The continuing unemployment crisis is perhaps the greatest domestic political failure of the past 50 years. Nobody should be happy with such high unemployment over six years after the crisis.

Nobody should be happy that not even one fucker responsible for nearly destroying the entire US economy has failed to see prison or even had one charge leveled against them.

*reading Matt Taibbi's Griftopia. A must read book.

This dropped below 70% this year. Unemployment figures do not include those who give up searching for employment.

People giving up searching for employment isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I hear this "gave up looking" a lot. But isn't most of this old and retired people? Life expectancy for males going from 65 in 1950 to 74 today seems to be a huge number, for example.

Anecdotally it's a group that seems to be 20s to 40s. Lord only knows I've known quite a few.

I've yet to find a concrete demographic breakdown of the group but this articleseems to suggest (I think) that about half are people that would normally be in the work force (it mentions accounting for retiring boomers, etc)

*I have no idea whether the "Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C." official that's quoted is left, right or sideways. The article is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette back in January of this year but was the only one of more than a half dozen I looked at that even referenced any sort of breakout.

It does seem there are loads of young people looking. I guess I don't understand the meaning behind the graphic. It is clearly on the decline since 1950. Is the point that it went down too much the last few years? Maybe 5 years ahead of norm? I just don't see why since beginning in 2010 10,000 baby boomers retire everyday and that's not by far the biggest most recent contribution.

From that same article

Birth/death/aging cycles don't account for all that gap. In other words, people who would normally be looking for work aren't even trying at this point. And the number seems to be growing.

On McCullen v. Coakley, after giving it much thought, I've decided that I was wrong. I feel I've learned a lot from this particular episode, and am the better for it.

This graphic is from the Washington Post (via Andrew Sullivan's blog), and is a few days old now:




Once upon a time, when I was young and first became aware of international politics, I was pro-Palestinian. This was youthful rebellion as opposed to something I thought out: everyone I knew felt the Israelis were the victim here and I wanted to side with the victim instead.

The stance gradually eroded as I learned more and eventually I ended up relatively pro-Israeli courtesy of an Op-Ed over 10 years ago (probably more like 15) by Alan Dershowitz which spelled out with clarity the no-win situation for Israel (Dershowitz has since gone right off the deep end, but there you go).


I am 40 now, married, with 2 kids, and I have now come to this conclusion: everyone involved in this tragedy, be they Israeli or Palestinian, is at fault. They all have blood on their hands. This is not a conflict that needs to happen. This is a conflict that could absolutely be solved, but there is absolutely no will from anyone to do so, and quite a lot of will not to do so.

There's additional culpability for those who fund Hamas, as well as those who fund Israel, including, yes, the American taxpayer.

But fundamentally the key point is that we're well past the point where either side can make a claim to the moral high ground. Both sides are terrible, this conflict is terrible, and it is one of the best examples of humanity at its worst.

Well, that's a good description of one side of the conflict anyhow.

Agreed. Giving the terrorist group Hamas equal footing with Israel is pretty shitty.

I don't understand how people come to that conclusion. What would we do if Cuba started firing random missiles into Florida from the cover of their schools and residential neighborhoods? Would we try and defend ourselves, knowing that many Cuban human shields will die, or would we just take it, because any effective response will be seen as "disproportionate?" Would we accept a few people dying in Florida every now and then because they're just "Floridians" and are somehow "equal" to the Cuban terrorists who want them dead at any cost?

At least there are finally signs that the people of Gaza are angry with their elected government for starting this war.

This doesn't show both male and female participation. And, obviously, assuming current trends to extend into 2022 is an extrapolation of current policy effects, so it shouldn't be considered exact.

Terrorist group and Terrorist state. Seems fairly equal to me.

Given the sorry state of U.S. society these days I'm happy we aren't having to answer that question at the moment.

There'd be no shortage of people rushing to defend the poor downtrodden Cubans.

Cuba is, of course, a separate sovereign state. It'd be more if folks on a Native American reservation in the 1800s started doing this (obv not with rockets). The massacre of them for those things (ie, revenge for Little Big Horn as an example) is considered a black mark on the US's history now, of course.

Oh, Hamas as an organization is clearly worse than Israel. Don't get me wrong.

