It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For the First Time, I'll be Registering as a Democrat - for Bernie Sanders

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zngland
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

obviously your economically clueless but i respect your choice who knows a technologically led paradigm shift may abort the
fubar reality we'll wake to but presently watch how the lambs are butchered.


Please elaborate on your economic objections to Bernie's platform?




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What will you do if Hillary wins the nomination?



The thought is really disturbing. I've said it once and I'll say it again. If Hillary wins (I'm trying to remain optimistic by saying "if", unfortunately she'll be coronated by TPTB), people that bitch about the current state of affairs will reminisce about the good old days under Obama. She will accelerate tenfold the misery of the last eight years.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Annee
I was a Republican until they became insane.

I'm now registered "unaffiliated". I will never be a Democrat.

I would love to live in "Bernie's World" - - - just don't think the timing is right that we can get any where close to it at this time.




There is a strong argument to be made that even if Bernie won, we would never see a "Bernie's World".

There is only so much the executive branch can get done in 4 or 8 years.



That's for sure. And it's always disturbing how exhausted and deflated the new president looks after he emerges from that first official briefing. If there's any place I want to be a fly on the wall, that's it.

I just think the timing is wrong for Bernie.

We should not be, but we are in the middle of a religious war. Our own. I think Hillary will be stronger for the current need.

(There is power, money, control in religion)



edit on 29-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.


Ok, I'll pick one: Unemployment reduced? Tell that to the 93,000,000+ unemployed Americans that the manufactured BLS numbers aren't fudged. The number not in the labor force is at @ a 40 year low.
www.cnsnews.com... Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
If they could compromise on their points, I'd totally vote for a Sanders/Paul ticket

reply to: dukeofjive696969



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.


Ok, I'll pick one: Unemployment reduced? Tell that to the 93,000,000+ unemployed Americans that the manufactured BLS numbers aren't fudged. The number not in the labor force is at @ a 40 year low.
www.cnsnews.com... Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low


You picked the wrong one.

1. Your link doesn't work.

2. The BLS numbers are calculated now the same way there were calculated in President Bush's term and at the beginning of President Obama's term, so, basic math, unemployment has been reduced.

3. The information that you were trying to link at CNS "News" was from April: guess where they got the "62.7% number" from:

What? The Bureau of Labor Statistics? Here's the October report for just a tad more accuracy.

From that report as you can see:



The civilian labor force participation rate declined to 62.4 percent in September; the rate had been 62.6 percent for the prior 3 months. The employment-population ratio edged down to 59.2 percent in September, after showing little movement for the first 8 months of the year. (See table A-1.)


So ... oops, swing and a miss there ...

There are many reasons that there are folks "not in the workforce" the most readily available is our aging demographics:



Still, many economists attribute at least a portion of the drop to an unsurprising reason: the retirement of baby boomers, which does not exactly qualify as an American horror story.

"The trick is to determine how much of the drop represents the impact of a lagging economy, which is worrisome, and how much is due to non-worrisome factors, such as the aging of the adult population," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, in a 2013 PolitiFact interview.

There’s no reason to believe things will change anytime soon. The labor force will become older, slowly add workers as the overall population grows and become more racially diverse in the next decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

BLS researchers say the labor force participation rate will continue to slowly fall until hitting 61.6 percent in 2022 -- a projected decline of 1.2 percentage points since December 2013. The past decade saw a much more dramatic drop, declining 3.6 percentage points since December 2003.


Politifact - Labor force participation is at lowest point since 1978, says Texas Sen. Ted Cruz - Mostly True

I guess you don't want Americans to be able to retire? That seems to be what most of the Republicans in Congress want.


edit on 14Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:38:28 -050015p0220151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.


Ok, I'll pick one: Unemployment reduced? Tell that to the 93,000,000+ unemployed Americans that the manufactured BLS numbers aren't fudged. The number not in the labor force is at @ a 40 year low.
www.cnsnews.com... Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time; 62.7% Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low



God help me...Don't cite trash. CNS is the "Conservative News Station" and their last big theme was Pres. Obama born in Kenya...No...not taking them seriously...

And when the right wing decides to be honest about the numbers. Then people will debate them seriously..

SO...Population increase? Greater the population...greater the unemployed...math! People are born and stuff...

Speaking of born and stuff...Why should we count 90 year olds as "not in the labor force?"

The cherry picked number is 16 and older...

For that matter...why should we count the ever growing elderly population at large...cuz as people live longer...a larger percentage of americans are not participating in the labor force...because they are not dead.

What the right wing is bemoaning is not a growing number of people not in the labor force, but rather people living longer.

Don't believe me? Here is the chart behind the CNS and your claim...Notice trend???

data.bls.gov...




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.
these are true except for unemployment decreasing . . . cooked books on that.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I honestly don't see any "misery" in the last eight years.

The stock market is higher than ever, budget deficits have been reduced, unemployment has been reduced, gasoline prices are lower than I've seen in many-a-year, the housing market has recovered, new construction is booming ...

... I don't see any misery, except by those whose only intention is to keep us at each other's throats, and that's not the President of the United States.
these are true except for unemployment decreasing . . . cooked books on that.


See above.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
BS .. Look at the official numbers instead of quoting from either questionable website and you all are wrong.

The real unemployment rate is defined in U6 by the BLS. That rate is usually the double of the "political" number.

