Class of 2013 grads poised to flood job market: Will dreams get dashed, or are fortunes rising?

Penn Live ^ | 05/03/2013 | John Luciew

[SeekAndFind]

There’s no two ways about it. The Great Recession and the anemic recovery have been especially brutal on younger workers. The blue skies and sunny smiles of May graduations often turn to soured realities of menial jobs unrelated to college majors and mounting student loan debts.

But is the labor market log jam that locked out so many recent college grads from launching careers finally starting to break?

Consider some recent good news for a change:

The Bethlehem-based National Association of Colleges and Employers found that the average starting salary for new college graduates earning bachelor’s degrees increased a healthy 5.3 percent over last year. This, according to the group’s April salary survey.

Read More: Top salaries by major.

Billed as the first look at starting salaries for the Class of 2013, the survey found that the average starting salary for these college graduates stands at $44,928, up from the 2012 average salary of $42,666.

“The sizable gains in several disciplines—particularly in health sciences and business—have helped to drive up the average starting salary for the Class of 2013,” explains Marilyn Mackes, NACE executive director.

Not all college degrees are created equally when it comes to the salary survey.

With a whopping increase of 9.4 percent, health sciences garnered the highest increase among the disciplines. This jump brings the average starting salary for these graduates to $49,713. Business also saw a solid gain—7.1 percent—bumping the average salary for these grads to $54,234, the association reported.

Likewise, education and computer science saw ample increases. The average starting salary for education majors climbed 5.1 percent to $40,480, while the average salary for computer science majors jumped to $59,977, 4.3 percent higher than last year.

Engineering: 4.0 percent, to $62,535; communications: 3.8 percent, to $43,145; and math and sciences: 3.1 percent, to $42,724 -- all seeing increases that exceeded 3 percent.

At the other end of the salary spectrum, graduates with degrees in humanities and social sciences lagged badly, with just a gain of just 1.9 percent, to $37,058.

All this talk of salary increases presupposes a grad’s ability to land a job within his or her major in the first place.

On this front, especially, the news for the Class of 2013 remains grim.

In a corresponding hiring outlook survey, the association said employers reported hiring plans that were mostly flat when it came to offering jobs to the Class of 2013.

Overall, employers taking part in the spring survey said they would hire 2.1 percent more new college grads from the Class of 2013, than they hired from the Class of 2012. That’s down from the 13 percent increase that employers had projected in the fall of 2012.

And perhaps most troubling, a full one-third of respondents reported plans to hire fewer new grads than they did a year ago.

“The new projection is consistent with recent job reports that show job growth is less than anticipated,” says NACE's Mackes.

And there’s the rub: Any news of salary spikes for the Class of 2013 grads is soured by the continued scarcity of actual jobs.

Thus, the Depression-like unemployment and under-employment situation among our nation’s younger workers and recent college grads looks to linger still.

Despite the pomp and circumstance and optimism and euphoria of graduation, many May grads might not make it off their launching pads for some time to come. That’s the shame of it, but it’s what the numbers say.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: (1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
(2) Vergil Goode, Constitution party.
(3) Tom Hoefling, America’s Party.

And you honestly believe these people can get more than 3% total even when you add all of their votes up?

I might like some of them better than Romney, but I’m not going to waste my vote on them.

RE: In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency...

I voted for Santorum over Romney, Unfortunately, he did not win. so, the real practical choice in November was Romney vs Obama.

RE: I never said “do nothing.”

OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: He left NM with a budget surplus, which is pretty impressive when you know how the State works...

Since we’re into referring to Wikipedia, let’s talk about surpluses.

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

Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[47] Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3][48] For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[48] The state’s “rainy day fund”, more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance.[48]

As the state’s fiscal outlook improved, Romney repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, urged the legislature to reduce the state income tax from a flat rate of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent.[49] (In 2000, voters had approved a gradual reduction in the income tax from 5.85 to 5.0 percent; but as an emergency measure in response to the fiscal crisis, the legislature had halted the rollback at 5.3 percent in 2002.[49])

He also proposed a “tax-free shopping day”,[50] a property tax relief for Seniors,[51] and a manufacturing tax credit.

The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney’s governorship.[3] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, from 2002 to 2006 the average rate of state and local taxes in Massachusetts rose from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent (compared to the national rate, which rose from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent).[52]

THAT WAS IN THE VERY BLUE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

You really believe a Governor Obama would do all those above?

So no difference between Obama and Romney? NOPE.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: I never said “do nothing.”
>
> OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.

Ah, so we’re back to “he lost, so your vote doesn’t matter”? Well, Romney lost, therefore you vote didn’t matter either.
So, who is better off here? Me who did not compromise with evil, or you who did?

>> RE: (1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
>
> And you honestly believe these people can get more than 3% total even when you add all of their votes up?