But both entities have gone so far down the rabbit hole of inhumanity and an unwavering obstinance to peace that I'm not sure the distinction really matters that much anymore.

This is why analogies are stupid. The U.S. doesn't surround Cuba geographically. The U.S. doesn't control access to Cuba. The U.S. and Cuba haven't been actively at war with each other for decades. I could go on.


Once again, a bunch of you are having a knee-jerk reaction without actually reading what I wrote.

I'm not saying Israel's action isn't justified or necessary. I'm saying it doesn't matter: it's all horrible. We have, say, 50 years of "I'm doing this because you did that because I did that other thing because you did yet a different thing because..." with clearly no real attempt to find a lasting solution in sight. The moral high ground in this conflict has been lost in that 50-year trail of action and reaction. It's humanity at its worst. A pox on both their houses.

I look at this chart and the first thing I think of is demographic trends (people living longer) and the resultant need to save more for retirement (thus having to work longer, and harder), which is probably at least in part due to Baby Boomers as a group not saving much for retirement (plus two, maybe three, recessions since the late 80s.).

This is a simple formula, starting with the variables.

Variable #1 = Israel (I)
Variable #2 = Hamas (H)
Variable #3 = Shit (s)
Variable #4 = Power (p)

Hs > 0
Is > 0
Hs > Is
Meaning that Hamas is shittier

Ip > 0
Hp > 0
Ip > Hp
Meaning Israel's shit stinks more

Is * Ip * Hs * Hp = One big stinking pile of shit

I don't think anyone is arguing that any response would be disproportionate and that's the only way a "take it or respond" black and white scenario makes any sense as an argument. I think the human cost should be factored in and sometimes it concerns me how Israel weighs that cost into their responses. That doesn't mean I'm equating Israel and Hamas. Hamas is clearly worse, but that doesn't absolve Israel from any criticism for their own actions.

I'm guessing you are implying "current policy effects" are bad and having a negative effect?

One could say the increase of college participation going from 54% in 1992 to 64% in 2010 has a lot to do with the 20-24 decrease. And I guess the "current policy effects" have influenced that.

I have also seen where participation in disability insurance has risen from 20-50% over 20 years. Which make sense because states get to write them off the books and the fed does not have to count them as unemployed.

Not sure what to think about this other than dysfunctional congress continues.

Border bills stall in House, Senate - CNN.com

Seems to be functioning rather well, considering that it stopped a bad bill from going through.

I'll take the words of the White House press secretary "... and provide temporary relief from deportation for people who are low priorities for removal"

a) I want no such relief & would back no bill that provides such a thing
b) There should be no such thing as an illegal that is a "low priority for removal"

So, fake crisis, then. As I suspected.

I also love how Boehner recommends (elsewhere) that Obama use an executive order to fix the problem. Which, I'm sure, the GOP would never use in attacks against Obama....

Depends upon how you want to define it I suppose. I mean, there's no shortage of people all upset about it. Not sure that 180 degree solutions necessarily eliminate the possibility that a "crisis" exists.

I'm in the camp that would gladly support funding to put 'em on the right side of the border but I'm not really inclined to approve a dime for anything else. There's not a shortage of people who are 180 of that.

Oh, absolutely.


Yes, and this group neatly contains a bunch of GOP operatives looking to create an issue for fundraising and the midterm elections.

When did you turn into such a whiny partisan bitch? Or has it always been this bad & I've just given you too much benefit of the doubt?

My understanding is that the law says the children are to be granted hearings. If that's the law, refusing to grant any money just forces the children to live in squalor. There isn't an option of, "just send them home" given the current law.

Most definitely.

I hope it's as unattractive as possible frankly.

You keep that up and you're liable to lose a lot of those humanitarian awards.

Eh, they don't spend all that well anyway.

That's true and they take a lot of wall space.

You see this as something other than Pelosi & Reid taking advantage of the GOP-manufactured crisis to advance their own immigration agenda? You getting naive in your old age?

I'm kind of confused, don't you guys agree that this isn't a "real crisis" and that we shouldn't help these kids?