Looking at the last 8 years, Unemployment was increased by an average of 60% with a peak in 2010 of almost double. If you want a fancy graph that matches the raw values, go here: unemploymentdata.com...

Otherwise you need to use the data tool on BLS to obtain that data. I cross verified the data in the chart with the raw data and it's spot on.

So yeah, it's pretty bad and I don't think the liberals understand the concept of running a country as every statistics shows.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Btw you guys also misunderstand that there is a massive difference between a increased VS inflated stock market. An inflated stock market is something very dangerous - potentially killing thousands of jobs - and thats where we are at right now.

It's unrealistic and extremely unhealthy for a Stock market to double in value overnight.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyandi
BS


Bernie Sanders! Woot! Woot!


originally posted by: flyandi
Looking at the last 8 years, Unemployment was increased by an average of 60% with a peak in 2010 of almost double.


Yes, we had a recession in 2008. Remember that? Unemployment skyrocketed. And has been coming down steadily. The actual numbers don't matter so much as the direction it's going. Liberals understand it just fine.




edit on 10/29/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
One more - construction is booming but overall real estate market is down by 3.2% - I am at the source of tracking these numbers. There is a general idea in the real estate industry that the market will be recovered once constructions are completed and people will demand houses. It's a Poker game right now.


Everything here is not super bad and needs to be shifted in the correct direction but don't tell me that the Liberals did a good job the past years - because they didn't. Republicans didn't help either - in the end of the day they are all morons with way too much education and little experience. Reality doesn't work in text book parameters.

Maybe that's why Trump is the right candidate - not for the sake of the Republicans but he understands the concept of Business and knows how to deal on the spot with shifting variables where most politicians fail.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

Note the BLS link above. Is there another right-wing biased BLS site you'd like us to reference?

The rest of your partisan BS is just that.

Why should we accept your "analysis" of economic indicators? You have no standing to make statements about any inflation in the stock market. Folks like you have been claiming a crash/downturn/bubble burst for 7 years.

You can't accept that the economy is better than it was 7 years ago, and that a Democrat was at the helm to see that through.

Also, if you don't like US fiscal policy, talk to the Republican House ... remember, as they so often remind us, they hold the purse strings.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: flyandi
Looking at the last 8 years, Unemployment was increased by an average of 60% with a peak in 2010 of almost double.


Yes, we had a recession in 2008. Remember that? Unemployment skyrocketed. And has been coming down steadily. The actual numbers don't matter so much as the direction it's going. Liberals understand it just fine.





This is not because of the liberals but because of the market trying to compensate. If there is one hint in that graph is that the libs are delaying the recovery.. not only the libs but the republicans, too. However the libs are in charge so they get naturally the first slap.

If you are ok with a "general direction" that you should really rethink your position because that's not good enough for me.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: flyandi

Note the BLS link above. Is there another right-wing biased BLS site you'd like us to reference?

The rest of your partisan BS is just that.

Why should we accept your "analysis" of economic indicators? You have no standing to make statements about any inflation in the stock market. Folks like you have been claiming a crash/downturn/bubble burst for 7 years.

You can't accept that the economy is better than it was 7 years ago, and that a Democrat was at the helm to see that through.

Also, if you don't like US fiscal policy, talk to the Republican House ... remember, as they so often remind us, they hold the purse strings.


Well you don't even try to verify the data.. you just take it for granted and assume that whatever the dude tells you on top is correct.

As said, everyone can go to the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE and verify the data in the graph shown - the same as I did.

Or are you saying you don't trust the Government ??????


BTW - Trash talking doesn't help and ignoring reality and seeing everywhere butterfly's doesn't help either. If you want to live this way, that's your choice - at least I won't be waking up completely baffled and still enjoy my pool and private plane.
edit on 29-10-2015 by flyandi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

Again, you're mistaken.

What "numbers" are you quoting a "3.2% down market" in real estate from? I'm a broker with 18 years experience and your analysis is ridiculous.

Here's one of many more accurate assessments from earlier in 2015: Kiplinger Letter



Kiplinger forecasts that home prices nationally will rise by 3.5% in 2015, at the low end of the historical range of 3% to 5% annual appreciation (before inflation). We also expect existing-home sales to increase 8% in 2015 (after declining 2% in 2014) and new-home sales to rise 25% in 2015 (after a meager 4% rise in 2014).

National Association of Realtors - Housing Market Trends



Latest News - October 2015

+4.7%

Existing-home sales rebounded strongly in September following August’s decline and have now increased year-over-year for 12 consecutive month


Yeah.

No one has said "liberals did a good job" we were talking about the trends during the current President's tenure.

Of course, you can continue to make up your own version of our discussion and pretend as though you're knocking it down.

If that makes you feel better.
edit on 17Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:35:26 -050015p0520151066 by Gryphon66 because: Again



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyandi
This is not because of the liberals but because of the market trying to compensate.


I didn't say it was "because of the liberals". You said liberals don't understand the concept of running a country. And I was responding to that.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

Verify the data? LOL.

Explain exactly how you did that. National polling?

You're blowing smoke.

EDIT: ... and what "trash talking" don't you like? You don't like being schooled on your opinionated, zero-evidence nonsense?

State your credentials at least if we are to accept your analysis of anything without factual backup.

And leave the silly, whiny comments behind. Focus on FACTS.
edit on 17Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:36:14 -050015p0520151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join