Democrats win House, promise new direction
POSTED: 6:05 p.m. EST, November 8, 2006(CNN) — Democrats promised Wednesday to lead the country in a new direction after winning control of the House for the first time in 12 years in midterm elections.
By early Wednesday, Democrats had picked up at least 29 seats; they needed 15 to capture a majority in the House. Two Democratic seats in Georgia that were targeted by Republicans remained too close to call.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is now poised to become the first female speaker of the House.
Pelosi promised to lead the nation in a new direction “in partnership, not in partisanship.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
Recent Comments
- czechlist on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- arn on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- conrad ziefle on Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- Bob G on NASA Sea Level
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
Pelosi – elevated far beyond her competency level (ref: The Peter Principle)
I always envision her as that wild city-council-woman who see things in a totally warped way.
NOT qualified for congress in any manner, way, shape or form.
.
She comes from the family that runs the Baltimore Urban Crime syndicate.
While the credulous peanut gallery would have a collective coronary, you might try also posting the unemployment stats from John Williams’ Shadowstats.com up there with the “official” government numbers….
He is using the measuring method for unemployment that was used through the 70’s and 80’s.
Our ever-so-truthful US government has been gaming the unemployment statistics as well as temperature measurements. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe 😉
There method of “adjustment” for unemployment statistics is that if someone is unemployed so long that they run out of unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted as unemployed. Cute eh?
They still don’t have a job, and now they don’t have any money, nor are they counted as unemployed. It does make the laughingstock-in-chief look like he’s making progress on the jobs issue….
????Not exactly right. They actually do surveys of people for the Household Survey which is the basis of the unemployment rate. Anyone who hasn’t looked for work for 4 weeks is when the criteria for dropping them out of the stats. Since people getting unemployment must be looking for work to continue getting it (or just sign the paper saying they are looking), they are considered part of the workforce.
Below the table on this page, you can see the categories of people “not in the labor force”
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/unemployment-continued-its-downward-trend-in-2013-6.htm
To clarify, what I’m saying is if someone’s unemployment ran out and they looked for work, they’d be considered as unemployed. In reality, anyone hitting the max these days doesn’t have much chance of getting a job so many just don’t try. It is not the expiration of benefits that takes them out of the unemployment stats.
I think that myth actually started during the Bush years when people were trying to say the 4% unemployment rate wasn’t as great as it seemed.
re: Mike D says May 9, 2014 at 11:35 pm
????Not exactly right. They actually do surveys of people for the Household Survey which is the basis of the unemployment rate.
How do they assure an accurate survey today (an accurate sample of the population) in this age of non-wireline telephones (cellphones instead), some of which may be non-contract, pay-as-you-go, not-assigned by name (some ppl like it this way on account of anonymity).
I’ve got to think the error bars have widened on this ‘survey’ these days (unless they are done via snail-mail).
Yeah, they do physical home visits and phone surveys, but there was a recent revelation of employees who faked the data:
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
There’s been all kinds of explanations of how they spot fake survey results and correct for that. All sounded like BS.
Thus, I’m far, far more ready to believe the numbers from http://www.shadowstats.com than any government pronouncements.
After all, if you like your unemployment rate, you can keep your unemployment rate!!
You beat me to it.
What is interesting is how the US government hides the real numbers:
“GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!”
“Employment and Unemployment Reporting”
(Part Two in a Series of Five)
I really have a problem with CA politicians. Incredibly devoid of honesty.
But then, heading a little East the domicile of Harry Reid is even more laughable.
One cannot evaluate much of what he says because he is simply intolerable to listen to.
Chart of Reagan vs. Obama recoveries corrected for population growth:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/131256-simple-graph-compares-reagan-obamas-recoveries/
Stunning! Should be a separate post!
Cool find there Nik. I was thinking of the Carter days just yesterday, and almost got misty eyed. Carter, bless him, gave us Reagan. If only…