For criticality experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[6]

The very first uranium bomb, Little Boy dropped by the United States on Hiroshima in 1945, used 64 kilograms of 80% enriched uranium. Wrapping the weapon’s fissile core in a neutron reflector (which is standard on all nuclear explosives) can dramatically reduce the critical mass. Because the core was surrounded by a good neutron reflector, at explosion it comprised almost 2.5 critical masses. Neutron reflectors, compressing the fissile core via implosion, fusion boosting, and “tamping”, which slows the expansion of the fissioning core with inertia, allow nuclear weapon designs that use less than what would be one bare-sphere critical mass at normal density. The presence of too much of the 238U isotope inhibits the runaway nuclear chain reaction that is responsible for the weapon’s power. The critical mass for 85% highly enriched uranium is about 50 kilograms (110 lb), which at normal density would be a sphere about 17 centimetres (6.7 in) in diameter.

Later US nuclear weapons usually use plutonium-239 in the primary stage, but the secondary stage which is compressed by the primary nuclear explosion often uses HEU with enrichment between 40% and 80%[7] along with the fusion fuel lithium deuteride. For the secondary of a large nuclear weapon, the higher critical mass of less-enriched uranium can be an advantage as it allows the core at explosion time to contain a larger amount of fuel. The 238U is not fissile but still fissionable by fusion neutrons.

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, whose cores require about 20% or more of fissile material, as well as in naval reactors, where it often contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U. Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.[8]

Enrichment methods

Isotope separation is difficult because two isotopes of the same elements have very nearly identical chemical properties, and can only be separated gradually using small mass differences. (235U is only 1.26% lighter than 238U.) This problem is compounded by the fact that uranium is rarely separated in its atomic form, but instead as a compound (235UF6 is only 0.852% lighter than 238UF6.) A cascade of identical stages produces successively higher concentrations of 235U. Each stage passes a slightly more concentrated product to the next stage and returns a slightly less concentrated residue to the previous stage.

There are currently two generic commercial methods employed internationally for enrichment: gaseous diffusion (referred to as first generation) and gas centrifuge (second generation) which consumes only 2% to 2.5%[9] as much energy as gaseous diffusion. Later generation methods will become established because they will be more efficient in terms of the energy input for the same degree of enrichment and the next method of enrichment to be commercialized will be referred to as third generation. Some work is being done that would use nuclear resonance; however there is no reliable evidence that any nuclear resonance processes have been scaled up to production.

Diffusion techniques

Gaseous diffusion

Main article: Gaseous diffusion

Gaseous diffusion is a technology used to produce enriched uranium by forcing gaseous uranium hexafluoride (hex) through semi-permeable membranes. This produces a slight separation between the molecules containing 235U and 238U. Throughout the Cold War, gaseous diffusion played a major role as a uranium enrichment technique, and as of 2008 accounted for about 33% of enriched uranium production,[10] but is now an obsolete technology that is steadily being replaced by the later generations of technology as the diffusion plants reach their ends-of-life.[11]

Thermal diffusion

Thermal diffusion utilizes the transfer of heat across a thin liquid or gas to accomplish isotope separation. The process exploits the fact that the lighter 235U gas molecules will diffuse toward a hot surface, and the heavier 238U gas molecules will diffuse toward a cold surface. The S-50 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee was used during World War II to prepare feed material for the EMIS process. It was abandoned in favor of gaseous diffusion.

Centrifuge techniques

Gas centrifuge

Main article: Gas centrifuge

A cascade of gas centrifuges at a U.S. enrichment plant

The gas centrifuge process uses a large number of rotating cylinders in series and parallel formations. Each cylinder’s rotation creates a strong centrifugal force so that the heavier gas molecules containing 238U move toward the outside of the cylinder and the lighter gas molecules rich in 235U collect closer to the center. It requires much less energy to achieve the same separation than the older gaseous diffusion process, which it has largely replaced and so is the current method of choice and is termed second generation. It has a separation factor per stage of 1.3 relative to gaseous diffusion of 1.005,[10] which translates to about one-fiftieth of the energy requirements. Gas centrifuge techniques produce about 54% of the world’s enriched uranium.

Zippe centrifuge

Diagram of the principles of a Zippe-type gas centrifuge with U-238 represented in dark blue and U-235 represented in light blue

The Zippe centrifuge is an improvement on the standard gas centrifuge, the primary difference being the use of heat. The bottom of the rotating cylinder is heated, producing convection currents that move the 235U up the cylinder, where it can be collected by scoops. This improved centrifuge design is used commercially by Urenco to produce nuclear fuel and was used by Pakistan in their nuclear weapons program.

Laser techniques

Laser processes promise lower energy inputs, lower capital costs and lower tails assays, hence significant economic advantages. Several laser processes have been investigated or are under development. Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX) is well advanced and licensed for commercial operation in 2012.

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS)

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation employs specially tuned lasers[12] to separate isotopes of uranium using selective ionization of hyperfine transitions. The technique uses lasers which are tuned to frequencies that ionize 235U atoms and no others. The positively charged 235U ions are then attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected.

Molecular laser isotope separation (MLIS)

Molecular laser isotope separation uses an infrared laser directed at UF6, exciting molecules that contain a 235U atom. A second laser frees a fluorine atom, leaving uranium pentafluoride which then precipitates out of the gas.

Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX)

Separation of isotopes by laser excitation is an Australian development that also uses UF6. After a protracted development process involving U.S. enrichment company USEC acquiring and then relinquishing commercialization rights to the technology, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) signed a commercialization agreement with Silex Systems in 2006.[13][dead link] GEH has since built a demonstration test loop and announced plans to build an initial commercial facility.[14] Details of the process are classified and restricted by intergovernmental agreements between United States, Australia, and the commercial entities. SILEX has been projected to be an order of magnitude more efficient than existing production techniques but again, the exact figure is classified.[10] In August, 2011 Global Laser Enrichment, a subsidiary of GEH, applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a commercial plant.[15] In September 2012, the NRC issued a license for GEH to build and operate a commercial SILEX enrichment plant, although the company had not yet decided whether the project would be profitable enough to begin construction, and despite concerns that the technology could contribute to nuclear proliferation.[16]

Other techniques

Aerodynamic processes

Schematic diagram of an aerodynamic nozzle. Many thousands of these small foils would be combined in an enrichment unit.

Aerodynamic enrichment processes include the Becker jet nozzle techniques developed by E. W. Becker and associates using the LIGA process and the vortex tube separation process. These aerodynamic separation processes depend upon diffusion driven by pressure gradients, as does the gas centrifuge. They in general have the disadvantage of requiring complex systems of cascading of individual separating elements to minimize energy consumption. In effect, aerodynamic processes can be considered as non-rotating centrifuges. Enhancement of the centrifugal forces is achieved by dilution of UF6 with hydrogen or helium as a carrier gas achieving a much higher flow velocity for the gas than could be obtained using pure uranium hexafluoride. The Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa (UCOR) developed and deployed the continuous Helikon vortex separation cascade for high production rate low enrichment and the substantially different semi-batch Pelsakon low production rate high enrichment cascade both using a particular vortex tube separator design, and both embodied in industrial plant.[17] A demonstration plant was built in Brazil by NUCLEI, a consortium led by Industrias Nucleares do Brasil that used the separation nozzle process. However all methods have high energy consumption and substantial requirements for removal of waste heat; none is currently still in use.

Electromagnetic isotope separation

Main article: Calutron

Schematic diagram of uranium isotope separation in a calutron shows how a strong magnetic field is used to redirect a stream of uranium ions to a target, resulting in a higher concentration of uranium-235 (represented here in dark blue) in the inner fringes of the stream.

In the electromagnetic isotope separation process (EMIS), metallic uranium is first vaporized, and then ionized to positively charged ions. The cations are then accelerated and subsequently deflected by magnetic fields onto their respective collection targets. A production-scale mass spectrometer named the Calutron was developed during World War II that provided some of the 235U used for the Little Boy nuclear bomb, which was dropped over Hiroshima in 1945. Properly the term ‘Calutron’ applies to a multistage device arranged in a large oval around a powerful electromagnet. Electromagnetic isotope separation has been largely abandoned in favour of more effective methods.

Chemical methods

One chemical process has been demonstrated to pilot plant stage but not used. The French CHEMEX process exploited a very slight difference in the two isotopes’ propensity to change valency in oxidation/reduction, utilising immiscible aqueous and organic phases. An ion-exchange process was developed by the Asahi Chemical Company in Japan which applies similar chemistry but effects separation on a proprietary resin ion-exchange column.

Plasma separation

Plasma separation process (PSP) describes a technique that makes use of superconducting magnets and plasma physics. In this process, the principle of ion cyclotron resonance is used to selectively energize the 235U isotope in a plasma containing a mix of ions. The French developed their own version of PSP, which they called RCI. Funding for RCI was drastically reduced in 1986, and the program was suspended around 1990, although RCI is still used for stable isotope separation.

Separative work unit

“Separative work” – the amount of separation done by an enrichment process – is a function of the concentrations of the feedstock, the enriched output, and the depleted tailings; and is expressed in units which are so calculated as to be proportional to the total input (energy / machine operation time) and to the mass processed. Separative work is not energy. The same amount of separative work will require different amounts of energy depending on the efficiency of the separation technology. Separative work is measured in Separative work units SWU, kg SW, or kg UTA (from the German Urantrennarbeit – literally uranium separation work)

  • 1 SWU = 1 kg SW = 1 kg UTA
  • 1 kSWU = 1 tSW = 1 t UTA
  • 1 MSWU = 1 ktSW = 1 kt UTA

The work W_\mathrm{SWU} necessary to separate a mass F of feed of assay x_{f} into a mass P of product assay x_{p}, and tails of mass T and assay x_{t} is given by the expression

W_\mathrm{SWU} = P \cdot V\left(x_{p}\right)+T \cdot V(x_{t})-F \cdot V(x_{f})

where V\left(x\right) is the value function, defined as

V(x) = (1 - 2x)  \ln \left(\frac{1 - x}{x}\right)

The feed to product ratio is given by the expression

\frac{F}{P} = \frac{x_{p} - x_{t}}{x_{f} - x_{t}}

whereas the tails to product ratio is given by the expression

\frac{T}{P} = \frac{x_{p} - x_{f}}{x_{f} - x_{t}}

For example, beginning with 102 kilograms (225 lb) of NU, it takes about 90 SWU to produce 10 kilograms (22 lb) of LEU in 235U content to 4.5%, at a tails assay of 0.3%.

The number of separative work units provided by an enrichment facility is directly related to the amount of energy that the facility consumes. Modern gaseous diffusion plants typically require 2,400 to 2,500 kilowatt-hours (kW·h), or 8.6–9 gigajoules, (GJ) of electricity per SWU while gas centrifuge plants require just 50 to 60 kW·h (180–220 MJ) of electricity per SWU.

Example:

A large nuclear power station with a net electrical capacity of 1300 MW requires about 25 tonnes per year (25 t/a) of LEU with a 235U concentration of 3.75%. This quantity is produced from about 210 t of NU using about 120 kSWU. An enrichment plant with a capacity of 1000 kSWU/a is, therefore, able to enrich the uranium needed to fuel about eight large nuclear power stations.

Cost issues

In addition to the separative work units provided by an enrichment facility, the other important parameter to be considered is the mass of natural uranium (NU) that is needed to yield a desired mass of enriched uranium. As with the number of SWUs, the amount of feed material required will also depend on the level of enrichment desired and upon the amount of 235U that ends up in the depleted uranium. However, unlike the number of SWUs required during enrichment which increases with decreasing levels of 235U in the depleted stream, the amount of NU needed will decrease with decreasing levels of 235U that end up in the DU.

For example, in the enrichment of LEU for use in a light water reactor it is typical for the enriched stream to contain 3.6% 235U (as compared to 0.7% in NU) while the depleted stream contains 0.2% to 0.3% 235U. In order to produce one kilogram of this LEU it would require approximately 8 kilograms of NU and 4.5 SWU if the DU stream was allowed to have 0.3% 235U. On the other hand, if the depleted stream had only 0.2% 235U, then it would require just 6.7 kilograms of NU, but nearly 5.7 SWU of enrichment. Because the amount of NU required and the number of SWUs required during enrichment change in opposite directions, if NU is cheap and enrichment services are more expensive, then the operators will typically choose to allow more 235U to be left in the DU stream whereas if NU is more expensive and enrichment is less so, then they would choose the opposite.

  • Uranium enrichment calculator designed by the WISE Uranium Project

Downblending

The opposite of enriching is downblending; surplus HEU can be downblended to LEU to make it suitable for use in commercial nuclear fuel.

The HEU feedstock can contain unwanted uranium isotopes: 234U is a minor isotope contained in natural uranium; during the enrichment process, its concentration increases but remains well below 1%. High concentrations of 236U are a byproduct from irradiation in a reactor and may be contained in the HEU, depending on its manufacturing history. HEU reprocessed from nuclear weapons material production reactors (with an 235U assay of approx. 50%) may contain 236U concentrations as high as 25%, resulting in concentrations of approximately 1.5% in the blended LEU product. 236U is a neutron poison; therefore the actual 235U concentration in the LEU product must be raised accordingly to compensate for the presence of 236U.

The blendstock can be NU, or DU, however depending on feedstock quality, SEU at typically 1.5 wt% 235U may used as a blendstock to dilute the unwanted byproducts that may be contained in the HEU feed. Concentrations of these isotopes in the LEU product in some cases could exceed ASTM specifications for nuclear fuel, if NU, or DU were used. So, the HEU downblending generally cannot contribute to the waste management problem posed by the existing large stockpiles of depleted uranium.

A major downblending undertaking called the Megatons to Megawatts Program converts ex-Soviet weapons-grade HEU to fuel for U.S. commercial power reactors. From 1995 through mid-2005, 250 tonnes of high-enriched uranium (enough for 10,000 warheads) was recycled into low-enriched-uranium. The goal is to recycle 500 tonnes by 2013. The decommissioning programme of Russian nuclear warheads accounted for about 13% of total world requirement for enriched uranium leading up to 2008.[10]

The United States Enrichment Corporation has been involved in the disposition of a portion of the 174.3 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) that the U.S. government declared as surplus military material in 1996. Through the U.S. HEU Downblending Program, this HEU material, taken primarily from dismantled U.S. nuclear warheads, was recycled into low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, used by nuclear power plants to generate electricity.[18]

  • A uranium downblending calculator designed by the WISE Uranium Project

Global enrichment facilities

The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[19] Belgium, Iran, Italy, and Spain hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant, with Iran’s holding entitling it to 10% of the enriched uranium output. Countries that had enrichment programs in the past include Libya and South Africa, although Libya’s facility was never operational.[20] Australia has developed a laser enrichment process known as SILEX, which it intends to pursue through financial investment in a U.S. commercial venture by General Electric.[21] It has also been claimed that Israel has a uranium enrichment program housed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center site near Dimona.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama and Kerry Appease Iran — Netanyahu “Historic Mistake” — Bolton “Abject Surrender” — Peace in our Time or Time for Israel To Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Like It Did In Syria — Lessons of The Munich Agreement — Videos

Posted on November 24, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Diasters, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Nuclear Power, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Raves, Science, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

neville_chamberlain

Declaration-September-1938

Peace in our Time September 1938

Neville Chamberlain – Peace in our Time

The Munich Agreement | History Lessons

Iran Nuclear Deal Fox News Sunday Panel Chris Wallace 11 24 13

Sen Bob Corker (R-TN) Reacts To Iran Nuclear Deal On Fox News Sunday

Awful. Obama Has Not Called Israel Yet on Signed Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Obama: ‘Provide Iran with modest relief’

Diplomats strike deal in Iran talks Middle East

Bolton Obama’s Going to ‘Cram Iran Nuclear Deal Down Israel’s Throat’

(HD) Netanyahu: Agreement on Iran nuclear program bad deal

Senator Bob Corker We’re Dealing Away Our Leverage in Iran Negotiations

November 25 2013 Israeli Netanyahu speaks on Face the Nation against NWO Iran Nuclear on fisrt deal

‘Yellow light enough’ for Israel to attack Iran

Israel about to bomb iran?…. Iran simulates a Nuclear Counter attack on israel

October 1 2013 Breaking News Mounting evidence suggests Israeli strike on Iran approaching

Israel versus Iran – Capabilities of War Defense Technologies – A must see!!!

The Road to World War 3

Israel blasts Iran nuclear deal as ‘historic mistake’

By Hazel Ward

Israel on Sunday lashed out at the Geneva nuclear deal brokered by world powers as being heavily stacked in Iran’s favour, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it a “historic mistake.”

Following a months-long diplomatic campaign warning of the dangers of easing economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for steps to curb its contested nuclear programme, senior cabinet ministers chimed in, with one saying Israel reserved the right to strike Iran on its own.

Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that “what was achieved yesterday in Geneva is not a historic agreement but rather a historic mistake,” according to a post on spokesman Ofir Gendelman’s Twitter account.