That depends on if the people buy into the “you’re wasting your vote if you vote third-party”-idea — and, honestly, what better way to change that in America than to vote 3rd party? [The only other option involves bloodshed.]

> I might like some of them better than Romney, but I’m not going to waste my vote on them.

And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted. — If that is the case than anyone who voted for the loser, no matter how close, also doesn’t count.

> RE: In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency...
>
> I voted for Santorum over Romney, Unfortunately, he did not win. so, the real practical choice in November was Romney vs Obama.

And? How’d that work out? Did you get your guy in? Does the Republican party have any incentive to tun a better (less-socialist or less-statist) candidate? Of course not, they can *ALWAYS* count on your vote because there is, apparently, no point where you’ll say “I won’t vote foe X because he is Y” (X being the candidate, and Y being some philosophy), because there is no Y that you find repugnant enough to declare unacceptable.

You’ve said that, very nearly explicitly, and keep saying it.
I disagree, saying there are things which are not acceptable.
But there is one other point that differentiates us: I accept your authority to vote as you see fit... you do not accept that same authority in me — “OK, you voted for Gary Johnson. I’m sure Obama’s team will appreciate all the help he got.”

So — let me ask... how are you different from the liberals who blast anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Or is there something about me, specially, that invalidates my right to vote the way I see fit?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So, who is better off here? Me who did not compromise with evil, or you who did?

You because you wasted your vote on somebody who has NO CHANCE of winning.

RE: That depends on if the people buy into the “you’re wasting your vote if you vote third-party”-idea — and, honestly, what better way to change that in America than to vote 3rd party? [The only other option involves bloodshed.]

Or, to slowly change the party that has the best chance of winning. You are willing to give up on the Republican party as irreformable. I’m not. That’s the difference between you and me.

I’d rather say — OK Mr. Romney, we voted for you BECAUSE you promised to do this this and this and if you don’t, you’re out.

You’d rather waste your vote on Gary Johnson.

RE: And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted.

Yes because IT IS TRUE.

RE: And? How’d that work out? Did you get your guy in? Does the Republican party have any incentive to turn a better (less-socialist or less-statist) candidate? Of course not, they can *ALWAYS* count on your vote because there is, apparently, no point where you’ll say “I won’t vote foe X because he is Y” (X being the candidate, and Y being some philosophy), because there is no Y that you find repugnant enough to declare unacceptable.

OK, what did your vote do for Gary Johnson? did it not help Obama to win? How many people in America even KNOW who Gary Johnson is?

I voted for Romney because at least he PROMISED ( and I believe he intended to fulfill it ) to REVERSE what Obama did between 2008 and 2012. That would have made a HUGE difference.

If he did that there’s the message to the Republican party — DON’T BE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

And come to think of it, we were already slowly getting there... Congress actually VOTED to repeal Obamacare. Had we won back the Senate AND the Presidency, the chances of it being repealed would have increased. The message to both parties would have been CLEAR.

REPEAL OBAMACARE !! we voted for it.

Now, because Obama is still President (thanks to those who stayed at home or those who wasted their vote on someone who get less than 1% of the vote), Obamacare is still the law and full implementation comes next year.

RE: So — let me ask... how are you different from the liberals who blast anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Or is there something about me, specially, that invalidates my right to vote the way I see fit?

Simple, I voted for someone who WILL reverse SOME HUGE liberal policies. That IS something. And that IS the difference.

And I never said you cannot vote the way you fit. I just said you wasted your vote.

[OneWingedShark]

> You because you wasted your vote on somebody who has NO CHANCE of winning.

And he had no chance “because nobody would vote for him”?

> Or, to slowly change the party that has the best chance of winning.

Yes, and by compromising you signal to the party that (a) evil is acceptable, and (b) they really don’t need to push for any of the good things in the platform — ending abortion, government responsibility, government accountability, government limitations — hell, all through this you’ve argued against government limitations (specifically tax-rates, which are under congress and not the president).

> You are willing to give up on the Republican party as irreformable. I’m not. That’s the difference between you and me.

Have you ever tried to help someone who doesn’t want help? Someone who doesn’t think they have a problem?
That is the Republican party, and I refuse to support them while they do jack-shit about actually striving for their stated goals:

As a Party:
They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?
They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?
They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?
They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)
They say they’re for reducing tax burdens — When was the last time they pushed for a no-strings reduction? (Bush’s tax-cuts don’t count because they had strings.)
They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)

So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do? How are you?
If my vote is wasted, then what of your emotions and passions and investment to this party?

> I’d rather say — OK Mr. Romney, we voted for you BECAUSE you promised to do this this and this and if you don’t, you’re out.
> You’d rather waste your vote on Gary Johnson.

Or would you simply give him the excuse of “under Obama it would have been worse”? Moreover, would the congress have backed you to throw him out?

