Jim, if you'd make even the slightest attempt to form a reasoned opinion you'd answer this and most all of your questions.

Obama never "promised" an 8% unemployment cap. He cited an economic study that "projected" 8% given the current understanding of the recession and which came with heavy disclaimers. All the data the CBO and other groups were using was later found to have underestimated the severity of the economic downturn.

As for it not returning anything, a few seconds with the google will let you know that the CBO and vast majority of economists refute your opinion.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. I have not recognized the grey area. Father forgive me.

I have no scars my friend . Just calling them they way I see them .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a genuine Dangles type of thread. I would like to thank all of my friends for their participation. I hope it never ends. Honorable mention to DB for blathering long after he bowed out!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I enjoyed it. I would have liked better than honorable mention but blathering probably doesn't even deserve that much.

chugging the Kool Aid.

Does Obama deserve no blame for underestimating the severity of the downturn, or for overestimating his ability to lead us out of it. or overestimating his ability to come up with a plan that lets us keep our doctors, or overestimate his plan's ability to save us all 2500/year, or the fact that he underestimated the risk in pulling out of Iraq, or the he underestimated the depravity of ISIS, and underestimated the ability of the Surge to do exactly what the military suggested it would do?

You're making my case for me. The way Obama read the tea leaves, he could spend a trillion and keep unemployment below 8%. He failed miserably. You give him a pass. Shocker...

"As for it not returning anything"...woah...who said it didn't return anything?

The CBO refutes my opinion? That would be the same CBO that in your previous sentence, you said was way off base about the severity of the downturn? So you throw them under the bus to save Obama, but two seconds later, you are citing them to refute me?

Obama sold his stimulus on the fact that he agreed with those who said it would keep unemployment below 8%. Does he bear any responsibility for the complete failure to deliver on his statement?

You did. Aren't you reading your own posts as you write them?

Mybe I'm tired. If you can show me on this thread, where I said any such thing, it would be appreciated.

I'm sure some people at Solyndra got rich as a resukt of the stimulus, that's something...

Scroll up.

Solyndra? http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...a-wont-go-away

You got me, I said it!
It returned something, obviously. It did not do, what Obama said it was going to do.

And from your link...

"But it’s embarrassing to President Obama, not least because he personally touted Solyndra as a beacon of “American ingenuity and dynamism” at a 2010 campaign stop, and a few of his big donors had financial stakes in the company..."

Well done, Mr Obama. Why not just give that money to his political benefactors, and eliminate the appearance of laundering it through a company?

I assume you also read the part about countless investigation turning up no scandal right?

i don't think Obama's actions were illegal, just grossly incompetent. he said the program would keep unemployment below 8%, and he was off by millions of jobs. He pointed to Solyndra as a model of American greatness, and then - poof - it's gone.

Obama was wrong on the Iraq surge, wrong on the impact of his stimulus, wrong about the qualiyty of Solyndra, wrong about Putin not being a serious threat, wrong about the risks involved with pulling out of Iraq, wrong about the threat posed by ISIS, wrong about Obamacare saving us 2500 a year, wrong about us being able to keep our doctors. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's amazing.

Atta boy, Columbo...

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

Stubborn Pay Gap Is Found in Nursing
By Catherine Saint Louis March 24, 2015 11:01 am March 24, 2015 11:01 am

Male nurses make $5,100 more on average per year than female colleagues in similar positions, researchers reported on Tuesday.
The new analysis, which included data on more than 290,000 registered nurses, also found that the pay gap had not narrowed within workplace settings and specialties from 1988 to 2013. The new study is the first to have measured gender disparities in pay among nurses over time.
“We now have pretty compelling evidence that there are pay inequalities between men and women in nursing over the past 25 years,” said Debra J. Barksdale, the director of the doctor of nursing practice program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved with the new study.
Because most nurses are women, “you may think women have caught up or even might be ahead of men, but we find that’s not the case,” said Ulrike Muench, the lead author of the new study, which was published in JAMA, and an assistant professor of social behavioral sciences at the School of Nursing of the University of California, San Francisco.
The research team, which also included experts at the Yale School of Public Health and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, used data from two surveys. One provided a trove of employment information, like whether nurses worked in hospital or ambulatory settings and the number of years since graduation. But the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses was discontinued in 2008.
The researchers also relied on census data for information on earnings, finding that the gap “exists and persists in a second nationally representative data set,” Dr. Muench said.
The gap varied across specialties, Dr. Muench and her colleagues found. Male cardiology nurses were paid more per year than female colleagues by roughly $6,000 on average. By contrast, male nurses in chronic care — focused on managing conditions like diabetes or asthma — made roughly $3,800 more than women in those specialties.
This new analysis found the pay disparity greatest among nurse anesthetists. About 40 percent are men, and they were paid $17,290 more on average per year than female nurse anesthetists.
The study did not address reasons underpinning the persistent gap. There could be several reasons, Dr. Muench said: Men may be better negotiators, for instance, or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. Women may have a tougher time getting promoted, she said.
“A workplace may offer a bit more to the men in order to diversify,” said Diana Mason, a professor of nursing at Hunter College of The City University of New York and former editor of The American Journal of Nursing.
Still, it is possible that women earn less because of a “lingering bias that a man is more of an expert because he’s a man,” she said.
Dr. Mason said the new analysis was an opportunity for chief nurse officers to ask their employers for wage data by gender for employees in equal positions with comparable experience in order to root out bias in pay.
Peter McMenamin, a health economist and a spokesman for the American Nurses Association, commended the study. “The folks who did the study are well qualified and they have lots of data,” he said. “But my main hesitance in terms of statistics is they have fewer men.”
Only 7 to 10 percent of nurses are male, he acknowledged. But with a smaller sample, he said, “the reliability of the answers is less robust.”
“You can’t say this is all a statistical fluke,” he added. “It’s not. But there are different things that could explain some of this challenge.”
Next, the researchers aim to focus on explanations for earning gaps in nursing.

"perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children."

Perhaps?

First time seeingthis, good that it limits to one profession. But it also needs to normalize for years worked, which i snot nearly the same thing as the number of years since college graduation. Why? Women are far mor elikely to take time off, menaing they have less experience than a man who graduated the same year.

Paul, we have laws preventing this kind of discrimination, and God knows we have lawyers who like to file class action suits. If this study had realk merit, why aren't the women suing? Where is Gloria Allred, why isn't she getting all worked up by this?

Jim, I just posted an article that I saw this morning.

There are lots of statements you can use to back your arguement. I even highlighted the last statement.

"or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. "


ding...ding....ding...ding

it'll be funny when they discover the greatest disparity is among unionized and government workers where longevity is the determining factor for wage scale rather than talent, ability and performance and patronage, discrimination and the old boy network are alive and well...insulated even...


these researchers completed another study recently where they, after several years of extensive research, determined that the sun actually rises in the east.....nice job!....they plan a follow-up study to try to determine why the sun shows bias toward the east when rising and west when setting and document the obvious discrimination displayed toward both the north and south

At least PaulS actually did a searchy thingy. Unlike others who wanted to simply claim Jim was wrong because his questions had already been "satisfactorily" answered. So they, apparently, did not require a "search" be done by themselves. Although it somehow supposedly required Jim to do the search in order to recover those reputed satisfactory answers. Very convenient, or lazy, to say the least. There is no possibility, of course, that there were no such "satisfactory" answers which actually disproved the "searched" conclusions which inspire Jim's over and over questions? Jim has already demonstrated, in this thread and others, that he is willing to accept a satisfactory answer. Others, apparently, either never do, or they just go away only to return another day with their same, over and over opinions, sometimes bolstered by a newfound "search" which is argued, debunked, requiring the same going away, only to return another day with a new AHA!

But, even the report that Paul posted, was not so much an answer to Jim's question, but more of a "well, maybe, possibility," needing some actual investigation of the "why." And, as admitted, the why might well support Jim's opinion.

So far, the searching on the topic that has been done in this thread supports Jim's contention, or hints that it may or may not be true. Or, that if it is not true, that is only so in the nursing field. Which may, or may not just be a counter balance to another field, as has been pointed out in this thread, where women are paid more on average than men, sometimes much more.

The most discouraging aspect of all this indeterminate back and forth, if indeed there really is a question, is that it can be used as a campaign talking point to divide and influence votes. No matter that the federal government has already answered the problem by prohibiting that which is supposed to be the problem. No doubt it was a talking point back when the legislation was passed, and will continue to be a talking point, after it was already solved, so long as it can be milked. Along with other questionable perennial talking points such as minimum wage.

No matter, also, that the federal government, at least in the prescribed manner by which it is supposed to act, is intruding in areas that should not be its business. It should not be regulating the nation's entire economy.

But, by creating evil straw men to knock down, it cunningly captures the peoples soft spots acting as the knight in shining armor who will slay the propped up bad guys. How can we resist? What good is a Constitution if it allows us to be trampled?

No matter, of course, that it's the Constitution which is being trampled, thus making us vulnerable to evils far beyond those which we already have the power to fight without central power intervention.

But that is the point of intervention. The federal government, by feeding us crumbs from the loaf we already own, takes possession of the whole loaf. It becomes the Constitution. And, as such, it becomes the supreme law of the land. And, assuming all powers, it, in actuality, becomes the only law. Things like the economy, are no longer the people's business. It becomes the governments business, to direct and regulate towards its ends rather than the ends of business owners, who, now, will only "own" what is allowed after central power regulation.

Sure, We the People will ostensibly still have many freedoms, and local governments will still function in different ways. But, as in all centralized governments, those freedoms can be trumped by the kingpin when it wants to. As in most dictatorships, the people must be given crumbs. But, when the Federal Government becomes the Constitution, there are no longer any guarantees of freedom. Only those which are allowed.

It is not even humorous that various "rights" will be touted as reasons to vote for candidates in the coming election if someone like Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee. Either vote for rights which are inalienable, or only those allowed by government.

great article
yesterday

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/415932/print