“This is a bad agreement,” said Netanyahu’s office in an earlier statement.

“It gives Iran exactly what it wanted — a significant easing of sanctions and allows it to keep hold of the most essential parts of its nuclear programme,” it said just hours after the historic accord was signed in Switzerland.

“The agreement allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and leaves all the centrifuges in place which allow it to create fissile material for nuclear weapons.

“Economic pressure on Iran could have produced a much better agreement that would have led to a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capacities,” it concluded.

Israel …

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the agreement conferred legitimacy on Iran’s uranium enrichment programme in what he described as a diplomatic coup for the Islamic republic.

“This agreement is the greatest diplomatic victory of Iran, which has gained recognition for its so-called legitimate right to enrich uranium,” he told public radio.

‘All options are on table’

The hawkish, blunt-talking chief diplomat, who returned to office earlier this month after seeing off graft charges, stressed that “all options are on the table”.

“The responsibility for the security of the Jewish people and the population of Israel remains the sole responsibility of the Israeli government,” Lieberman said.

“All decisions in this regard will be taken independently and responsibly,” he added.

View gallery.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) speaks …

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) speaks near Israeli Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mandelbl …

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said the agreement was likely to bring Iran “closer” rather than further away from building a bomb.

“The current deal … is more likely to bring Iran closer to having a bomb. Israel cannot participate in the international celebration, which is based on Iranian deception and world self-delusion,” he said in a statement from his office.

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the far-right Jewish Home, said Israel was not bound by the Geneva deal and had a right to self-defence.

“Iran is threatening Israel and Israel has the right to defend itself,” he told army radio.

Israel and much of the West believe Iran’s nuclear programme is a front for a weapons drive, a charge which Iran has repeatedly denied saying it is only for civilian purposes.

Tehran has a long history of belligerent statements towards the Jewish state, notably under former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Israel has repeatedly warned that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat, refusing to rule out a preventative military strike on Iran’s atomic infrastructure.

The holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad, who was president for eight years, often questioned Israel’s right to exist, famously saying Israel should be “wiped from the page of time,” which was mistranslated as “wiped off the map”.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, a key player in the marathon talks that led to the interim deal, had earlier tried to head off criticism by saying the agreement would push back the threat and ultimately make the Jewish state more secure.

“This first step, I want to emphasise, actually rolls back the programme from where it is today, enlarges the breakout time, which would not have occurred unless this agreement existed.

“It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer,” Kerry told reporters.

Israel — widely assumed to be the Middle East’s only atomic-armed nation — has warned the West against being hoodwinked by Iran’s apparent newfound moderation since President Hassan Rouhani, himself a former nuclear negotiator, replaced Ahmadinejad in August.

Kerry said Netanyahu had been updated on progress in the talks and that any differences between the United States and Israel on the issue were cosmetic.

“There is no difference whatsoever between the US and Israel of what the end goal is — that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-pm-says-iran-deal-historic-mistake-093026133.html

Abject Surrender by the United States

What does Israel do now?

BY JOHN BOLTON

Negotiations for an “interim” arrangement over Iran’s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.”  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abject-surrender-united-states_768140.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

White House Restricts Press Photographers From Events — Journalist Letter Complains — Opague Obama — Transparency Touchstone — Food For Frauds — Liars Lair –Videos

Posted on November 22, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

obama_transparency

whitehouse

whitehous_obama

TheMostOpenAndTransparentAdminInHistory-big

Obama: Transparency Will Be Touchstone

John Stossel – Whatever Happened To Transparency?

CNN Rips Team Obama Over Lack Of Transparency – 8/6/2013

CNN Looks At Obama’s Transparency Record

Piers Morgan Tears Into Obama’s ‘Crumbling’ Promises Of Transparency America ‘At Its Worst’

President Obama: Your letters

The Changing Touchstone of Transparency

Obama administration dodges transparency promise

Detained at the White House for Photography

CAPTURING HISTORY- A Conversation with White House Photographers

CNN Live. Jack Cafferty on Obama Whitehouse Transparency.

Obama Bans The Hunting at the White House

Bill O’Reilly_ Dennis Miler_ Obama is A Liar, Socialist, Not Very Smart, And Not Nice

MUST SEE VIDEO!!! Who is the REAL Barack Obama – The Liar Deceiver Puppet Satan

Photographers Protest White House Restrictions

By 

A mutiny has erupted among photographers who cover President Obama over what they say is the White House’s increasing practice of excluding them from events involving the president and then releasing its own photos or video.

On Thursday, the White House Correspondents’ Association and 37 news organizations submitted a letter to the press secretary, Jay Carney, protesting what photographers said amounted to the establishment of the White House’s own Soviet-style news service, which gets privileged access to Mr. Obama at the expense of journalists who cover the president.

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens,” the three-page letter said, “officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”

The Obama administration has embraced social media as a way to get its message to the public beyond the traditional news media. Senior officials post tweets and blog items, while the chief White House photographer, Pete Souza, posts photos of the president on Facebook, Flickr and Instagram, often minutes after they are taken.

The White House defended its policy, arguing it is not logistically feasible to give photographers access to every event. The deputy spokesman, Josh Earnest, said, “We’ve taken advantage of new technology to give the American public even greater access to behind-the-scenes footage or photographs of the president doing his job.”

“I understand why that is a source of some consternation to the people in this room,” Mr. Earnest said during the daily White House briefing. “But to the American public, that is a clear win.”

Mr. Earnest faced persistent questioning from reporters who said the White House was setting a precedent on access and was substituting a government photographer for those from news agencies. Mr. Souza, a former photographer for The Chicago Tribune who became close to Mr. Obama when he was a senator from Illinois, referred questions to Mr. Earnest.

The letter cited seven recent examples of newsworthy events from which photographers were banned, including an outdoor lunch for Mr. Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, and a session in the Oval Office at which Malala Yousafzai, a young Pakistani human rights campaigner, spoke with Mr. Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their daughter Malia.

Administration officials have said these were private meetings. But in all of the cases, a White House photographer recorded the event and posted the pictures on Flickr or other social media sites. Major news organizations regularly publish the photos.

“They’re excluding photographers from events at the White House, which is a problem in and of itself,” said Steve Thomma, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “But now they’re sending in their photographers and video crews and then releasing the photos and video. That sets up their own media operation.”

Tensions between the photographers and the White House have simmered for months. They flared during Mr. Obama’s visit to South Africa last summer, when photographers were allowed to take a single shot of the president in Nelson Mandela’s jail cell on Robben Island, but were excluded from the cell when he hugged his daughter Sasha. That moment was caught by Mr. Souza and widely distributed.

White House photographers have historically captured private moments of the president, with his family or conferring with advisers in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. During the debate over the civil war in Syria, Mr. Souza’s images of internal meetings provided a revealing account of the tensions felt by the president and his staff.

But the news organizations argue that the White House has expanded its restrictions to everyday activities, like the time when Mr. Obama went for a swim off Panama City, Fla., in 2010 to demonstrate that the water had been cleaned up after the BP oil spill.

“The way they exclude us is to say that this is a very private moment,” said Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who has covered the White House since the Reagan administration. “But they’re making private moments very public.”

In a tense meeting late last month with Mr. Carney, Mr. Mills and other board members of the White House Correspondents’ Association showed a stack of photos that they said illustrated the problem.

“I said, ‘Jay, this is just like Tass,’ ” Mr. Mills said, referring to the Soviet state news agency. “It’s like government-controlled use of the public image of the president.”

White House blocks access to Obama events, news groups say

BY ANITA KUMAR

The nation’s largest news organizations lodged a complaint Thursday against the White House for imposing unprecedented limitations on photojournalists covering President Barack Obama, which they say have harmed the public’s ability to monitor its own government.The organizations accuse the White House of banning photojournalists from covering Obama at some events, and then later releasing its own photos and videos of the same events.“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the president while he is performing his official duties,” according to a letter the organizations sent to the White House. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”

Presidents often look for ways to get their own messages out. But media experts say Obama’s administration has developed an aggressive strategy to use social media, including government-sponsored websites and blogs, as well as Twitter, Instagram and Flickr accounts, to circumvent the media’s constitutional duty more than its predecessors have.

“You are only seeing what they want you to see,” said Lucy Dalglish, the dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended the release of photos and videos, saying the practice helps Obama live up to his pledge of transparency by allowing the public to have greater access to the inner workings of the administration when it’s not feasible for news media to be in the room.

“What we’ve done is we’ve taken advantage of new technology to give the American public even greater access to behind-the-scenes footage or photographs of the president doing his job,” Earnest said. “To the American public, that’s a clear win.”

He said the news organizations’ protests were just part of the natural tension between journalists and those they covered.

“The fact that there is a little bit of a disagreement between the press corps and the White House press office about how much access the press corps should have to the president is built into the system,” he said at the daily White House news briefing. “If that tension didn’t exist, then either you or we aren’t doing our jobs.”

Relations between Obama officials and journalists have further deteriorated this year.

News reports last spring indicated that the Justice Department had secretly seized the telephone records of reporters at the Associated Press and investigated a Fox News reporter as a potential criminal for doing his job.

In the most recent situation, the news organizations stressed that they’re referring only to presidential activities of a “fundamentally public nature,” not private or restricted events, including ones that may affect national security. But the White House often says the closed events are private, even though it releases its own photographs of the events.

Examples cited in the letter are Obama’s meetings with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on July 10, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 29 and Pakistani human rights activist Malala Yousafzai on Oct. 11.

In each case, journalists weren’t allowed – and sometimes were unaware – of the event. The White House later released written summaries of the events, along with photos taken by a government photographer.

On Thursday, the presidents of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors sent a letter to their members urging them to stop using handout photos and video from the White House.

“We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers,” the letter says. “We urge those of you in news organizations to immediately refrain from publishing any of the photographs or videos released by the White House, just as you would refuse to run verbatim a press release from them.”

It’s unclear how many news organizations use handout photographs from the White House. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services generally doesn’t do so unless they were shot in areas that the media don’t expect to have access to, such as the Situation Room or the private residence areas of the White House.

Harry Walker, the director of the McClatchy-Tribune Photo Service, said opening access to events was “the foundation for journalism, not just photojournalism.”

The letter was signed by 38 news organizations, including all the major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and the McClatchy Co., which owns 30 daily newspapers across the nation.

The White House Correspondents’ Association and White House News Photographers Association also signed the letter. McClatchy’s government and politics editor, Steven Thomma, is the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The letter, which was addressed to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, a former reporter for Time magazine, requested a meeting to discuss the issue.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Democrats Go Nuclear And Eliminate 60 Vote Filibuster Rule — Videos

Posted on November 21, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-172

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 1: Democrats Go Nuclear And Eliminate 60 Vote Filibuster Rule — Videos

Raw: Senate Votes to Change Filibuster Rules

[Look] Sen. Rand Paul Slams Harry Reid A BIG BULLY, DICTATOR for Killing Filibuster, Breaing Rules

Mitch McConnell: Nuclear Option Doesn’t ‘Distract from Obamacare,’ It ‘Reminds’ Voters of It

Senate Democrats Vote To Change Filibuster Rules

Nuclear Filibuster option explained to Obama Voter

Reid, McConnell take drastically different views on US Senate filibuster rule change

Senate Votes To Change Filibuster Rules In Place Since 1789

Alexander colloquy with Sen. McConnell on filibuster rules change

Senate Invokes “Nuclear Option” To Soften Rules Ending Filibusters

Senate Votes To Change Filibuster Rules In Place Since 1789 – Invoking So Called “Nuclear Option”

The Nuclear Option: The Filibuster “Power Grab” in the Senate

Recent attention on what many believe to be a dysfunctional Senate has focused the national debate squarely on the institution’s complex parliamentary rules of procedure. Specifically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced plans to consider a legislative manuever known as the Nuclear Option to change the rules of the Senate in order to curtail the use of the filibuster and facilitate the confirmation of President Obama’s judicial and executive nominees. The filibuster allows senators to speak for as long as they wish, on any topic they choose, unless three-fifths of the Senate votes to end debate by invoking cloture. Opponents of the Nuclear Option argue that it is a power grab because it allows Senate majorities to circumvent the regular order and change the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote over the objection of Senate minorities. This, proponents argue, inevitably undermines deliberation. The result is an errosion of one of the fundamental roles of the Senate. Join us as we debate and discuss the filibuster, proposed rules changes, and the traditional role of the United States Senate in the legislative process.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

By and , Updated: Thursday, November 21, 1:48 PM

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

Saying that “enough is enough,” President Obama welcomed the end of what he called the abuse of the Senate’s advise and consent function, which he said had turned into “a reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt.

While “neither party has been blameless for these tactics,” Obama said in a statement to reporters at the White House, “today’s pattern of obstruction . . . just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.” He cited filibusters against executive branch appointments and judicial nominees on grounds that he said were based simply on opposition to “the policies that the American people voted for in the last election.”

“This isn’t obstruction on substance, on qualifications,” he said. “It’s just to gum up the works.”

The rule change means that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has long been required to end debate and proceed to an up-or-down majority vote to confirm or reject the nomination.

The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.

[Follow our live blog for the latest updates.]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of a power grab and suggested that they will regret their decision if Republicans regain control of the chamber.

“We’re not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer,” McConnell said. “Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.” McConnell then addressed Democrats directly, saying: “You may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”

He added later: “The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look forward to having a great election in 2014.”

In his remarks at the White House, Obama called the use of the filibuster over the five years of his tenure “an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress that’s prevented too much of the American people’s business from getting done.” Saying that the tactic has blocked bipartisan compromises, prevented qualified people from filling critical posts and stymied legislation to create jobs and limit gun violence, he said: “It’s harmed our economy, and it’s been harmful to our democracy.”

“A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can’t let it become normal,” Obama said.

“So the vote today I think is an indication that a majority of senators believe, as I believe, that enough is enough,” he said. He added: “The American people deserve better than politicians who run for election telling them how terrible government is, and then devoting their time in elected office to trying to make government not work as often as possible.” He did not take any questions after his remarks in the White House briefing room.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats against the rule change on Wednesday, saying that if the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, Republicans would further alter the rules to include Supreme Court nominees, so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the nation’s highest court.

Reacting to Republican criticism after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called the move “a huge step in the right direction” and denied that it somehow broke Senate rules.

“The Senate broke no rules,” he said in a floor speech. “We simply used the rules to make sure that the Senate could function and that we could get our nominees through.”

The vote to change the rule passed 52 to 48. Three Democrats — Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) — joined 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states.

Levin denounced both Republicans and Democrats in a floor speech after the vote. He said GOP obstruction of Obama’s nominees has been “irresponsible” and “partisan gamesmanship.” Republicans “are contributing to the destruction of an important check against majority overreach,” he said.

But Democrats have used the filibuster in the past, and “changing the rules by fiat” means that “there are no rules” in the Senate any longer,” he said. “Today we are once again moving down a destructive path,” Levin said.

Infuriated by what he sees as a pattern of obstruction and delay over Obama’s nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called “nuclear option” by proposing a motion to reconsider the nomination of Patricia Millett, one of the judicial nominees whom Republicans recently blocked by a filibuster, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Senate voted 57 to 40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Millett’s nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chamber’s president pro tempore, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand.

The Democratic victory paved the way for the confirmation of Millett and two other nominees to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.

Under its new rules, the Senate subsequently voted 55 to 43 Thursday afternoon to move ahead with Millett’s nomination. Two senators voted present.

Senate rules still require up to 30 hours of debate on the Millett nomination. So a final confirmation vote on the nomination is expected to be held in mid-December after the two-week Thanksgiving recess.

[Read: What the Senate change means.]

Many Senate majorities have thought about using this technical maneuver to get around centuries of parliamentary precedent, but none has done so in a unilateral move on a major change of rules or precedents. This simple-majority vote has been executed in the past to change relatively minor precedents involving how to handle amendments; for example, one such change short-circuited the number of filibusters that the minority party could deploy on nominations.

Reid has rattled his saber on the filibuster rules at least three other times in the past three years, yielding each time to a bipartisan compromise brokered by the chamber’s elder statesmen. But this time, no deal emerged.

The main protagonists for the rules change have been junior Democrats elected in the last six or seven years, who have alleged that Republicans have used the arcane filibuster rules to create a procedural logjam that has left the Senate deadlocked. Upon arriving in 2009, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said, he found that “the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas.”

As he recounted in a speech this week, Udall said, “I am sorry to say that little has changed. The digging continues.”

[Read: The hist ory of this fight.]

Reid’s move is a reversal of his position in 2005, when he was minority leader and fought the GOP majority’s bid to change rules on a party-line vote. A bipartisan, rump caucus led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defused that effort.

At the time, McConnell was the No. 2 GOP leader and helped push the effort to eliminate filibusters on the George W. Bush White House’s judicial selections. Eight years later, McConnell, now the minority leader, has grown publicly furious over Reid’s threats to use the same maneuver.