>> RE: And there’s your problem: you think that a vote for someone that doesn’t win is wasted.
>
>Yes because IT IS TRUE.

Then YOUR VOTE WAS WASTED BECAUSE ROMNEY DIDN’T WIN!

> OK, what did your vote do for Gary Johnson? did it not help Obama to win? How many people in America even KNOW who Gary Johnson is?

It contributed to giving him 1% of the popular vote.
No, unless you wish to claim that any vote that wasn’t Romney was actually for Obama — in which case you’re admitting that all votes are worthless.
At least 1%, obviously; likely a lot more who discarded him as an option because “a third party can’t win.”

> If he did that there’s the message to the Republican party — DON’T BE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS.

By being like the Democrats and selecting a statist & socialist?
“We had to destroy the village to save it.”

> And come to think of it, we were already slowly getting there... Congress actually VOTED to repeal Obamacare. Had we won back the Senate AND the Presidency, the chances of it being repealed would have increased. The message to both parties would have been CLEAR.

That if we had bacon we could have bacon and eggs, if only we had some eggs?
Or that only a Socialist/statist can be President?
Hell, I don’t think the Republican party would understand anything less than losing nearly all its voters, and it’s been doing a bang-up job of that: McCain, Romney... but don’t worry, they’re sure to hear your cries and give you a woman candidate who has plenty of experience in government — Olympia Snowe.

> Now, because Obama is still President (thanks to those who stayed at home or those who wasted their vote on someone who get less than 1% of the vote),

Johnson did not get less than one percent, and I still think Romney could have ended up being worse (because the Republicans wouldn’t put up even token resistance to his socialism).

> Obamacare is still the law and full implementation comes next year.

Sucks to be you. :)
[/Schadenfreude]
And me. :(

[SeekAndFind]

RE: And he had no chance “because nobody would vote for him”?

Ask yourself, what was his poll standings prior to the elections? If he were in double digits, maybe we can talk.

RE:Yes, and by compromising you signal to the party that (a) evil is acceptable,

And by wasting your vote on someone who has no chance of winning, you allowed the greater evil to prevail.

and (b) they really don’t need to push for any of the good things in the platform —

Why not? There were good things in the Romney platform. I just outlined a few of them.

RE: Have you ever tried to help someone who doesn’t want help? Someone who doesn’t think they have a problem?

I don’t believe that ALL members of the Republican party feels that they don’t have a problem.

When you vote for someone, you can always tell them WHAT PART of the platform you want passed and what laws you want repealed.

So no, I don’t believe the GOP is iredeemable.

RE: They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?

Errr... Need I remind you that without the Republican party, the MAJORITY of whom voted against the Toomey-Manchin bill, we would already be having background checks now.

And because we have a Republican party, Reid cannot even muster the numbers to pass his gun control votes.

RE: They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?

What the heck is Darrel Issa and his supporters doing?
You think it is easy to fight this with Obama in power and the Senate under Dem control with the media behind them all the way?

RE: They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?

The 2010 Congress actually voted for a balanced budget. It was DOA in the Senate.

You think with Gary Johnson as president anything would have happened to reduce spending by a significant amount?

RE: They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)

Uh huh as I said before, with this, then I would guess you would not vote for Ronald Reagan. What did he do to push back abortion?

At least W. Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion.

RE; They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)

This is issue an where conservatives DO NOT AGREE.

And oh yeah, marijuana is slowly being legalized even as we speak.

RE: So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do?

Disagree, this congress might not be perfect, but under the circumstances, most are trying their best to counter the Obama agenda.

One can only imagine had both houses and the presidency been under GOP control...

we won’t get everything we want, but things would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have now.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: ohnson did not get less than one percent, and I still think Romney could have ended up being worse (because the Republicans wouldn’t put up even token resistance to his socialism).

I don’t call these socialism:

1) Cutting corporate taxes down to 25%

2) Repeal of the death tax.

3) Repeal of Obamacare.

If we could just have accomplished those 3, it would be a step in the right direction.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: They say they’re pro 2nd Amendment — When have they pushed to repeal GCA or NFA... or eliminating gun-free zones?
>
> Errr... Need I remind you that without the Republican party, the MAJORITY of whom voted against the Toomey-Manchin bill, we would already be having background checks now.

My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.

>> RE: They say they’re pro government accountability — What have they done to hold the likes of Fast & Furious or Bengahazi to accountability?
>
> What the heck is Darrel Issa and his supporters doing?
> You think it is easy to fight this with Obama in power and the Senate under Dem control with the media behind them all the way?

AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.

>> RE: They say they’re for government reducing spending — When was the last time they cut [not renamed/restructured] a federal agency?
>
> The 2010 Congress actually voted for a balanced budget. It was DOA in the Senate.