Edit: I'm actually confused about the whole insistence that this isn't a "crisis". I feel like it's based on some article that was trying to criticize the Republican's approach here, but I've seen Slate, the ACLU, NYtimes, MSNBC, etc, and even Obama himself all describe the situation here as a "crisis" or some other similar terminology. Is it really controversial that this is a really bad situation (or however you want to phrase that)? It seems the difference of opinion is really what we should do about it, and whose responsibility it is. Fighting over whether to call it a "crisis" or not just seems so distant and oblivious.

We've been invaded by thousands of leeches, thanks in no small part to the worthless p.o.s. in the Oval Office and that's somehow a "GOP-manufactured crisis"?

W.T.F. ?

You take an issue as complex and long-lived as illegal immigration and blanket blame Obama for it? When did you become such a whiny partisan bitch?

Politicians, journalists and activists tend to use hyperbole.

The numbers have increased significantly, sure, and the infrastructure at Justice and Homeland Security to support existing processes for this is clearly not able to scale. But a number of solutions have already been proposed and could (in theory, if there was actual will to do so*) be implemented, ranging from re-prioritizing the cases in the queue for Justice, to supplemental appropriations to Justice and/or DHS to scale existing processes.


*Note: Congress just took off on a 5-week vacation. Would they do that in the face of a real "crisis"? Wait, don't answer that, because that's exactly what they did for the government shutdown and almost did for the default as well.

We've been "invaded by thousands of leeches" yearly for decades, but somehow it is only called a "crisis" whenever the GOP needs some additional lift for fundraising activities or votes for elections.

I can't believe you of all people can't see the cynicism behind this. Given that it's a Friday I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but I expect better from you after the weekend.

Why are all of those liberal outlets and organizations I mentioned (and the president) describing this situation in such grave terms? What's their agenda?

We have had a flood of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors very recently, with no adults to care for them. That has overwhelmed the infrastructure. I'd say that's a crisis from either side of the aisle.

I'm going to say "birth."

Pageviews?

This is not a new phenomena, folks. When one party decides to make a stink about something to push forward their legislative agenda, the other party tends (OK, almost always) seeks to use the same topic to push their own counter legislative agenda. It is, frankly, the exception when this doesn't happen.

The various media outlets have no choice but to cover these situations because people want to read/watch about the fight and the media outlets have to cater to their audience. And media outlets who are catering to a particular viewpoint (so, all of them) have the additional responsibility/desire to provide additional fuel for the fire.

Is it Cynicism-Free Friday around here or something?

At the risk of minimizing the actual suffering going on, this is a relatively simple supply and demand issue. It would be a crisis if we didn't know how to increase supply, but we do. Our politicians just can't get their act together to do it. If there's a crisis here, it's that. But it's not, because that just describes the day-to-day workings of our federal legislature these days.

So, yeah, Boehner's right. Obama should just do it by executive order and let the GOP complain. But then midterm elections, etc....

Yay.

He's merely a proxy for those who have pissed away the future (and the present) of the nation by putting him in office in the first place.

Even claims of the issue being "complex" are largely a straw man. If you're a sovereign nation, you defend your borders. Period. End of discussion.

Well, at least that's more consistent with your usual vitriol and spite. Also, your tears remain delicious.


Though historically the concept is not especially old (illegal/legal immigration, as opposed to the more usual definition of "defending your borders").

Take the politics out of it for a minute. Don't you think the issue with the unattended migrant children is a pretty huge deal? Or somewhere between that and crisis? It does sound like you're minimizing the situation for your own political reasons. Even Obama seems to be hugely concerned with this and he's certainly not motivated by page views. It's just a weird tone. And again, you're sparring with JIMGA here but I think you guys are on the same page that this situation is not a crisis (he just thinks its actually a good thing that children are living like this.)

Edit: It's just a little confusing - I'm used to Democrats blaming Republicans for the immigration issues (and vice versa), but not anyone just claiming that the issue is not a crisis. Is that the new strategy? It is consistent with the blue states' governors refusing to help and house any of these children. If it's not a crisis or a big problem, why should they get involved?

Actually I don't have a problem with the word "crisis" being invoked. (And haven't figured out any reason flere seems to be except to attempt to somehow paint that as being a GOP-only position)

As I mentioned, the difference seems to in what constitutes the "crisis".