Democrats contend that this GOP minority, with a handful of senators elected as tea party heroes, has overrun McConnell’s institutional inclinations and served as a procedural roadblock on most rudimentary things. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1967 through 2012, majority leaders had to file motions to try to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee 67 times — and 31 of those, more than 46 percent — occurred in the last five years of an Obama White House and Democratic majority.

Republicans contend that their aggressive posture is merely a natural growth from a decades-long war over the federal judiciary, noting that what prompted the 2005 rules showdown were at least 10 filibusters of GOP judicial nominees. To date, only a handful of Obama’s judicial selections have gone to a vote and been filibustered by the minority.

However, many Republicans, weary from the third rules fight this year, seemed to have adopted a resigned indifference to this latest threat, as opposed to the heated rhetoric in mid-July when the issue last flared up.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Knockout Game — Knock Out King — One Hitter Quitter — Polar Bear Hunting — Black Young Thugs — Black Young Murders — Black Violent Crimes — Videos

Posted on November 20, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Education, Federal Government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-172

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Knockout Game — Knock Out King — One Hitter Quitter — Polar Bear Hunting — Black Young Thugs — Black Young Murders — Black Violent Crimes — Videos

Knock-Out-Game

The Truth: Knockout Game Thugs

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/

Knockout game video: roving teens suckerpunch strangers in latest trend

Teen Playing The Knockout Game Gets Shot Twice By Victim

Bernie Goldberg: Media ignoring knockout game because it is black on white violence

Black thugs killing people with deadly knockout game

‘Knock out game’ attackers go free

One Hitter Quitter and he SLEEEEEEEEP!!!

Play the Knockout Game and You Could Spend Your Life in Prison

[FULL] NEW YORK HATE CRIME; BLACK MAN PUNCHES ELDERLY WHITE MAN AND KILLS HIM IN UNION SQUARE!!!

“Youth” attacks and KILLS elderly Vietnamese man in bloodthirsty “knockout game”

Widow of Knockout Game Victim Speaks Out

Killed by knockout game

Black Kids From Jersey Playing Knockout Game

Murder by knock out game

Black Thugs Target Innocent Whites in Knockout “Game” – Who’s Raising These Savages?

6 Blacks “Knockout Game” Leaves 70 Year Old White Stranger In Hospital

Knockout “Game”…

KNOCKOUT THE GAME!!!

St. Louis Knockout King Game: More Victims and the Cover-up By City Hall and Police

New Jersey Nigglets Playing Knockout-Game On Unsuspecting People As They Walk Past!

Homicides In United States 2011

Race Total Sex
Male Female Unknown
Total 12,664 9,829 2,813 22
White 5,825 4,079 1,745 1
Black 6,329 5,416 910 3
Other race 335 225 110 0
Unknown race 175 109 48 18

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1

RANDOM INNOCENTS VICTIMS OF INTERRACIAL VIOLENCE IN DEADLY ‘KNOCKOUT’ GAME

A new deadly “game” called “Knockout” is crossing the nation, especially among black teenagers, in which they try to punch a randomly-selected person walking by on the street so hard with one blow that knocks them unconscious—but the results have sometime proven fatal.

In the New York area in particular, there also seems to be an anti-Semitic motivation to some of the attacks. One black teen, asked why the players savagely attack their victims, simply said, “For the fun of it.” Another added, “They just want to see if you got enough strength to knock somebody out.”

The attacks, also called “Knock Out King” or “happy slapping,” have occurred from Syracuse to New York City to New Jersey to St. Louis. The list of attacks is frightening, and that only includes the ones that have been made public. Examples include:

  1. 46-year-old Eric Ralph Santiago of Hoboken, NJ, whose body was found with his neck broken and his head squeezed between iron fence posts. Videotape shows Santiago walking in an alleyway during the day, and one black teenager in a trio punching him hard enough to kill him, causing him to slump into and wedge his neck in a fence.
  2. In Crown Heights, New York, A 19-year-old Jewish man was crossing the street when brutally punched by a black man who was in a group of roughly ten young black males. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters there have been at least seven attacks on Jews in Crown Heights in the recent weeks.
  3. Another attack in Crown Heights on November 6 where two black teens reportedly approached a 12-year-old Jewish boy playing baseball in the street and punched him in the head.
  4. Syracuse, New York: May 23: A 13-year-old teen tried to knock out Michael Daniels on May 23; when that didn’t work, a 15-year-old teen punched Daniels and injured his brain so severely that Daniels died the next day. One perpetrator pled guilty to assault and the other was convicted of second-degree manslaughter. Both were sentenced to 18 months.
  5. Pittsburgh, 2012; James Addlespurger, a teacher, was allegedly punched by one black teen walking with a group. Addlespurger points to surveillance video of the altercation, saying it “pretty much speaks for itself.”
  6. Syracuse: 70-year-old Jim Giffords was allegedly punched so hard by Romeo Williams, an eighteen-year-old black male, that he died.
  7. St. Louis, 2011: an elderly Vietnamese man was murdered by “knockout” by a black man who was 18 years old at the time of his sentencing in May 2013.
  8. St. Louis: 21-year-old Zack Finkelstein was walking to a bus stop to go meet his grandmother when police say a black man in his 20s or 30s brutally punched him in a random attack.
  9. St. Louis: A 17-year-old black teenager Edward Townsend allegedly punched a 30-year-old man in the head in an apparent “knockout” attack. Also in St. Louis: a group of teenagers beat a gay man up playing “the knock out game.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/16/Black-Youths-Targeting-Victims-With-Deadly-Knockout-Game

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama and Obamacare Disapproval Poll Numbers Skyrockecting — Obama and Obamacare Approval Poll Numbers Plummet — Mr. President Tear Down This Website and Repeal Obamacare — Videos

Posted on November 20, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , |

obama-face-obamacare

new york post obamacare

Obama-Independents-and-Scandals-SMALL

White House reaction to sinking poll numbers

Poll: Obamacare support, Obama approval sink to new lows

WH aides feared ObamaCare site issues before launch

BREAKING! White House Admits Obama LIED About OBAMACARE!

Obamacare, The Numbers Don’t Lie – Obamacare Results Revealed In Polls, Sign-Ups

Ron Paul: Obamacare ‘A Conspiracy Of Stupidity’

Obama Not Feeling Down Over Low Poll Numbers

Judge Jeanine: Obama Setting Americans Up For Identity Theft Through Obamacare!

Judge Jeanine to Barack Obama: “No One Believes You Anymore!” – Opening Statement – 11-2-13

House Hearing On Docs Showing Obama Admin Knew About Obamacare Website Problems In March

Bill Johnson Talks the Security of Healthcare.gov on Fox Business

CBS Healthcare gov Chief Project Manager Kept in Dark About Website Problems

Video: Congressman Busts CBS News For Misleading Report on Obamacare Website Security Risks

Tony Trenkle, CMS CIO, steps down for ‘private sector’

Interview with Tony Trenkle, CIO, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

How White House “SWAT Team” Missed HealthCare.gov

U.S. Chief Tech Officer Testifies on Obamacare Site

Rep. Cory Gardner Questions Security of Obamacare Website

“I Am Sorry” Obama Apologizes For LYING About ObamaCare

Sean Hannity Interviews Ann Coulter: Obamacare Planned Intentional Disaster to Move to Single Payer

MEDIA REPORTS – Obamacare’s Unhealthy Numbers Democrats In A Full Panic

CBS News: 61 Percent Of Americans Disapprove Of Obamacare

A majority of Americans are not pleased with the job President Barack Obama has been doing.

A new CBS News poll finds that Obama’s approval rating has plummeted to 37 percent, a nine-point drop from his 46 percent rating in October. His disapproval rating is at the highest CBS News Polls have indicated, climbing to 57 percent.

The faulty Affordable Care Act rollout hasn’t helped matters as only 31 percent of Americans now approve of Obamacare, indicating a drop of 12 points since last month. It’s the lowest number recorded by CBS News Polls for the favorability of the law. A staggering 61 percent disapprove of the law.

Only 7 percent of Americans believe the law is working well and should be kept in place while one in 10 Americans believe thehealth care exchange sign-ups have been going well. Conversely, CBS News Polls found that two-thirds don’t believe enrolling for Obamacare is going well.

A majority of Americans also don’t believe the government will be able to fix the faulty HealthCare.gov website. Almost two-thirds believe the website will be fixed by the Dec. 1 deadline set by the administration, compared to 34 percent of people who believe it will be.

Last week, federal health officials revealed that just 26,794 people enrolled for health insurance through the federal website during the first, flawed month of operations, and a total of 106,000 nationwide — a small fraction of what they had projected.

Obama has apologized for the faulty rollout and for the millions of Americans who are losing their coverage due to the law. A CBS News analysis found that nearly 5 million Americans will lose their current health plan due to Obamacare.

In the wake of growing criticism over the cancellations, Obama tried to make good on a previous promise, saying those who like their insurance can keep it for one more year. However, the ultimate decision still lies with insurers and state insurance commissioners.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/cbs-news-61-percent-of-americans-disapprove-of-obamacare/

EXCLUSIVE — MR. PRESIDENT, TEAR DOWN THIS WEBSITE

by REP. LAMAR SMITH (R-TX)

Many Americans have experienced the ill effects of Obamacare. That’s because the President’s broken promises are piling up. He promised that if you like your health care plan you can keep it. But for millions of Americans, that’s not true.

He said that the law would make health insurance more affordable. But across the country, Americans are seeing their premiums go up, not down. And when launching Healthcare.gov, the Obama administration said that the website was safe, secure and open for business. We now know that isn’t true, either.

The data obtained by Healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled. It links information between seven different federal agencies and state agencies and government contractors.

The website requires users to provide personal information like birth dates, social security numbers, and household incomes in order to obtain information about potential health coverage. But security experts have expressed concern about flaws in the site that put this personal data at risk and subject users to the threat of identity theft.

This week, the Science Committee, which I chair, held a hearing to examine security and privacy concerns about the Obamacare website. We heard from witnesses outside the government who are experts in cybersecurity and hacking websites. They provided a convincing evidence of the vulnerabilities that underlie Healthcare.gov.

One of our witnesses, David Kennedy, is a “white hat hacker,” who is hired by companies around the world to test the security of their online systems by essentially hacking their websites. During the hearing, Mr. Kennedy gave a demonstration of the healthcare.gov website’s vulnerabilities showing in real-time that hackers can access personal information on the website. It’s clear that not only is the website vulnerable, it’s under attack.

When asked whether he believed the website had already been compromised by hackers, Mr. Kennedy testified that he believed the website has either already been hacked or soon will be.

The massive amount of personal information collected by the Healthcare.gov website creates a tempting target for scam artists. Identity theft jeopardizes credit ratings and personal finances.

Here are some real-life examples of people who have already had misfortune after using the Obamacare website. Mr. Thomas Dougall of South Carolina received a surprise phone call from a stranger one Friday evening explaining that he had just downloaded a letter off the Healthcare.gov website containing Dougall’s personal information.

And when Lisa Martinson of Missouri called Healthcare.gov’s customer service after forgetting her password, she was told three different people were given access to her account, address and social security number.

Aside from technological vulnerabilities, it turns out that federal employees—called navigators—who help users apply for insurance on the Healthcare.gov website have not received background checks. Yet they are able to access the personal information of thousands of people.

These threats to Americans’ well-being and financial security should make us question the future of Obamacare. Perhaps it is time to take Obamacare off of life support. Americans deserve a healthcare system that works and that they can trust.

The Obama administration has a responsibility to ensure that the personal and financial data collected by the government is secure. It is clear that is not the case today. In their haste to launch Healthcare.gov, it appears the administration cut corners that leave the site open to hackers and other online criminals.

Given the distressing testimony we heard at the Science Committee’s hearing about Healthcare.gov, there is only one reasonable course of action. Mr. President, take down this website.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/20/Lamar-Smith-Mr-President-Tear-Down-This-Website

Obamacare, Another American Scandal Under Obama

Obama-Independents-and-Scandals-SMALL

Obamacare (ACA),  is a prime example of cronyism in President Barack  Hussien Obama’s administration, according to Bill Kristol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard.

“It’s big government at work and crony big government at work and the Obama administration at work and Obamacare at work,” Mr. Kristol on TV saturday.

“It just exemplifies why someone of us have been so opposed to Obamacare and so insistent that the core conservative agenda for the next two years . . . has to be to the repeal of Obamacare.”

Mr. Kristol believes the social engineering behind the healthcare law “really brings home” how radical it is.

“There are a ton of liberal policies that tax people to give benefits to the poor, the elderly, or to students, or others and . . . people like us tend not to like those policies very much, think they’re much too extravagant and need to be reformed . . . but that’s one thing,” he said.

“They still don’t really intrude on your personal liberty and your personal life quite the way this does.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich last week compared the Affordable Care Act to the Watergate Scandal, but Mr. Kristol believes the healthcare law is far worse.

“Obamacare, honestly, will do more damage to the country than Watergate ever could’ve done,” he said.

“Watergate was stupid, petty, partisan politics and [President Richard] Nixon did misuse the Oval Office and then did lie to the country about it, probably.

“But, here, we have a legislative takeover of a huge percentage of the economy and an area that’s so important to everyone’s lives. So, no, I haven’t really thought of that analogy.”

On the question of Iran continuing to build its nuclear weapons program, Mr. Kristol believes the United States must intervene. Whether that will happen, he says, is doubtful.

“The United States should prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but I don’t think the Obama administration is going to,” he said.

“They don’t know they believe in the negotiations. They think there’s real hope that we can have an interim deal. I have no confidence, unfortunately, that the US  is going to do the right thing here.”

Therefore, he said, Israel may have to act on its own in stopping Iran’s nuclear might.

“If they do, we should certainly support them. So this could be a huge issue in the next 6 to 9 months.

Between Obamacare and Iran, it will bring home how feckless, how irresponsible a leader  Mr. Obama is.

http://www.livetradingnews.com/obamacare-another-american-scandal-under-obama-17313.htm#.Uo0tfxvqzTo

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff and SIPC — Videos

Posted on November 19, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Computers, Economics, Education, government, government spending, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

SIPC Member logo

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 1

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 2

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 3

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 4

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 5

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 6

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 7

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 8

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 9

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 10

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 11

Financial Services Committee hearing on Madoff December 9, 2009 Part 12

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Inside the Madoff Scandal — Videos

Posted on November 19, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Crime, Diasters, Economics, Federal Government, Fraud, government, government spending, IRS, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Securities and Exchange Commission, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Inside the Madoff Scandal: Chapter One

Inside the Madoff Scandal: Chapter Two

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Harry Markopolos — No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Erin Arvedlund — Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff — Videos

Posted on November 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Computers, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Photos, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Religion, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

too_good_to_be_true

Erin_Arvedund

Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff Part 1

Erin Arvedlund first wrote about Bernie Madoff for Barrons in 2001 and published her book, Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff in August of 2009. In this episode of The Massachusetts School of Law’s Books of our Time, Dean Velvel, himself a Madoff victim, and Arvedlund discuss the history of the brokerage industry, the possible culpability of the entire Madoff family, the difference between Madoff’s legitimate brokerage firm and his illegitimate hedge fund and the steps that lead up to the largest Ponzi scheme in American History. Arvedlund tells the story of Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme with the knowledge and detail of an insider, and sheds new light on the greatest financial enigma of American History.

The Massachusetts School of Law also presents information on important current affairs to the general public in television and radio broadcasts, an intellectual journal, conferences, author appearances, blogs and books. For more information visit mslawledu.

Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff Part 2

[youtub4e=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CdqYJZfyq0]

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Harry Markopolos — No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Madoff Hustle — Videos

Posted on November 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Computers, Crime, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, People, Philosophy, Programming, Raves, Tax Policy, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

madoff_hustle

The Madoff Hustle – Part 1

The Madoff Hustle – Part 2

The Madoff Hustle – Part 3

The Madoff Hustle – Part 4

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Harry Markopolos — No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s October Surprise: The August 2012 8.1% Unemployment Rate That Declined To 7.8 for September 2012 Faked and Manipulated By Census Bureau for Political Reasons — Jack Welch Was Right — Happy Birthday Jack — Video

Posted on November 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Reviews, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Now

November 19, 2013

gdp_large

Unemployment Rate

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

unemployment_rate

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 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3

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 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 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 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8

Rick Santelli Rages Against Media Over ‘Manipulated’ Unemployment Data Allegations

October 5th 2012 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (September Jobs Report)

Jobless Rate Drops Bellow 8 Percent – Jack Welch Weighs in On Cavuto!!

Jay Carney Swats Away ‘Conspiracy Theories’ About Faked 2012 Employment Data – 11-19-2013

Jack Welch: Jobs Data Too Good to Be True – CNBC’s The Kudlow Report

Jack Welch on Hardball w/Chris Matthews

Anderson Cooper Goes After Jack Welch Over Unemployment Numbers

UnEmployment Rate – New Jobs Report – Steve Forbes: Jack Welch Is Right!

Peter Schiff Explains the Questionable Unemployment Figures on his Dec. 7, 2012 Show

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report

By John Crudele

November 18, 2013 | 8:06pm

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.

“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.

Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.

“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”

On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.

With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.

During the 2010 Census report — an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year — I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.

I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs — commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)

Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.

I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.

I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.

To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.

So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures

The New York Post is reporting an absolute bombshell story if true.  They claim the September 2012 unemployment report was manipulated and survey data was faked, just in time for the election.  The story quotes anonymous sources, insiders from the Census Bureau who claim to have falsified survey data for the unemployment report.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Not only is the Post claiming the September 2012 unemployment surveys were manipulated but this is still going on today.  The Census actually caught one employee fabricating the unemployment statistics by falsifying survey results which should be answered by respondents.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

The story might very well be true.  The unemployment rate comes from surveys, sent out to 60,000 households spread out over 2,025 geographical areas of the country..  The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives great detail into the methodology used for these surveys.  The fraud reported by the New York Post comes from the 2200 Census employees who conduct the phone interviews each month for the Household survey.  Instead of doing their job and recording the answers from the interview questions of these households, a few individuals are falsifying the survey results.  If employees were falsifying interviews and this fudging of surveys is done with enough households, such fraud could skew the unemployment rate.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

The Post claims the Census Bureau demands a 90% interview response rate and certain regions of the country that is hard to get.  So personnel are fudging the results and filling in the survey.  There might certainly be truth to this as employees are under pressure to produce results, no one answers their phones these days and who wants to be bothered by some Census Bureau employee asking a lot of obnoxious questions?

What is more odious is the BLS is not publishing actual response rates for the household survey.  If the Post article is true and the Census expects a 90% or greater response rate, that seems a little ridiculous demand by itself.  Below is a short explanation on how the unemployment report statistics are collected.  Read it and then imagine being part of this survey.  How accurate would you be or even responsive over time?

The survey is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each month, during the calendar week including the 19th day, Census interviewers contact households by telephone and in person and ask questions regarding the labor market activity of household members during the previous calendar week which included the 12th day of the month—the reference week. Personal visits are preferred in the first month in which the household is in the sample. At the first visit, interviewers prepare a roster of the household members including their demographic characteristics and their relationship to the person maintaining the household, and enter the information via laptop computers, along with responses to all survey questions.

In the months following the first interview, the interview is generally conducted by telephone. The household roster is checked for accuracy and brought up to date in each interview. About 10 percent of households are interviewed via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) by staff in three centralized calling centers. Other telephone interviews are collected by field representatives. A personal visit is generally attempted for the fifth interview. At the end of each day’s interviewing, the data are transmitted over secure telecommunications lines to the Census Bureau’s central computer in Washington, DC.

From the number of households and individual Census employees it is clear the Census would have to falsify many interviews to actually skew the survey results enough to manipulate the unemployment rate.  The Post story quotes the employee already busted for falsifying survey interview responses that he did so on the demand from management at the Census Bureau.

The question of intentional hoodwinking for political agendas versus low paid workers having to interview people all day on a quota is really unanswered.  Yet none of that matters.  If any portion of this story is true, it means data integrity is compromised.  All sorts of policies, funds, legislation and even Wall Street are tied to the unemployment rate.  Suspecting fictional statistics, just the concept, could result in no confidence of government statistics.  That is an unmitigated disaster on a host of fronts.

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”

On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.

With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

We look at the unemployment statistics in great detail every month and the way to prove the Census is falsifying data is by a probability and error margin analysis check.  Such an analysis is quite involved.  To detect Census employee fraud, such an analysis should be performed on individual employee interview results.  This still leaves the question of how honest actual survey respondents are as well.  In terms of statistical accuracy, we’ve never liked the Household survey.  The error margin is too great and we believe the Census should cross correlate survey results with other labor market metrics for a reality check.  While not a poll, a survey is just that, asking people to volunteerinformation.  To make matters worse, recently some of the revisions to GDP methodology are truly questionable and the last thing America needs is even more manipulated or skewed economic statistics

At the time the September 2012 unemployment report was released, the results were so extreme we compared it to falling through a worm hole in statistical space.  Yet that month is not the only one which seems to be skewed.  Every month we analyze these reports digging out the figures to explain the unbelievable, such as the unemployment rate dropping dramatically while the net gain of those employed is basically static.

We question the conspiracy element of the Post story that the Census would actually falsify the unemployment rate to skew an election.  The reason that seems absurd is the press pays no attention to the pathetic labor market and neither Presidential candidate in 2012 was offering a damn thing to actually increase jobs.  It is also doubtful a sudden drop in the unemployment rate would sway the election results, even though the official unemployment rate sweeps millions of Americans needing a job under the political and statistical rug.

What could very well be true is an increasing nonresponse rate to Census survey unemployment questions.  Generally speaking people do not have the time, feel obligated to answer such surveys or even pick up a land line, unlike 50 years ago.  We also question how honest people are who do answer surveys as well as the type of person to respond versus those who do not.  Just by asking individuals would seem to put bias into the sampling group.  One would think America could obtain more accurate data collection methods than a survey in order to find out what people are doing each month for work.  After all, the NSA knows every single thing we say or do these days.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/new-york-post-claims-census-falsifies-unemployment-figures-5436

Then

October 5, 2012

Over 23 Million Americans Looking For A Full Time Job As The Total Unemployment Rate U-6 Unchanged At 14.7%–Unemployment Rate U-3 Drops To 7.8% The Same Rate As January 2009!–Obama’s October Surprise As GDP Growth Rate Falls–Videos

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

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

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

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

[Numbers in thousands]

HOUSEHOLD DATA Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
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
Category Sept. 2011 July 2012 Aug. 2012(p) Sept. 2012(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 202 181 142 114
Total private 216 163 97 104
Goods-producing 33 20 -22 -10
Mining and logging 6 -1 -1 1
Construction 30 3 1 5
Manufacturing -3 18 -22 -16
Durable goods(1) 4 18 -20 -13
Motor vehicles and parts 2.9 12.8 -6.9 -3.4
Nondurable goods -7 0 -2 -3
Private service-providing(1) 183 143 119 114
Wholesale trade -3.0 8.8 7.0 -1.6
Retail trade 14.2 3.2 8.3 9.4
Transportation and warehousing 1.8 14.2 7.7 17.1
Information 34 8 1 -6
Financial activities -6 1 7 13
Professional and business services(1) 59 41 19 13
Temporary help services 23.7 13.0 0.1 -2.0
Education and health services(1) 58 40 25 49
Health care and social assistance 47.5 27.7 22.2 44.5
Leisure and hospitality 20 24 38 11
Other services 3 9 -2 9
Government -14 18 45 10
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.3 49.3 49.3
Total private women employees 47.9 47.8 47.8 47.8
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.5 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.5
Average hourly earnings $23.16 $23.52 $23.51 $23.58
Average weekly earnings $796.70 $809.09 $808.74 $813.51
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 94.5 95.9 96.0 96.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.4
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 104.4 107.6 107.7 108.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.7 -0.1 0.1 0.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.6 33.7 33.7 33.7
Average hourly earnings $19.53 $19.77 $19.76 $19.81
Average weekly earnings $656.21 $666.25 $665.91 $667.60
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 101.5 103.5 103.6 103.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 132.5 136.7 136.8 137.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4
DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 57.9 54.9 51.3 52.8
Manufacturing (81 industries) 53.7 48.8 38.9 39.5
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
NOTE:  Data in this table have been corrected.  For more information see http://www.bls.gov/bls/ceswomen_usps_correction.htm.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Harry Markopolos — No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller — Videos

Posted on November 18, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

no_one_would_listen

Bernie Madoff: Thief

BernardMadoff

No One Would Listen, by Harry Markopolos

House+Finance+Group+Holds+Hearing+Madoff+Regulatory

The Man Who Knew

Book TV: After Words: Harry Markopolos, “No One Would Listen”

Madoff Whistleblower Speaks with ABC News Radios Aaron Kate

Ackerman Scolds SEC for Not Stopping Bernie Madoff Scheme Despite Being Told About It 10yrs Ago

Markopolos: I gift wrapped and delivered the largest Ponzi scheme in history to the SEC

Rep. Maloney on Madoff Fraud

Congressman Spencer Bachus questions at Madoff Ponzi Fraud Hearing

Congressman Sherman questions Harry Markopoulos

Ron Paul – Madoff Fraud Hearing – Congress – Big Ponzi Scheme 01-05-09

DP/30: Chasing Madoff, subject Harry Markopolos (pt 1 of 2)

DP/30: Chasing Madoff, subject Harry Markopolos (pt 2 of 2)

Background Articles and Videos

Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market

Bernie Madoff Reveals to Barbara Walters He Is ‘Happier in Prison’

Bernie Madoff’s Jail Cell and His Future Life in Prison, Levine: “He’s Worse Than a Child Molester.”

The Madoff Hustle – Part 1

The Madoff Hustle – Part 2

The Madoff Hustle – Part 3

The Madoff Hustle – Part 4

Part 1: The Hunt for Madoff’s Money

Part 2: The Hunt for Madoff?s Money

Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff Part 1

Erin Arvedlund first wrote about Bernie Madoff for Barrons in 2001 and published her book, Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff in August of 2009. In this episode of The Massachusetts School of Law’s Books of our Time, Dean Velvel, himself a Madoff victim, and Arvedlund discuss the history of the brokerage industry, the possible culpability of the entire Madoff family, the difference between Madoff’s legitimate brokerage firm and his illegitimate hedge fund and the steps that lead up to the largest Ponzi scheme in American History. Arvedlund tells the story of Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme with the knowledge and detail of an insider, and sheds new light on the greatest financial enigma of American History.

The Massachusetts School of Law also presents information on important current affairs to the general public in television and radio broadcasts, an intellectual journal, conferences, author appearances, blogs and books. For more information visit mslawledu.

Too Good to be True- The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff Part 2

[youtub4e=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CdqYJZfyq0]

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Repeal Obamacare Tax (ROT) — ROT NOW! — Videos

Posted on November 18, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Video, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-169

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Repeal Obamacare Tax (ROT) — ROT NOW! — Videos

obamacare-taxes (1)2013-Capital-Gains-Tax-RatesObamacare tax increaseobamacare-tax11-fine_taxes_and_obamacareObamacare-Tax-Penaltiesindividual_mandate_tax

five_top_obamacare_taxesObamacare-Healthcare-Taxes21NEWTAXESobamacare-taxes3

ObamaCare-Taxes1

Obamacare-Taxes

specialobamacaretaxesmiddleclass

special-obamacare-spending-and-taxesObamacarebl-obama-taxes-on-richvero marginal tax rate smallaffordable-tax_care

Obamacare-New-Taxes

Higher Taxes In 2013 Can’t Help The Government (But Can Hurt You!)

historical-burden-of-federal-spending (1)

totalfederaltaxesshareofgdp-thumb1

Obama in 2009: “Absolutely Not a Tax Increase”

Obama_Postage_xlarge

Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

Ben Swann Truth in Media: Obamacare Navigators Won’t Have To Pass Background Checks

Obama: Healthcare Law Raised Taxes On “Somethings” – Obamacare – Wake Up America!

ObamaCare Obama’s Regressive Tax on the Middle Class

Fail-Safe In Obamacare Puts Taxpayers On The Hook For Insurer Bailout – Wake Up America

Judge Jeanine Pirro – Unions Dodging Obamacare Tax – RPT: Rule Allows Labor Unions A Pass

Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax Stuns WH Chief of Staff Lew

ObamaCare Slaps 3.8% Net Income Tax On Individuals, Trusts And Estates

New ObamaCare Taxes You Probably Don’t Know About

Wake Up, America – Aka, “Obamacare Tax’ New Term: Shared Responsibility Payments

Reporter Uncovers Massive Fraud In Obamacare !!

Glenn Beck- ObamaCare Lies

Pelosi: ObamaCare Is Not “In Trouble”

The Obamacare Extension – Government Without Painkillers

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

MLA Style Tutorials — Videos

Posted on November 15, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Book, Books, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Diasters, Education, Employment, government spending, High School, Language, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tutorials, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , |

MLAPoster09

MLA_Cheat_Sheet

mla_example-1mla-sample-research-paper

Color_Guide

mla_article

Purdue OWL: MLA Formatting – The Basics

Purdue OWL: MLA Formatting: List of Works Cited

Using Purdue OWL as MLA and Bibliography resource

MLA in Three Minutes

MLA Tutorial #1: Basic Paper Formatting

MLA Tutorial #2: Basic Citation Format

MLA Tutorial #3: Works Cited Page Formatting

MLA Tutorial #4: Web Citations

MLA Tutorial #5: Citing Research

MLA Tutorial #6: In-Text Citations

MLA Tutorial #7: Punctuating In-Text Citations

Citing with MLA

Quoting vs. Paraphrasing – MLA Style

MLA Style Essay Format – Word Tutorial

MLA Citation Format, Part 1–Put Your Papers & Essays in Perfect MLA Style

Writing a Research Paper and Using In-text Citations

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

HIM Obama, HIM Obama, HIM Obama — His Imperial Majesty — Monarch of Marxism, Czar of Communism, Shah of Socialism, and Pharaoh of Progressivism — His Imperial Majesty Obama — HIM Obama, HIM Obama, HIM Obama — HIM That Must Be Obeyed — If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep Your Plan For One More Year — Videos

Posted on November 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Television, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Pronk Pops Show

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: HIM Obama, HIM Obama, HIM Obama — His Imperial Majesty — Monarch of Marxism, Czar of Communism, Shah of Socialism, and Pharaoh of Progressivism — His Imperial Majesty Obama — HIM Obama, HIM Obama, HIM Obama — HIM That Must Be Obeyed — If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep Your Plan For One More Year — Videos

king-obama

characteristics_qualtities_barack_obama

how_Americans_View_Barack_Obamamedicare__social_security_deficits_chartsocial_security_medicareCP-fed-spending-numbers-2013-page-2-chart-2CP-fed-spending-numbers-2013-page-3-chart-2 CP-fed-spending-numbers-2013-page-6-chart-1

A Montage of Obama’s “If You Like Your Plan Keep It” Lies

President Obama describing how to reach single payer flashback

Barack Obama: ‘We Fumbled the Roll Out on This Health Care Law,’ ‘That’s on Me’ – 11-14-2013

Barack Obama Full Speech on Obamacare Disaster & Keep Your Plan Promise – November 14, 2013

Obama wants it both ways on single payer

Obama’s Single Payer Health Care System : New World Order ( NWO )

President Obama Wants A Single Payer Health Care System

Obama on single payer health insurance

Barack Obama and single payer health care

Obama On Single Payer Health Care

President Obama answers question on Health Care Website (C-SPAN Clip)

Obama Town Hall 1st Question? Single Payer

Obama In ’09: Medicare “Is Going Broke”

Trustees say long-run Medicare, Social Security deficit is $66 trillion

Social Security and Medicare – the two largest federal programs – are on track to generate $66 trillion in deficits over time, according to the latest analysis from the programs’ trustees.

Taken together, the reports underscore the fact that whatever modest improvement there has been in the near-term deficit outlook, the nation still faces deep long-term fiscal challenges.

In 2013, Social Security’s trustees expect the program to pay out $79 billion more in benefits than the government collects in Social Security taxes, and anticipate the program running deficits in perpetuity. This is despite the expiration of the 2011-12 payroll tax holiday and the improvement in the economy. Back when President Bush advocated Social Security reform, the program wasn’t supposed to start running annual deficits until 2018.

Typically, the media places emphasis on the Social Security “trust fund.” That is, in past years in which the government was collecting more in Social Security taxes than it cost to provide benefits, it spent the surplus on other government functions and issued IOUs to the Social Security system. Though the distinction is silly given that the money all has to come from the same bank account, the trustees estimate that these IOUs will now run out in 2033, at which point, absent other changes, the federal government would have to automatically cut Social Security benefits by 23 percent. When Bush was advocating Social Security reform, this wasn’t projected to happen until 2042. Put another way, the trust fund exhaustion date that was 37 years away during the Bush era when liberals denied the existence of a Social Security crisis, is now just 20 years away.

Under the trustees’ “infinite horizon” estimates that project the cost of Social Security over time in present dollars, the program is running a long-term deficit of $23.1 trillion.

When it comes to Medicare, the outlook is even grimmer, because the demographics of an expanding older generation, which challenge the finances of Social Security, interact with rising health care costs.

The finances of Medicare are also more complicated, because the program has several different funding streams. The hospital payment program, Medicare Part A, like Social Security, is financed by a payroll tax, in addition to general federal revenue. Medicare Part B (which covers services such as doctors visits and lab tests in addition to equipment such as wheelchairs) and Medicare Part D (which covers prescription drugs) are financed by a combination of collecting premiums from beneficiaries and general revenue.

Over time, the trustees project the hospital fund has $3.5 trillion in unfunded obligations, Part B will require $25 trillion in general revenue to finance, and Part D — passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Bush — will require an injection of $14.4 trillion. All told, Medicare will run $42.9 trillion short. Combined with Social Security, the long-term deficit of the two programs is $66 trillion.

This, however, likely understates the true extent of the financial problems facing Medicare. The reason is that these projections assume that all of the Medicare cuts in President Obama’s health care law will be fully implemented and that Congress will allow scheduled cuts to doctors’ payments to go into effect, even though lawmakers routinely vote to delay such cuts.

Paul Spitalnic, the acting chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a statement at the end of the report, cautioned that the projections were ultimately “implausible.” For instance, they would require a cut to Medicare physicians’ payments of nearly 25 percent this January.

“Further, while the Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and substantially improves its financial outlook, there is a strong likelihood that certain of these changes will not be viable in the long range,” Spitalnic wrote. He continued: “Without unprecedented changes in health care delivery systems and payment mechanisms, the prices paid by Medicare for health services are very likely to fall increasingly short of the costs of providing these services. By the end of the long-range projection period, Medicare prices for hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services would be less than half of their level without consideration of the productivity price reductions. Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices, which have already led to access problems for Medicaid enrollees, and far below the levels paid by private health insurance. Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result. Overriding the productivity adjustments, as Congress has done repeatedly in the case of physician payment rates, would lead to substantially higher costs for Medicare in the long range than those projected under current law.”

According to an alternate set of assumptions in which Congress undoes these cuts, the trustees estimate that the Medicare program could cost about 50 percent more over a 75-year period.

On paper, the Medicare hospital “trust fund” won’t be exhausted until 2026, which is two years later than last year and nine years later than before the passage of Obamacare. But, this estimate is based on the same unreasonable assumptions. Additionally, it’s misleading, because the projected Medicare savings are really supposed to be used to help finance the health care law’s new spending rather than extend the solvency of Medicare.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/trustees-say-long-run-medicare-social-security-deficit-is-66-trillion/article/2530908

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Only 106,185 Have Enrolled But Not Paid Premiums For Obamacare Plans — 396,261 Are Eligible For Medicaid! — Videos

Posted on November 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-166

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Only 106,185 Have Enrolled But Not Paid Premiums For Obamacare Plans — 396,261 Are Eligible For Medicaid! — Videos

American_enrolled_in_Obamacare

CNN’s Gloria Borger: Website A “Disaster,” HHS Didn’t Lowball Enrollment Numbers Enough

Chris Wallace: ‘One of the Problems’ with Obamacare is Too Many Poor People Get Medicaid

Obamacare numbers coming ‘shortly’

Obamacare Official Enrollment Numbers Released by Sebelius

Obamacare Numbers Don’t Lie – WSJ RPT: Obamacare Enrollment Well Bellow Goal – Sen Ted Cruz

$1 Billion Spent on Obamacare Ads by 2015 – Katie Pavlich vs. Alan Colmes – Fox News – 8-21-13

Opt Out – The Exam – Creepy Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam plays proctologist in creepy political ad

Fewer than 27,000 health care sign-ups through federal website; 79,000 more in state sites

Putting a statistic on disappointment, the Obama administration revealed Wednesday that fewer than 27,000 people signed up for private health insurance last month in the 36 states relying on a problem-filled federal website.

States running their own enrollment systems did better, signing up more than 79,000, for a total enrollment of over 106,000.

Still, that was barely one-fifth of the nearly 500,000 people administration officials had projected would sign up the first month of Obama’s signature program, a numerical rebuke to the administration’s ability to deliver on its promise. The 106,185 people who made it all the way through to selecting a plan represent just 1.5 percent of the 7 million people the administration hopes to enroll by next year.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said things will get better, and quickly. “There is no doubt the level of interest is strong,” she said.

The administration said an additional 1 million or so applicants have been found eligible for government-subsidized private coverage in new state-level insurance markets, and about half are within sight of having their plans lined up for the start of next year. An additional 396,000 have been found eligible for Medicaid, the safety-net program that is shaping up as the health care law’s early success story.

The numbers landed amid a political storm on Capitol Hill. Democrats who had hoped to run for re-election next year on the success of the health care law are increasingly worried.

It’s not only the website woes, but a wave of cancellation notices hitting constituents whose individual health insurance policies don’t measure up to the law’s requirements. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has scheduled an all-Democrats meeting Thursday with White House health care officials.

The administration has staked its credibility on turning the website around by the end of this month. From the president on down, officials have said that HealthCare.gov will be running smoothly for the vast majority of users by Nov. 30.

Some outside experts are concerned. “People are starting to get nervous because there is not enough indication from the government that things are on track,” said Caroline Pearson, who runs the health reform practice at Avalere Health, a market analysis firm. “You wonder if there are still underlying programming problems that are causing the system to shut down when volume is high.”

Administration officials have not specified what “running smoothly” means, or what would constitute the “vast majority” of users.

On daily media calls, Health and Human Services department officials have described a situation where problems get fixed and then new issues crop up as consumers are able to venture further into the website. It’s a bit like traffic heading back to a city late on a summer Sunday: You get past one jam, and odds are you run into another.

There was a hopeful sign this Tuesday when Julie Bataille, HHS communications director for the rollout, said that 275,000 people who got hung up in the early days are being invited back to try to complete their applications. The administration is sending the email invitations in batches, so as not to risk any disruptions. White House chief technology officer Todd Park told Congress on Wednesday that system response times are much faster, and error rates have plunged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/house-panel-investigates-whether-white-house-played-a-role-in-obamacare-technology-debacle/2013/11/13/e3b55fdc-4c3a-11e3-bf60-c1ca136ae14a_story.html

HHS reports 106,000 have picked health plans through ObamaCare exchanges

Published November 13, 2013

FoxNews.com

The Department of Health and Human Services reported Wednesday that more than 100,000 people have selected a health care plan through the ObamaCare exchanges — a number that, likely due to widespread website failures, falls far short of the administration’s goal.

The administration had originally hoped to sign up a half-million people in the first month of open enrollment. Now more than six weeks into the troubled launch of HealthCare.gov and other state-based exchanges, HHS announced Wednesday that 106,185 people had selected a plan as of Nov. 2.

The announcement had been highly anticipated, as lawmakers have been pressing the administration for weeks on official figures.

But even the statistic revealed on Wednesday might be inflated.

The administration said the figure counts all those who have selected a health care plan from state and federal exchanges, even if they haven’t yet paid a premium on those plans.

One source explained to Fox News that no one is really “enrolled” until the insurance company knows about it.

Still, the numbers announced Wednesday stand as the most definitive account to date from the administration of how many people have been able to wade through the problem-plagued website and pick a plan.

The administration says a total of 975,407 applied for coverage and received an eligibility determination, but have not yet selected a plan. In addition to the 106,185 who have selected a plan, another 396,261 have been determined as eligible for Medicaid or a similar government program for children.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/hhs-reports-106000-have-picked-health-plans-through-obamacare/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jim Croce — Videos

Posted on November 12, 2013. Filed under: Art, Art, Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Music, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

croce9_jim_maury

Jim-Croce-wid

Jim Croce Behind The Music

Jim Croce Video Tape Network (VTN) Concert 1973

Jim Croce “One Of A Kind” 1973 KCET-TV (Part 1 of 2)

Groovy Movies: Jim Croce “One Of A Kind” 1973 KCET-TV (Part 2 of 2)

Jim Croce – I Got a Name (1973)

Jim Croce – I’ll Have To Say I Love You In A Song (1973)

Jim Croce – Time in a bottle – 1973

Jim Croce – Operator (That’s Not The Way It Feels)

Jim Croce – Bad Bad Leroy Brown (Midnight Special – 1973)

Jim Croce – Lovers Cross – BBC

Jim Croce -These Dreams

Jim Croce – Bad Bad Leroy Brown (Live) [remastered 16:9]

Jim Croce – New York’s Not My Home

Jim Croce – The Hard Way Everytime

Jim Croce – Recently

Jim Croce 1973 Final Show Louisiana

OPERATOR PERFORMED BY JIM CROCE ON THE DICK CAVETT SHOW

Jim Croce on “The Helen Reddy Show” U.S. TV 1974 (2 songs)

Photographs & Memories: His Greatest Hits by Jim Croce ( Full Album )

jim_croce_50th

Background Articles and Videos

An Afternoon With Ingrid Croce

Nyberg: A.J. Croce speaks about dad’s music

Jim Croce

James Joseph “Jim” Croce (/ˈkri/; January 10, 1943 – September 20, 1973) was an American singer-songwriter. Between 1966 and 1973, Croce released five studio albums and 11 singles. His singles “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown” and “Time in a Bottle” were both number one hits on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.

Early life

Croce was born in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 10, 1943, to James Albert and Flora Mary (Babucci) Croce, Italian Americans.[2] Croce took a strong interest in music at a young age. At five, he learned to play his first song on the accordion, “Lady of Spain.”

Croce attended Upper Darby High School in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. After graduating in 1960, he studied at Malvern Preparatory School for a year before enrolling at Villanova University, where he majored in psychology and minored inGerman.[3][4] He graduated with a Bachelor degree in 1965. Croce was zxcvsafdgtfawerga member of the Villanova Singers and the Villanova Spires. When the Spires performed off-campus or made recordings, they were known as The Coventry Lads.[5] Croce was also a student disc jockey at WKVU (which has since become WXVU).[6][7][8]

Career

Early career

Croce did not take music seriously until he studied at Villanova, where he formed bands and performed at fraternity parties, coffee houses, and universities around Philadelphia, playing “anything that the people wanted to hear: blues, rock, a cappella, railroad music… anything.” Croce’s band was chosen for a foreign exchange tour of AfricaMiddle East, and Yugoslavia. He later said, “we just ate what the people ate, lived in the woods, and played our songs. Of course they didn’t speak English over there but if you mean what you’re singing, people understand.” Croce met his future wife Ingrid Jacobson at a hootenanny at Philadelphia Convention Hall, where he was judging a contest.

Croce released his first album, Facets, in 1966, with 500 copies pressed. The album had been financed with a $500 wedding gift from Croce’s parents, who set a condition that the money must be spent to make an album. They hoped that he would give up music after the album failed, and use his college education to pursue a “respectable” profession.[9] However, the album proved a success, with every copy sold.

1960s

From the mid-1960s to early 1970s, Croce performed with his wife as a duo. At first, their performances included songs by artists such as Ian and SylviaGordon LightfootJoan Baez, and Woody Guthrie, but in time they began writing their own music. During this time, Croce got his first long-term gig at a rural bar and steak house in Lima, Pennsylvania, called The Riddle Paddock. His set list covered several genres, including blues, country, rock and roll, and folk.

Croce married his wife Ingrid in 1966, and converted to Judaism, as his wife was Jewish, though he became non-practicing and was generally anti-organized religion. He and Ingrid were married in a traditional Jewish ceremony.[10] He enlisted in the Army National Guard that same year to avoid being drafted and deployed to Vietnam, and served on active duty for four months, leaving for duty a week after his honeymoon.[11] Croce, who was not good with authority, had to go through basic training twice.[12] He said he would be prepared if “there’s ever a war where we have to defend ourselves with mops”.

In 1968, the Croces were encouraged by record producer Tommy West to move to New York City. The couple spent time in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx and recorded their first album with Capitol Records. During the next two years, they drove more than 300,000 miles,[13] playing small clubs and concerts on the college concert circuit promoting their album Jim & Ingrid Croce.

Becoming disillusioned by the music business and New York City, they sold all but one guitar to pay the rent and returned to the Pennsylvania countryside, settling in an old farm in Lyndell, where Croce got a job driving trucks and doing construction work to pay the bills while continuing to write songs, often about the characters he would meet at the local bars and truck stops and his experiences at work; these provided the material for such songs as “Big Wheels” and “Workin’ at the Car Wash Blues“.

1970s

The couple returned to Philadelphia and Croce decided to be “serious” about becoming a productive member of society. “I’d worked construction crews, and I’d been a welder while I was in college. But I’d rather do other things than get burned,” he later said. His determination to be “serious” led to a job at a Philadelphia R&B AM radio station, WHAT, where he translated commercials into “soul”. “I’d sell airtime to Bronco’s Poolroom and then write the spot: “You wanna be cool, and you wanna shoot pool… dig it.”

In 1970, Croce met the classically trained pianist-guitarist and singer-songwriter Maury Muehleisen from Trenton, New Jersey through producer Joe Salviuolo. Salviuolo had been friends with Croce when they attended Villanova University together, and Salviuolo later discovered Muehleisen when he was teaching at Glassboro State College in New Jersey. Salviuolo brought the Croce and Muehleisen duo together at the production office of Tommy West and Terry Cashman in New York City. Initially, Croce backed Muehleisen on guitar at his gigs but in time their roles reversed, with Muehleisen adding lead guitar to Croce’s music.

In 1972, Croce signed to a three-record deal with ABC Records and released two albums, You Don’t Mess Around with Jim and Life and Times. The singles “You Don’t Mess Around with Jim“, “Operator (That’s Not the Way It Feels)“, and “Time in a Bottle” (written for his then-unborn son, A. J. Croce) all received airplay. Croce’s biggest single, “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown“, hit No. 1 on the American charts in July 1973. That year, the Croces relocated to San DiegoCalifornia.

As his career picked up, Croce began touring the United States with Muehleisen, performing live, including in large coffee houses, on college campuses, and at folk festivals. However, Croce’s financial situation was still dire. The record company had fronted him the money to record the album, and much of the money the album earned went back to pay the advance. In February 1973, Croce and Muehleisen traveled to Europe to promote the album, visiting LondonParis, and Amsterdam, and getting positive reviews. Croce also began appearing on television, including onDon Kirshner’s Rock Concert and The Midnight Special, which he co-hosted. In July 1973, Croce and Muehleisen again visited London and performed on The Old Grey Whistle Test. Croce finished recording the album I Got a Name one week before his death. During his tours, Croce grew increasingly homesick, and decided to take a break from music and settle down with his wife and infant son after his Life and Times tour was completed.[14][15] In a letter to his wife which arrived after his death, Croce stated his intention to quit music and stick to writing short stories and movie scripts as a career, and withdraw from public life.[16][17]

Death

On Thursday, September 20, 1973, during Croce’s Life and Times tour and the day before his ABC single “I Got a Name” was released, Croce, Muehleisen, and four others were killed when the chartered Beechcraft E18S he was traveling in crashed while taking off from the Natchitoches Regional Airport in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Others who died in the crash were charter pilot Robert N. Elliott, comedian George Stevens, manager and booking agent Kenneth D. Cortose, and road manager Dennis Rast.[18][19] Croce had just completed a concert at Northwestern State University‘s Prather Coliseum in Natchitoches and was flying to Sherman, Texas, for a concert at Austin College. The plane crashed an hour after the end of the concert.

An investigation showed that the plane crashed on take off after clipping a pecan tree at the end of the runway. The plane failed to gain enough altitude to clear the tree and did not maneuver to avoid it, even though it was the only tree for hundreds of yards. It was reported as dark, but with clear sky, calm winds, and over five miles of visibility with haze. The report from the NTSB[20] listed the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to see and avoid obstructions due to pilot physical impairment and fog obstructing vision. The 57-year-old charter pilot suffered from severe coronary artery disease and had run three miles to the airport from a motel. He had an ATP Certificate, 14,290 hours total flight time and 2,190 hours in the Beech 18 type.[20] A later investigation placed sole blame for the accident on pilot error due to his downwind takeoff into a “black hole”.[21]

Jim Croce was buried at Haym Salomon Memorial Park in Frazer, Pennsylvania.[22]

Legacy

The album I Got a Name was released on December 1, 1973.[23] The posthumous release included three hits: “Workin’ at the Car Wash Blues“, “I’ll Have to Say I Love You in a Song“, and the title song, which had been used as the theme to the film The Last American Hero which was released two months prior to his death. The album reached No. 2 and “I’ll Have to Say I Love You in a Song” reached No. 9 on the singles chart.

The song “Time in a Bottle” had been featured over the opening and closing credits and during a scene in which Desi Arnaz Jr. is opening the You Don’t Mess Around With Jim album in the ABC made-for-television movie She Lives!, which aired on September 12, 1973.[24] That appearance had generated significant interest in Croce and his music in the week just prior to the plane crash. That, combined with the news of the death of the singer, sparked a renewed interest in Croce’s previous albums. Consequently, three months later, “Time in a Bottle”, originally released on Croce’s first album the year before, hit number one on December 29, 1973, the third posthumous chart-topping song of the rock era following Otis Redding‘s “(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay” and Janis Joplin‘s recording of “Me and Bobby McGee“.

greatest hits package entitled Photographs & Memories was released in 1974. Later posthumous releases have included Home Recordings: AmericanaFacetsJim Croce: Classic HitsDown the Highway, and DVD and CD releases of Croce’s television performances, Have You Heard: Jim Croce Live. In 1990, Croce was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame.[25]

The Croces’ son Adrian James (born September 28, 1971) is a singer-songwriter, musician, and pianist, and he owns and operates his own record label, Seedling Records.[26]

From 1985 to 2013 Ingrid Croce owned and managed Croce’s Restaurant & Jazz Bar—a project she and Croce had jokingly discussed a decade earlier—in the historic Gaslamp Quarter in downtown San Diego.[27] On July 3, 2012, she published a memoir about her husband, entitled I Got a Name: The Jim Croce Story.[28]

Discography

Main article: Jim Croce discography

Croce had recorded a total of five studio albums and eleven singles by the time of his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Croce

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Abba–Videos

Adele–Videos

The Animals–Videos

Joan Baez–Videos

The Beach Boys–Videos

The Beatles–Videos

Bee Gees–Videos

The Byrds–Videos

Mariah Carey–Videos

Johnny Cash–Videos

Eva Cassidy–Videos

Ray Charles–Videos

Joe Cocker–Videos

Nat King Cole–Videos

Judy Collins–Videos

Perry Como–Videos

Sam Cooke–Videos

Doris Day–Videos

Sandy Denny–Videos

John Denver–Videos

Celine Dion–Videos

The Doors–Videos

Bob Dylan–Videos

Eagles–Video

Marianne Faithfull–Videos

Roberta Flack–Videos

Aretha Franklin–Videos

Marvin Gaye-Videos

Whitney Houston–Videos

Janis Ian–Videos

Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos

Elton John–Videos

Janis Joplan–Videos

The Kinks–Videos

Led Zeppelin–Videos

Little Richard–Videos

The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos

The Mamas and Papas–Videos

Barry Manilow–Videos

Johnny Mathis–Videos

Don McLean–Videos

Bette Midler–Videos

Joni Mitchell–Videos

Olivia Newton-John–Videos

Roy Orbison–Videos

The Platters–Videos

Elvis Presley–Videos

Queen–Videos

Otis Redding–Videos

Lionel Richie–Videos

The Righteous Brothers–Videos

The Rolling Stones–Videos

Linda Ronstadt–Videos

Sam & Dave–Videos

Neil Sedaka–Videos

Bob Seger–Videos

Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos

Carly Simon–Videos

Simon & Garfunkel–Videos

Frank Sinatra–Videos

Dusty Springfield–Videos

Bruce Springsteen–Videos

Rod Stewart–Videos

Barbra Streisand–Videos

Songs

Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos

Donna Summer–Videos

Switchfoot–Videos

James Taylor–Videos

Tina Turner–Videos

Shania Twain–Videos

Village People–Videos

Hayley Westenra–Videos

Steve Winwood–Videos

Stevie Wonder–Videos

Tammy Wynette–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Low Enrollment In Obamacare Health Care Insurance Plans And Bill Clinton Says Obama Needs To Honor His Committment — Videos

Posted on November 12, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Legal, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Programming, Raves, Tax Policy, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0 : Low Enrollment In Obamacare Health Care Insurance Plans And Bill Clinton Says Obama Needs To Honor His Committment — Videos

Obamacare-cartoon

obamacare-everyone-hates-political-cartoon obamacare-cartoon-1

Bill Clinton Tells Obama ‘The President Should Honor the Commitment’ Obamacare

Bill Clinton The President Barack Obama should honor his commitment To The People

‘Obamacare’ The Big Lie Defined by Sarah Palin – Sean Hannity – Fox News – 11-11-13

Obamacare Dr Ben Carson On Obama’s Healthcare Speech In Boston Cavuto

Fewer Than 50K Americans Enrolled in Obamacare – Katie Pavlich – Fox News – 11-12-13

CBS: Low Enrollment In Obamacare Could Undermine The Law’s Financial Stability

Chuck Todd on Obamacare Enrollment: ‘There’s No Spin in These Numbers at All’

Medicaid Sign-Ups Outnumber People Enrolling In Paid-For Obamacare Plans – Lou Dobbs

Obamacare Gets Spoofed SNL Jokes About Health Care Rollout SNL Opening Segment

SNL on Obamacare

Best of Late-Night Jokes Mocking Obamacare

It’s not quite time to freak out over Obamacare’s enrollment number

By Sarah Kliff

The Wall Street Journal broke the news Monday that fewer than 50,000 people have enrolled in the new health care exchanges, a figure that we confirmed at The Washington Post.

That seems like a pretty small number of enrollees. Yet we haven’t seen much public panic from health law supporters. “I think everybody anticipated the early months would have relatively low enrollment,” Ron Pollack, president of the nonprofit health-care advocacy network Families USA, told me Monday night. “Obviously, with the Web site malfunctioning, that made the likely conclusion inevitable.”

Some of this apparent calm could simply be the deliberate optimism of the health care law’s advocates. But, putting aside any such bias, we can still make a case that the health law’s debut is not a complete disaster.

First, we can compare the rollout to that of the Massachusetts health care law, which had 123 enrollees sign up during the first month of coverage. That ended up accounting for 0.3 percent of first-year enrollment. If we tally up 40,000 enrollees in the federal marketplace –and another 49,000 in the state exchanges, as counted by consulting firm Avalere Health –that works out to about 1.2 percent of the 7 million people the Congressional Budget Office has projected will sign up on the exchange in 2014.

Massachusetts eventually saw a really big spike in enrollment right before the individual mandate kicked in. You can see that in this chart from the New England Journal of Medicine (which Adrianna McIntyre discusses in an aptly titled post, “This chart should be getting more attention.”).

enrollment_chart

We can also look at Medicaid enrollment, which has outpaced some observers’ expectations. There have been at least 440,000 Medicaid enrollments so far, according to Avalere. That would put Medicaid about 5 percent toward a projected enrollment of 9 million in 2014.

Is it easier to enroll people into a program such as Medicaid that does not charge premiums? Definitely. Is that program a key part of the health care law, responsible for more than half of the health law’s coverage expansion? Yes. So, these high levels of Medicaid enrollment in the first few weeks do matter for the health law’s insurance expansion.

Most health policy experts I talk to aren’t as concerned about the number of people who sign up for the health care law as they are about who actually enrolled. Was it a wave of sick people with really high health care costs, or did that group of under 50,000 people include a good chunk of younger, healthier people who don’t visit the doctor all too often?

Even that ratio will be difficult to figure out before March, when open enrollment ends. As the chart above on Massachusetts shows, a lot of healthy people might wait until right before the individual mandate kicks in to sign up for a plan. If you’d like to pencil in some time for freaking out about the health law’s failure, it’s probably best to schedule it for early April, when we’ll have more definitive data on who is actually signing up for Obamacare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/12/its-not-quite-time-to-freak-out-over-obamacares-enrollment-number/

Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.

By Sarah Kliff,

The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submited a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as  those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

“In the data that will be released this week, ‘enrollment’ will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace,” said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

The disparity in the numbers is likely to further inflame the political fight over the Affordable Care Act. Each side could choose a number to make the case that the health law is making progress or failing miserably.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, said insurance companies have received about 50,000 private health plan enrollments through HealthCare.gov. Even combined with state tallies, the figure falls far short of the 500,000 sign-ups the administration initially predicted for both private sign-ups and those opting for the expansion of Medicaid.

In recent weeks, administration officials have warned that the enrollment figures for October would be low, given the tumultuous launch of the health Web site.

The administration plans to use this count of enrollees because that’s where their interaction with the healthcare.gov site ends, the administration official said. Insurance plans, rather than the federal government, are responsible for collecting the first month’s premium.

The shopping cart on healthcare.gov only contains space for one health plan, meaning the consumer must have gotten far enough to settle on a specific option.

Addressing the Wall Street Journal’s report, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said: “We cannot confirm these numbers. More generally, we have always anticipated that initial enrollment numbers would be low and increase over time. . . . The problems with the Web site will cause the numbers to be lower than initially anticipated.”

States that have so far released enrollment data also tend to use this wider definition. The 14 states running their own insurance marketplaces have reported 49,000 enrollments in private health insurance plans, according to an analysis released Monday by consulting firm Avalere Health. They have also enrolled many thousands more into the Medicaid program, which the health-care law expanded.

“The idea that people are going to do layaway purchasing three months out goes against the American way,” Rhode Island exchange director Christine Ferguson said in late September, shortly before the health law’s rollout.

Different definitions of enrollment lead to vastly different estimations of who will gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In the District of Columbia, for example, health insurance plans reported signing up five people during the health law’s first month.

But the city’s exchange, DC Health Link, estimates that 321 people in the District  have dropped a specific health insurance plan into their shopping cart. Of those, 164 have requested an invoice for their first month’s premium from the insurance carrier.

“We recognize that most people do not have the luxury of paying for coverage in October, months before a bill is due,” exchange spokesman Richard Sorian said Friday. “I hope that all consumers here in the District remember that they have until Dec. 15 to finalize their selection by paying their first month’s premium in order to have coverage on Jan. 1, 2014.”

 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/who-counts-as-an-obamacare-enrollee-the-obama-administration-settles-on-a-definition/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Impact on The American Worker of Immigration and Obamacare — Videos — Videos

Posted on November 12, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

The Impact on The American Worker of Immigration and Obamacare

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA

Small Business Owner Fears Obamacare’s Impact on Jobs and Economy

Impact of ObamaCare on full-time employment

Physician exposes the Reality of ObamaCare

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

A startling look at how U.S. immigration will add 300 million people to the country this century if immigration policies are not changed.  This dramatic presentation of the latest Census data raises serious immigration questions about the ability of the country to achieve environmental sustainability and to meet the quality-of-life infrastructure needs of the national community considering current immigration policy. Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Immigration – Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck’s colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the internet. Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck

Immigration Through Ellis Island – Award Winning Documentary Video Film

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 1)

Immigration to America is a unique phenomenon in world history. No other country has ever absorbed so many people from so many different places. And no other country throughout world history has taken so much of its identity, energy, and spirit from immigrants. The American spirit is the immigrant spirit; the American Dream is the immigrant dream. It is no exaggeration to say that without immigrants, the United States could not exist.

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 2)

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 3)

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 4)

Illegal aliens crossing the mexican border

Illegal Immigration Isn’t a Joke

The High Cost of Illegal Immigration 

Illegal Immigration and the Impact of Federal Policy on Black Americans

AZ Immigration law comparison to Federal and Mexican Law

 

Southpark – They Took Our Job!

Impact of undocumented workers on unemployment

The Impact of Immigration on Jobs and Income

The Wage Effect? Immigrant Workers in the U.S. Economy

Obama On Illegal Immigration,”I Walked” 

New Obama immigration policy criticized by local groups

Background Articles and Videos

IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS – PART ONE

Roy Beck: Immigration by the Numbers 2 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? — Videos

Posted on November 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , |

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 1 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 2 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 3 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 4 of 4)

Agenda 21 For Dummies

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21

Agenda 21, Glenn Beck’s Latest Book Talks w/ UN A21 Expert Rose Koire a Democrat

The Glenn Beck Program – Air Date: Monday, November 19, 2012

The Depopulation Agenda For a New-World-Order Agenda 21

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

United Nations Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development — Videos

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Off To See The Wizard of OZ — Follow The Yellow Brick Road — The Wicked Witch Is Dead — Videos

Posted on November 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Art, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Culture, Dance, Demographics, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, Life, Links, Literacy, Movies, Music, Music, People, Philosophy, Photos, Rants, Raves, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War | Tags: , , |

004-The-Wizard-of-Oz-1939-Off-to-See-the-Wizard

Wizard of oz we’re off to see the wizard

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore – The Wizard of Oz (2/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

The Ruby Slippers – The Wizard of Oz (3/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

If I Only Had a Brain – The Wizard of Oz (4/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

The Wizard of Oz (5/8) Movie CLIP – Finding The Tin Man (1939) HD

The Cowardly Lion – The Wizard of Oz (6/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

I’m Melting! – The Wizard of Oz (7/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

The Wizard of Oz 8/8

Everything Wrong With The Wizard Of Oz

Glenn Beck ties the Wizard of Oz to today’s problems

The Dark Side Of The Rainbow – COMPLETO

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Labor Participation Drops To Low of 62.8% Lowest in 35 Years — Record 91.5 Million Americans Not In Labor Force —720,000 Leave Labor Force in October — U-3 Unemployment Rate Increases to 7.3%

Posted on November 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

sgs-emp

November 8th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (October Jobs Report)

Employment Level

143,568,000

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 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153(1) 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439(1) 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253(1) 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608(1) 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322(1) 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

154,839,000

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

Civilian_Labor_Force_Participation_Rate
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 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154232(1) 154526 154142 154479 154742 154710 154505 154300 153815 153804 153887 153120
2010 153455(1) 153702 153960 154577 154110 153623 153709 154078 153966 153681 154140 153649
2011 153244(1) 153269 153358 153478 153552 153369 153325 153707 154074 154010 154096 153945
2012 154356(1) 154825 154707 154451 154998 155149 154995 154647 155056 155576 155319 155511
2013 155654(1) 155524 155028 155238 155658 155835 155798 155486 155559 154839
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

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
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 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 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 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8

Unemployment Level

11,272,000

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 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12079 12881 13421 13826 14492 14705 14607 14819 15005 15382 15223 15095
2010 15016 15078 15192 15281 14856 14475 14542 14673 14577 14584 15094 14354
2011 13992 13798 13716 13872 13871 13964 13817 13837 13910 13696 13325 13049
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316 11255 11272

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.3%

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

Unemployment_Rate
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 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3

Employment-Population Ratio

58.3%

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

Employment_Population_Ratio

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.6
2012 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.3

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 Years Old

22.2%

Series Id:           LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 years
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2

Unemployment Rate – White

6.3%

Series Id:           LNS14000003
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - White
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                White

Unemployment_Rate_White
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5
2001 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.1
2002 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
2003 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.0
2004 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5
2005 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2
2006 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9
2007 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.4
2008 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.7
2009 7.1 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.2 9.0
2010 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.5
2011 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.7 7.5
2012 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.9
2013 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.3

Unemployment Rate – Black or African American

13.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000006
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                Black or African American
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4
2001 8.2 7.7 8.3 8.0 7.9 8.3 8.0 9.1 8.9 9.5 9.8 10.1
2002 10.0 9.9 10.5 10.7 10.2 10.5 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.8 10.7 11.3
2003 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.5 10.9 10.9 11.1 11.4 10.2 10.1
2004 10.4 9.7 10.3 9.8 10.1 10.2 11.0 10.5 10.3 10.8 10.7 10.7
2005 10.6 10.9 10.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 9.2 9.7 9.4 9.1 10.6 9.2
2006 8.9 9.5 9.5 9.4 8.7 8.9 9.5 8.8 9.0 8.4 8.5 8.3
2007 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.1 7.6 8.0 8.5 8.5 9.0
2008 9.1 8.4 9.2 8.6 9.6 9.4 10.0 10.6 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1
2009 12.7 13.7 13.6 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.9 15.3 15.9 15.7 16.1
2010 16.5 16.1 16.8 16.5 15.5 15.3 15.6 16.0 15.9 15.8 16.0 15.6
2011 15.8 15.5 15.7 16.3 16.3 16.2 15.8 16.5 15.8 14.9 15.5 15.6
2012 13.6 14.1 14.0 13.1 13.6 14.4 14.1 14.0 13.4 14.5 13.2 14.0
2013 13.8 13.8 13.3 13.2 13.5 13.7 12.6 13.0 12.9 13.1

Unemployment Rate – Hispanic or Latino

9.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000009
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Hispanic or Latino
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Ethnic origin:       Hispanic or Latino
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.6 5.7 6.1 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.7
2001 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.7
2002 7.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.9
2003 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.6
2004 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.5
2005 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.4 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 6.2 6.1
2006 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 4.7 5.1 5.0
2007 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.9 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.3
2008 6.5 6.3 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.7 7.6 8.1 8.0 8.8 8.6 9.3
2009 10.0 11.1 11.7 11.4 12.6 12.2 12.5 13.1 12.7 12.9 12.5 12.8
2010 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 12.0 12.5 12.5 13.0 12.9
2011 12.1 11.6 11.4 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.3 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.0
2012 10.5 10.6 10.3 10.3 11.0 11.0 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 9.9 9.6
2013 9.7 9.6 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.4 9.3 9.0 9.1

Average Weeks Unemployed

36.1 Weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

Average_Weeks_Unemployes
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.7 27.4 29.0 29.7
2010 30.4 29.8 31.6 33.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.0 34.1 34.8
2011 37.3 37.4 39.2 38.6 39.5 39.6 40.4 40.3 40.4 38.9 40.7 40.7
2012 40.2 39.9 39.5 39.1 39.6 39.7 38.8 39.3 39.6 39.9 39.7 38.1
2013 35.3 36.9 37.1 36.5 36.9 35.6 36.6 37.0 36.9 36.1

Median Weeks Unemployed

16.3 Weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

Employment_Level_Part_Time
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.3 17.1 15.9 16.2 17.8 18.8 19.8 20.2
2010 20.0 20.0 20.5 22.2 22.4 24.8 22.1 20.9 20.2 21.1 21.2 22.1
2011 21.5 21.3 21.8 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.5 22.2 21.9 20.4 21.1 20.8
2012 20.8 20.1 19.7 19.3 20.1 19.4 16.8 18.2 18.7 19.6 18.9 18.0
2013 16.0 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.3 16.3 15.7 16.4 16.3 16.3

Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons

8,050,000

Series Id:                      LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                   (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status:             Employed
Type of data:                   Number in thousands
Age:                            16 years and over
Hours at work:                  1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled:  Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules:        At work part time

Employment_Level_Part_Time
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3208 3167 3231 3186 3283 3209 3144 3211 3217 3179 3467 3243
2001 3332 3296 3280 3289 3439 3792 3556 3380 4233 4437 4317 4393
2002 4112 4289 4101 4199 4103 4048 4145 4301 4329 4314 4329 4321
2003 4607 4844 4652 4798 4570 4592 4648 4419 4882 4813 4862 4750
2004 4705 4549 4742 4568 4588 4443 4449 4474 4487 4820 4547 4427
2005 4389 4250 4388 4278 4315 4432 4400 4491 4675 4269 4219 4115
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8042 8788 9076 8904 9103 9051 8941 9030 8869 9005 9103 9092
2010 8493 8897 9122 9171 8816 8646 8610 8826 9226 8913 8862 8933
2011 8432 8398 8525 8649 8562 8536 8416 8816 9101 8726 8436 8168
2012 8220 8127 7664 7896 8116 8210 8245 8043 8607 8286 8138 7918
2013 7973 7988 7638 7916 7904 8226 8245 7911 7926 8050

Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available, Discourage

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects  (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Not_in_Labor_Force_Discourage

U-6 Total Unemployed Rate

13.8%

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

U_6_unemployment_rate

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Oct.
2012
Aug.
2013
Sept.
2013(p)
Oct.
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 160 238 163 204
Total private 217 207 150 212
Goods-producing 16 20 27 35
Mining and logging -6 4 5 5
Construction 16 1 18 11
Manufacturing 6 15 4 19
Durable goods(1) 1 23 10 12
Motor vehicles and parts -3.6 16.7 3.3 5.7
Nondurable goods 5 -8 -6 7
Private service-providing(1) 201 187 123 177
Wholesale trade 7.8 6.4 14.3 -5.4
Retail trade 52.1 38.3 22.3 44.4
Transportation and warehousing 13.7 12.3 29.5 0.0
Information 1 -21 4 5
Financial activities 11 -1 -1 7
Professional and business services(1) 53 42 32 44
Temporary help services 9.0 15.1 11.4 3.3
Education and health services(1) 34 57 6 23
Health care and social assistance 37.4 50.6 8.7 17.5
Leisure and hospitality 22 49 13 53
Other services 7 4 3 6
Government -57 31 13 -8
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private women employees 47.9 48.0 47.9 47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.7 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.3 34.5 34.4 34.4
Average hourly earnings $23.58 $24.05 $24.08 $24.10
Average weekly earnings $808.79 $829.73 $828.35 $829.04
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 96.5 98.8 98.6 98.8
Over-the-month percent change -0.4 0.5 -0.2 0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 108.5 113.3 113.3 113.6
Over-the-month percent change -0.5 0.7 0.0 0.3
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.6 33.7 33.7 33.6
Average hourly earnings $19.82 $20.20 $20.24 $20.26
Average weekly earnings $665.95 $680.74 $682.09 $680.74
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.2 106.2 106.3 106.2
Over-the-month percent change 0.0 0.5 0.1 -0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 137.9 143.3 143.7 143.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 64.8 59.8 57.5 61.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 56.2 51.2 51.9 56.2
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

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed             USDL-13-2120
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, November 8, 2013

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 -- OCTOBER 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 204,000 in October, and the 
unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in leisure and 
hospitality, retail trade, professional and technical services, 
manufacturing, and health care.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the
unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in October. Among
the unemployed, however, the number who reported being on temporary
layoff increased by 448,000. This figure includes furloughed federal
employees who were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff under
the definitions used in the household survey. (Estimates of the
unemployed by reason, such as temporary layoff and job leavers, do not
sum to the official seasonally adjusted measure of total unemployed
because they are independently seasonally adjusted.) For more
information on the classification of workers affected by the federal
government shutdown, see the box note. (See tables A-1 and A-11.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(7.0 percent), adult women (6.4 percent), teenagers (22.2 percent),
whites (6.3 percent), blacks (13.1 percent), and Hispanics (9.1 percent) 
showed little or no change in October. The jobless rate for Asians was 
5.2 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year 
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or
more) was little changed at 4.1 million in October. These individuals
accounted for 36.1 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term
unemployed has declined by 954,000 over the year. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force was down by 720,000 in October. The labor
force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent
over the month. Total employment as measured by the household survey
fell by 735,000 over the month and the employment-population ratio
declined by 0.3 percentage point to 58.3 percent. This employment
decline partly reflected a decline in federal government employment.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons
(sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little
changed at 8.1 million in October. 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 October, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, little changed from 2.4 million a year earlier. (The 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 815,000 discouraged workers
in October, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The 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 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as
school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 204,000 in October. Job
growth averaged 190,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In
October, job gains occurred in leisure and hospitality, retail trade,
professional and technical services, manufacturing, and health care.
Federal government employment continued to trend down. There were no
discernible impacts of the partial federal government shutdown on the
estimates of employment, hours, and earnings from the establishment
survey. (See table B-1.)

Leisure and hospitality employment rose by 53,000 in October. Within
the industry, employment in food services and drinking places
increased by 29,000, the same as its average monthly gain over the
prior 12 months.

Employment in retail trade increased by 44,000 in October, compared
with an average monthly gain of 31,000 over the prior 12 months. Job
growth was widespread within the industry in October, with gains in
food and beverage stores (+12,000), electronics and appliance stores
(+10,000), sporting goods and hobby stores (+8,000), general
merchandise stores (+8,000), and building material and garden supply
stores (+7,000). Clothing and clothing accessories stores lost 13,000
jobs.

Professional and technical services employment rose in October
(+21,000) and has grown by 213,000 over the past 12 months. Within the
industry, employment in management and technical consulting services
rose by 8,000 in October.

Manufacturing added 19,000 jobs in October, with job growth occurring
in motor vehicles and parts (+6,000), wood products (+3,000), and
furniture and related products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has changed little since February 2013.

Health care employment increased over the month (+15,000). Job growth
in health care has averaged 17,000 per month thus far this year,
compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.

In October, employment showed little or no change elsewhere in the
private sector, including mining and logging, construction, wholesale
trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and financial
activities.

Federal government employment declined by 12,000 in October. Over the
past 12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 94,000.
Federal employees on furlough during the partial government shutdown
were still considered employed in the payroll survey because they
worked or received pay for the pay period that included the 12th of
the month. For more information on the classification of workers
affected by the partial federal government shutdown, see the box note.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was
unchanged in October at 34.4 hours. The manufacturing workweek was
40.9 hours, the same as in September, and factory overtime was
unchanged at 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down by 0.1
hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In October, average hourly earnings for all employees on private
nonfarm payrolls edged up by 2 cents to $24.10. Over the year, average
hourly earnings have risen by 52 cents, or 2.2 percent. In October,
average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees
edged up by 2 cents to $20.26. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised
from +193,000 to +238,000, and the change for September was revised
from +148,000 to +163,000. With these revisions, employment gains in
August and September combined were 60,000 higher than previously
reported.

____________
The Employment Situation for November is scheduled to be released on
Friday, December 6, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                   |
  |                Partial Federal Government Shutdown                |
  |                                                                   |
  |  Some agencies of the federal government were shut down or were   |
  |  operating at reduced staffing levels from October 1, 2013,       |
  |  through October 16, 2013. All household and establishment survey |
  |  operations, including data collection, were suspended during     |
  |  that time period. Shortly after the shutdown ended, October data |
  |  collection for both surveys began. The Bureau of Labor           |
  |  Statistics (BLS) delayed the publication of this release by 1    |
  |  week to allow enough time to collect data. The reference periods |
  |  for the surveys were not changed. The response rate for the      |
  |  household survey was within its normal range, and the response   |
  |  rate for the establishment survey was above average.             |
  |                                                                   |
  |  In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, |
  |  unemployed, or not in the labor force based on their answers to  |
  |  a series of questions about their activities during the survey   |
  |  reference week. Workers who indicate that they were not working  |
  |  during the entire survey reference week and expected to be       |
  |  recalled to their jobs should be classified in the household     |
  |  survey as unemployed on temporary layoff. In October 2013, there |
  |  was an increase in the number of federal workers who were        |
  |  classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, there     |
  |  also was an increase in the number of federal workers who were   |
  |  classified as employed but absent from work. BLS analysis of the |
  |  data indicates that this group included federal workers affected |
  |  by the shutdown who also should have been classified as          |
  |  unemployed on temporary layoff. Such a misclassification is an   |
  |  example of nonsampling error and can occur when respondents      |
  |  misunderstand questions or interviewers record answers           |
  |  incorrectly. According to usual practice, the data from the      |
  |  household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain           |
  |  data integrity, no ad hoc actions taken to reassign survey       | 
  |  responses.                                                       |
  |                                                                   |
  |  It should be noted that household survey data for federal        |
  |  workers are available only on a not seasonally adjusted basis.   |
  |  As a result, over-the-month changes in federal worker data       |
  |  series cannot be compared with seasonally adjusted over-the-     |
  |  month changes in total employed and unemployed.                  |
  |                                                                   |
  |  In the establishment survey, businesses report the number of     |
  |  people who work or receive pay for any part of the pay period    |
  |  that includes the 12th of the month. Persons who work or receive |
  |  pay for any part of the pay period are defined as employed. This |
  |  method of classifying workers is the same in all industries,     |
  |  including the federal government. Federal employees on furlough  |
  |  during the partial federal government shutdown were still        |
  |  considered employed in the payroll survey because they worked or |
  |  received pay for the pay period that included the 12th of the    |
  |  month.                                                           |
  |                                                                   |
  |  Additional information is available online at                    |
  |  www.bls.gov/bls/shutdown_2013_empsit_qa.pdf.                     |
  |                                                                   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

I Told My Kids Obama Ate Their Halloween Candy — Not Really — But He Did Take Their Health Insurance — Candy Exchange — No One Cares Like Obamacare –Videos

Posted on November 7, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Jimmy-Kimmel-I-ate-all-your-candy

YouTube-Challenge-I-Told-My-Kids-I-Ate-All-Their-Halloween-Candy-2013

top2

ate_your_halloween_candy

candy-190213

candy

candy_more

Screen-Shot-2012-11-05-at-6_07_06-PM

halloween-obama

obama-halloween-distribute-agi-candy-kids-political-humor-390x280

I Ate All Your Halloween Candy, Camilla

YouTube Challenge – I Told My Kids I Ate All Their Halloween Candy 2013

YouTube Challenge – I Told My Kid I Ate All Their Halloween Candy Again

YouTube Challenge – I Told My Kids I Ate All Their Halloween Candy

Glenn Beck Redistributes Children’s Candy in Hilarious Halloween Lesson on Obamacare

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” – Barack Obama

OBAMACARE FREE HEALTH CARE FOR YOU JUST SEND THE BILL TO YOUR KIDS & GRANDKIDS

Jack Webb Schools Barack Obama on America

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

New Proposed Poverty Line Definition Would Increase Number in Poverty By 3 Million To 49.7 Million in 2012 or 16 % of Americans — Videos

Posted on November 7, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, government spending, history, IRS, Language, Law, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , |

US_Poverty_Rate

Defining Poverty

U.S. poverty rate highest since 1993

Poverty in the United States – Wiki Article

US poverty rate near 20-year high

Background Articles and Videos

LBJ’S War on Poverty and Reagan’s Retort pt1

NATION’S POOR AT 49.7M, HIGHER THAN OFFICIAL RATE

BY HOPE YEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

The number of poor people in America is 3 million higher than the official count, encompassing 1 in 6 residents due to out-of-pocket medical costs and work-related expenses, according to a revised census measure released Wednesday.

The new measure is aimed at providing a fuller picture of poverty, but does not replace the official government numbers. Put in place two years ago by the Obama administration, it generally is considered more reliable by social scientists because it factors in living expenses as well as the effects of government aid, such as food stamps and tax credits.

Administration officials have declined to say whether the new measure eventually could replace the official poverty formula, which is used to allocate federal dollars to states and localities and to determine eligibility for safety-net programs such as Medicaid.

Congress would have to agree to adopt the new measure, which generally would result in a higher poverty rate from year to year and thus higher government payouts for aid programs.

Based on the revised formula, the number of poor people in 2012 was 49.7 million, or 16 percent. That exceeds the record 46.5 million, or 15 percent, that was officially reported in September.

The latest numbers come as more working-age adults picked up low-wage jobs in the slowly improving economy but still struggled to pay living expenses. Americans 65 and older had the largest increases in poverty under the revised formula, from 9.1 percent to 14.8 percent, because of medical expenses such as Medicare premiums, deductibles and other costs not accounted for in the official rate.

There also were increases for Hispanics and Asian-Americans, partly due to lower participation among immigrants and non-English speakers in government aid programs such as housing aid and food stamps.

African-Americans and children, helped by government benefits, had declines in poverty compared with the official rate.

“This is a real incongruity, when 1 in 6 people face economic insecurity here in the richest country in the world,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University economist and former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers who has argued for more government action to alleviate income inequality.

“When so many citizens are worse off year after year, with food insecurity and health care insecurity, there’s no way you can say that’s a successful economy.”

Last week, more than 47 million Americans who receive food stamps saw their benefits go down, while Congress began negotiations on further cuts of up to $4 billion annually to the program.

Among states, California had the highest share of poor people, hurt in part by high housing costs and large numbers of immigrants, followed by the District of Columbia, Nevada and Florida. Under the official poverty rate, more rural states were more likely to be at the top of list, led by Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico.

Some other findings:

-Food stamps helped lift about 5 million people above the poverty line. Without such aid, the overall poverty rate would increase from 16 percent to 17.6 percent.

-Working-age adults ages 18-64 saw an increase in poverty from 13.7 percent based on the official calculation to 15.5 percent, due mostly to commuting and child care costs.

-Child poverty declined from 22.3 percent to 18 percent under the new measure. Under both measures, children still remained the age group most likely to be living in poverty.

-By race, Hispanics and Asians saw higher rates of poverty, 27.8 percent and 16.7 percent respectively, compared with rates of 25.8 percent and 11.8 percent under the official formula. In contrast, African-Americans saw a modest decrease, from 27.3 percent to 25.8 percent based on the revised numbers. Among non-Hispanic whites, poverty rose from 9.8 percent to 10.7 percent.

“The primary reason that poverty remains so high is that the benefits of a growing economy are no longer being shared by all workers as they were in the quarter-century following the end of World War II,” said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan economist.

“Given current economic conditions, poverty will not be substantially reduced unless government does more to help the working poor.”

Economists long have criticized the official poverty rate as inadequate. Based on a half-century-old government formula, the official rate continues to assume the average family spends one-third of its income on food. Those costs have declined to a much smaller share, more like one-seventh.

In reaction to some of the criticism, the Obama administration in 2010 asked the Census Bureau to develop a new poverty measure, based partly on recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. The goal is to help lawmakers better gauge the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs.

For instance, the new measure finds that if it weren’t for Social Security payments, the poverty rate would rise to 54.7 percent for people 65 and older and 24.5 percent for all age groups.

Refundable tax credits such as the earned income tax credit helped lift 9 million people above the poverty line. Without the credits, child poverty would rise from 18 percent to 24.7 percent.

In recent years, New York City as well California, Virginia and Wisconsin have sought to put in place a more accurate poverty measure. They were prompted in part by local officials such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who have argued that the official measure does not take into account urban costs of living and that larger cities may get less federal money as a result.

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CENSUS_POVERTY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-13-38-44

15% of Americans living in poverty

Years after the Great Recession ended, 46.5 million Americans are still living in poverty, according to a Census Bureau report released Tuesday.

Meanwhile, median household income fell slightly to $51,017 a year in 2012, down from $51,100 in 2011 — a change the Census Bureau does not consider statistically significant.

Poverty in the United States

Poverty is a state of privation, or a lack of the usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.[1] The most common measure of poverty in the U.S. is the “poverty threshold” set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[2] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index. The government’s definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[3] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[4] Poverty rates are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas.[5][6]

In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children,[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.[8] California has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest of any state in the country.[9]

In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[10] This would be roughly 1.2% of the US population in 2011, presuming a mean household size of 2.55 people. In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[11] In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[12]

There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.[13]Around 44% of homeless people are employed.[14]

Two official measures of poverty

Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2011. United States.

Poverty Rates by Age 1959 to 2011. United States.

There are two basic versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes—for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race, and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes—for instance, to determine whether a person or family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.[15]

Since the 1960s, the United States government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnsonadministration declared “war on poverty” in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The “absolute poverty line” is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

The “Orshansky Poverty Thresholds” form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky’s article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was “winning” this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.

The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky’s definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[16]

The Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan.

Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.

In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for “farm” and “female-householder” families were eliminated. The largest family size category became “nine persons or more.”[16]

Apart from these changes, the U.S. government’s approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.

Recent poverty rate and guidelines

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for poverty in 2013[17]
Persons in
Family Unit
48 Contiguous States
and D.C.
Alaska Hawaii
1 $11,490 $14,350 $13,230
2 $15,510 $19,380 $17,850
3 $19,530 $24,410 $22,470
4 $23,550 $29,440 $27,090
5 $27,570 $34,470 $31,710
6 $31,590 $39,500 $36,330
7 $35,610 $44,530 $40,950
8 $39,630 $49,560 $45,570
Each additional
person adds
$4,020 $5,030 $4,620

The poverty guideline figures are not the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor persons. The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds. The Census Bureau provides an explanation of the difference between poverty thresholds and guidelines.[18] The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.[16] The 2010 figure for a family of 4 with no children under 18 years of age is $22,541, while the figure for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 is $22,162.[19] For comparison, the 2011 HHS poverty guideline for a family of 4 is $22,350.

Numbers in other countries

The official number of poor in the United States in 2008 is about 39.1 million people, greater in number but not percentage than the officially poor in Indonesia, which has a far lower Human Development Index and the next largest population after the United States.[20][21] The poverty level in the United States, with 15% (46.2 million people in poverty, of a total of 308.5 million) is comparable to the one in France, where 14% of the population live with less than 880 euros per month.[22][23]

Number of poor are hard to compare across countries. Absolute income may be used but does not reflect the actual number of poor, which depend on relative income and cost of living in each country. Among developed countries, each country then has its own definition and threshold of what it means to be poor, but this is not adjusted for cost of living and social benefits. For instance, despite the fact that France and US have about the same threshold in terms of dollars amount for poverty, cost of living benefits differ, with universal health care and highly subsidized post-secondary education existing in France. In general, it might be better to use the Human Poverty Index (HPI), Human Development Index (HDI) or other global measure to compare quality of living in different countries.

Relative measures of poverty

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. “Relative poverty” can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society.Therefore, the relative poverty rate is a measure of income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the relative poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people’s wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs. In 1959, a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64% of the median income.[citation needed] If the poverty line in 1999 was less than 42.64% of the median income, then relative poverty would have increased.

In the European Union and for the OECD, “relative poverty” is defined as an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688 euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640 euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are “poverty” (50% median) and “strict poverty” (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for “relative poverty” is much higher than the quota for “strict poverty”. The U.S concept is best comparable to “strict poverty”. By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income[24] (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).

Some critics argue that relying on income disparity to determine who is impoverished can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggests that consumer spending varies much less than income. In 2008, the “poorest” one fifth of Americans households spent on average $12,955 per person for goods and services (other than taxes), the second quintile spent $14,168, the third $16,255, the fourth $19,695, while the “richest” fifth spent $26,644. The disparity of expenditures is much less than the disparity of income.[25][neutrality is disputed]

Income distribution and relative poverty

Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales are used to standardize household income to the level of a single person household. In Europe, the modified OECD equivalence scale is used, which takes the combined value of 1 for the head of household, 0.5 for each additional household member older than 14 years and 0.3 for children. When compared to the US Census poverty lines, which is based on a defined basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization methods show to be very similar.

Furthermore, the poverty threshold in Western-European countries is not always higher than the Orshansky threshold for a single person family. The actual Orchinsky poverty line for single person households in the US ($9645 in 2004) is very comparable to the relative poverty line in many Western-European countries (Belgium 2004: €9315), while price levels are also similar.[citation needed] The reason why relative poverty measurement causes high poverty levels in the US, as demonstrated by Förster,[24] is caused by distributional effects rather than real differences in well-being among EU-countries and the US.

The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived. Although the paradigm of relative poverty is most valuable, this comparison of poverty lines show that the higher prevalence of relative poverty levels in the US are not an indicator of a more severe poverty problem but an indicator of larger inequalities between rich middle classes and the low-income households. It is therefore not correct to state that the US income distribution is characterized by a large proportion of households in poverty; it is characterized by relatively large income inequality but also high levels of prosperity of the middle classes.[neutrality is disputed] The 2007 poverty threshold for a three member family is 17,070.

Poverty and demographics

In addition to family status, race/ethnicity and age also correlate with high poverty rates in the United States. Although data regarding race and poverty are more extensively published and cross tabulated the family status correlation is by far the strongest.

Poverty and family status

Homeless children in the United States.[26] The number of homeless children reached record highs in 2011,[27] 2012,[28]and 2013[29] at about three times their number in 1983.[28]

According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[30] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households[30] and 19.1% of all persons living alone.[30] More than 75% of all poor households are headed by women (2012).[31]

By race/ethnicity and family status, based on data from 2007[edit]

Camden, New Jersey is one of the poorest cities in the United States.

Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[30] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[32]
9.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[33] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[34] living in poverty.

Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[30] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows”
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[32]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[33] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[34] living in poverty.

Among individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[30] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
18% of white persons (which includes white Hispanics)[35]
27.9% of black persons (which includes black Hispanics)[34] and
27% of Hispanic persons (of any race)[36] living in poverty

Poverty and race/ethnicity

The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[37]
9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons
12.1% of all Asian persons
26.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
27.4% of all black persons.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010),[37] but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic white children comprised 57% of all poor rural children.[38]

In FY 2009, black families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, non-Hispanic white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[39]

Poverty and age

The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:
22% of all people under age 18
13.7% of all people 19–64, and
9% of all people ages 65 and older[37]

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a different measure for poverty and declared in 2008 that child poverty in the US is 20% and poverty among the elderly is 23%.[40] The non-profit advocacy group Feeding America has released a study (May 2009) based on 2005–2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and theAgriculture Department, which claims that 3.5 million children under the age of 5 are at risk of hunger in the United States. The study claims that in 11 states, Louisiana, which has the highest rate, followed by North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas, more than 20 percent of children under 5 are allegedly at risk of going hungry. (Receiving fewer than 1,800 calories per day) The study was paid by ConAgra Foods, a large food company.[41]

Child poverty

In 2013, child poverty reached record high levels in the U.S., with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households. 47 million Americans depend on food banks, more than 30% above 2007 levels. Households headed by single mothers are most likely to be affected. Worst affected are the District of Columbia, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, while North Dakota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota and Massachusetts are the least affected.[11]

Poverty and education

Poverty affects individual access to quality education. The U.S. education system is funded by local communities; therefore the quality of materials and teachers is reflective of the affluence of community. Low income communities are not able to afford the quality education that high income communities are. Another important aspect of education in low income communities is the apathy of both students and teachers. To some the children of the poor or ignorant are seen as mere copies of their parents fated to live out the same poor or ignorant life. The effect of such a perception can be teachers that will not put forth the effort to teach and students that are opposed to learning; in both cases the idea is that the poor student is incapable.[42] Females in poverty are also likely to become pregnant at a young age, and with fewer resources to care for a child, young women often drop out of school.[43] Due to these and other reasons the quality of education between the classes is not equal.[44]

Food security

Eighty-nine percent of the American households were food secure throughout the entire year of 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all of the household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.[45]

In 2007, 88.9% of American households were food secure throughout the entire year. [46] The number of American households that were food secure throughout the entire year dropped to 85.4% in 2008.[47] The prevalence of food insecurity has been essentially unchanged since 2008.[48]

Factors in poverty

There are numerous factors related to poverty in the United States.

  • According to the American Enterprise Institute, research has shown that income and intelligence are related. Charles Murray compared the earnings of 733 full sibling pairs with differing intelligence quotients (IQ’s). He referred to the sample as utopian in that the sampled pairs were raised in families with virtually no illegitimacy, divorce or poverty. The average earnings of sampled individuals with an IQ of under 75 was $11,000, compared to $16,000 for those with an IQ between 75 and 90, $23,000 for those with an IQ between 90 and 110, $27,000 for those with an IQ between 110 and 125, and $38,000 for those with an IQ above 125.[49]
  • Income has a high correlation with educational levels. In 2007, the median earnings of household headed by individuals with less than a 9th grade education was $20,805 while households headed by high school graduates earned $40,456, households headed holders of bachelor’s degree earned $77,605, and families headed by individuals with professional degrees earned $100,000.[50]
  • In many cases poverty is caused by job loss. In 2007, the poverty rate was 21.5% for individuals who were unemployed, but only 2.5% for individuals who were employed full-time.[50]
  • In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with father in single parent family; and 47.1% in single parent family headed by mother.[51]
  • Income levels vary with age. For example, the median 2009 income for households headed by individuals age 15–24 was only $30,750, but increased to $50,188 for household headed by individuals age 25–34 and $61,083 for household headed by individuals 35–44.[52] Although the reasons are unclear, work experience and additional education may be factors.
  • Income levels vary along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, about 46% of black children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty.[53] The poverty rate is 9.9% for black married couples and only 30% of black children are born to married couples (see Marriage below). Citing the Pew Research Center,The Economistreports that in 2007,11% of black women aged 30–44 without a high school diploma had a working spouse.[54][copyright violation?] The poverty rate for native born and naturalized whites is identical (9.6%). On the other hand, the poverty rate for naturalized blacks is 11.8% compared to 25.1% for native born blacks suggesting race alone does not explain income disparity. Not all minorities have low incomes. Asian families have higher incomes than all other ethnic groups. For example, the 2005 median income of Asian families was $68,957 compared to the median income of white families of $59,124.[55] Asians, however, report discrimination occurrences more frequently than blacks. Specifically, 31% of Asians reported employment discrimination compared to 26% of blacks in 2005.[56]
  • The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates.[57] The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries such as Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states reveals that some low tax states have low poverty rates. For example, New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate of any state in the U. S., and has very low taxes (46th among all states).It is true however that in those instances, both Switzerland and New Hampshire have a very high household income and other measures to levy or offset the lack of taxation. For example, Switzerland has Universal Healthcare and a free system of education for children as young as four years old.[58] New Hampshire has no state income tax or sales tax, but does have the nation’s highest property taxes.[59]
  • The Heritage Foundation speculates that illegal immigration increases job competition among low wage earners, both native and foreign born. Additionally many first generation immigrants, namely those without a high school diploma, are also living in poverty themselves.[60]

Concerns regarding accuracy

In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council‘s Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that “the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor.”

The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure “has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy.” The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

According to the panel’s recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.[61]

Understating poverty

Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold.[62] A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold.[62] A study taken in 2012 estimated that roughly 38% of Americans live “paycheck to paycheck.”[63]

According to William H. Chafe, if one used a relative standard for measuring poverty (a standard that took into account the rising standards of living rather than an absolute dollar figure) then 18% of families was living in poverty in 1968, not 13% as officially estimated at that time.[64]

As far back as 1969, the Bureau of Labor Statistics put forward suggested budgets for families to live adequately on. 60% of working-class Americans lived below one of these budgets, which suggested that a far higher proportion of Americans lived in poverty than the official poverty line suggested. These findings were also used by observers on the left when questioning the long-established view that most Americans had attained an affluent standard of living in the two decades following the end of the Second World War.[65][66]

A neighborhood of poor white southerners,Chicago, 1974

Using a definition of relative poverty (reflecting disposable income below half the median of adjusted national income), it was estimated that, between 1979 and 1982, 17.1% of Americans lived in poverty, compared with 12.6% of the population of Canada, 12.2% of the population of Australia, 9.7% of the population of Britain, 5.6% of the population of West Germany, 5.3% of the population of Sweden, and 5.2% of the population of Norway.[67]

As noted above, the poverty thresholds used by the US government were originally developed during the Johnson administration’sWar on Poverty initiative in 1963–1964.[68][69] Mollie Orshansky, the government economist working at the Social Security Administration who developed the thresholds, based the threshold levels on the cost of purchasing what in the mid-1950s had been determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be the minimal nutritionally-adequate amount of food necessary to feed a family. Orshansky multiplied the cost of the food basket by a factor of three, under the assumption that the average family spent one third of its income on food.

While the poverty threshold is updated for inflation every year, the basket of food used to determine what constitutes being deprived of a socially acceptable minimum standard of living has not been updated since 1955. As a result, the current poverty line only takes into account food purchases that were common more than 50 years ago, updating their cost using the Consumer Price Index. When methods similar to Orshansky’s were used to update the food basket using prices for the year 2000 instead of from nearly a half century earlier, it was found that the poverty line should actually be 200% higher than the official level being used by the government in that year.[70]

Yet even that higher level could still be considered flawed, as it would be based almost entirely on food costs and on the assumption that families still spend a third of their income on food. In fact, Americans typically spent less than one tenth of their after-tax income on food in 2000.[71] For many families, the costs of housing, health insurance and medical care, transportation, and access to basic telecommunications take a much larger bite out of the family’s income today than a half century ago; yet, as noted above,[68][69] none of these costs are considered in determining the official poverty thresholds. According to John Schwarz, a political scientist at the University of Arizona:

The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today’s dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn’t have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen… The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum.

The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430.[72] With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing,[citation needed] and no possibility of home ownership. In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the population lacks a college education the median home price was determined to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income which only roughly 20% of all households in the county boast.[72][73]

Such fluctuations in local markets are, however, not considered in the Federal poverty threshold, and thus leave many who live in poverty-like conditions out of the total number of households classified as poor.

In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplementary poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with 15.2% using the official figure. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived in poverty that year, defined as living within 200% of the federal poverty line.[74]

Duke University Professor of Public Policy and Economics Sandy Darity, Jr. says, “There is no exact way of measuring poverty. The measures are contingent on how we conceive of and define poverty. Efforts to develop more refined measures have been dominated by researchers who intentionally want to provide estimates that reduce the magnitude of poverty.”[75]

Overstating poverty

Youth play in Chicago’s Stateway Gardenshigh-rise housing project in 1973.

Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs. According to a 2011 paper by poverty expert Robert Rector, of the 43.6 million Americans deemed to be below the poverty level by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2009, the majority had adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care. In addition, the paper stated that those assessed to be below the poverty line in 2011 have a much higher quality of living than those who were identified by the census 40 years ago as being in poverty.[76] Moreover, Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.[77]

The federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.[78]

A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not “make ends meet” without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.

According to Edin: “No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV.” However many mothers skipped meals or did odd jobs to cover those expenses. According to Edin, for “most welfare-reliant mothers food and shelter alone cost almost as much as these mothers received from the government. For more than one-third, food and housing costs exceeded their cash benefits, leaving no extra money for uncovered medical care, clothing, and other household expenses.” [79]

Fighting poverty[edit]

In the age of inequality, such anti-poverty policies are more important than ever, as higher inequality creates both more poverty along with steeper barriers to getting ahead, whether through the lack of early education, nutrition, adequate housing, and a host of other poverty-related conditions that dampen ones chances in life.

There have been many governmental and nongovernmental efforts to reduce poverty and its effects. These range in scope from neighborhood efforts to campaigns with a national focus. They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, people who are autistic, immigrants, or people who are homeless. Efforts to alleviate poverty use a disparate set of methods, such as advocacy, education, social work, legislation, direct service or charity, and community organizing.

Recent debates have centered on the need for policies that focus on both “income poverty” and “asset poverty.”[81] Advocates for the approach argue that traditional governmental poverty policies focus solely on supplementing the income of the poor, through programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps. According to the CFED 2012 Assets & Opportunity Scorecard, 27 percent of households – nearly double the percentage that are income poor – are living in “asset poverty.” These families do not have the savings or other assets to cover basic expenses (equivalent to what could be purchased with a poverty level income) for three months if a layoff or other emergency leads to loss of income. Since 2009, the number of asset poor families has increased by 21 percent from about one in five families to one in four families. In order to provide assistance to such asset poor families, Congress appropriated $24 million to administer the Assets for Independence Program under the supervision of the US Department for Health and Human Services. The program enables community-based nonprofits and government agencies to implement Individual Development Account or IDA programs, which are an asset-based development initiative. Every dollar accumulated in IDA savings is matched by federal and non-federal funds to enable households to add to their assets portfolio by buying their first home, acquiring a post-secondary education and starting or expanding a small business.[82]

Additionally, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) is a credit for people who earn low-to-moderate incomes. This credit allows them to get money from the government if their total tax outlay is less than the total credit earned, meaning it is not just a reduction in total tax paid but can also bring new income to the household. The Earned Income Tax Credit is viewed as the largest poverty reduction program in the United States. There is an ongoing debate in the US about what is the most effective way to fight poverty, is it through the tax code with the EITC or through the minimum wage laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Janet Yellen on Economic Issues: Income and Poverty Report (1997)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...