What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.

> You think with Gary Johnson as president anything would have happened to reduce spending by a significant amount?

No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.

>> RE: They say they’re for ending abortion — When was the last time they pushed back on that? (And is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of any effect?)
>
> Uh huh as I said before, with this, then I would guess you would not vote for Ronald Reagan. What did he do to push back abortion?

I’m not over thirty — to me, and anyone younger, Reagan may as well be a statistical anomaly in the history of the Republican party.

> At least W. Bush signed a bill banning partial birth abortion.

I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.

>> RE; They say they’re for Constitutional limitations — When was the last time they pushed to reduce (not even end) the War on Drugs? (Which destroys the bill of rights.)
>
> This is issue an where conservatives DO NOT AGREE.

No, it’s not. But it’s plain to anyone who reads the Constitution that it is a gross overreach of the Federal Government’s power (Art 1, Sec 8) and routinely justifies violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. It can be argued that it corrupts/weakens the 6th Amendment as throwing drug-charges into otherwise non-related crimes may color the jury’s opinion (rather like how they tried to make the investigation of Waco about child-abuse/pedophilia rather than what it was supposed to be: focusing on the legitimacy and propriety of the government’s actions).

> And oh yeah, marijuana is slowly being legalized even as we speak.

I didn’t say anything about legalizing it; I hate the smell and don’t want to try it... but what does concern me is how many are able to rationalize the violations of the Bill of Rights because “they’re druggies” — the bill of Rights protections aren’t dependent on the actions of the person precisely because THEY’RE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

>> RE: So, how am I going to “reform” a group that, by its actions, shows it has no intention of doing anything it says it wants to do?
>
> Disagree, this congress might not be perfect, but under the circumstances, most are trying their best to counter the Obama agenda.

BWAHAHAHAHA! — I don’t agree. If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.

> One can only imagine had both houses and the presidency been under GOP control...
> we won’t get everything we want, but things would have been a heck of a lot better than what we have now.

Right. [/sarc]
You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
Mat 5:19 — “For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

[SeekAndFind]

RE: My point isn’t about simply stopping more infringements, but ridding the ones we already have.

I’m with you here, but remember this — you’re not going to get every thing you want. Even a modest gain is considered a victory. The left did not get to where it is today in one big bang and neither will conservatives.

RE: AND YOU APPARENTLY DON’T GET THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A BIG DEAL OF IT!! *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE ON SOME STUPID COMMITTEE. (Yes, yelling, F&F makes me Furious.) — That’s not even talking about Syria, Benghazi, or even Obama’s eligibility EACH of those should have been a BIG deal in the Republican party.

And how big a deal should it be if you have the media against you?

You can shout it from the housetops and the “big deal” isn’t going to be big unless it gets published and made a big deal of in the media.

How big a deal did conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity make on these?

With so many issues that need to be addressed you might want them to keep talking about it everyday, but this isn’t happening.

And what’s the solution to this? To vote for Gary Johnson and allow Obama to win?

RE; What if I think the only reason it passed was so the Senate could kill it? I’m starting to get cynical like that.

Well I’m not as cynical as you. And if we had a Republican president and Paul Ryan as VP, hey the chances of it passing would be better.

RE: No; the budget is the Congress’s responsibility, not the President’s... seriously, you made that point yourself just a sentence ago.

And you seem to have forgotten my counter argument — a Romney/Ryan victory would have the COAT_TAIL EFFECT, which I believe happens most of the time.

And if Ryan used his bully pulpit as VP to pound the balanced budget, why would it not become a reality?

RE: I used to think that was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.

Not sure what you’re after here... a president signs the ban into law and you’re not even happy with it.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

RE: The Drug wars...

Ronald Reagan himself continued the drug war. He appointed among others, Bill Bennett to be his Drug Czar.

Are you going to not vote for someone like him simply because of this one issue?

RE: If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.

And how’s that going to help? Many people have made his eligibility an issue, nothing came out of it.

I guess you wanted a lawsuit.

If so, why did your candidate (the one you voted for ) not file one? He didn’t and you still voted for him.

RE: You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.

And Romney/Ryan is THAT little that we have. So yes, I DID use it. But that little thing is bigger than the even littler one that you voted for.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: I used to think that [the Partial-birth Abortion Ban] was a good thing; now I’m not so sure... it could have been a useless feel-good gesture.
>
> Not sure what you’re after here... a president signs the ban into law and you’re not even happy with it.
> Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

No. I’m saying that it may’ve been only a “feel good” law.
According to Wikipedia:
A 2007 article in The Boston Globe reported that, in response to this statute, many abortion providers had adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions. Typically, a concentrated salt solution is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle. Even though these providers do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures, they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them “to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused.”

Which seems like the effect of people saying; “ok, we can’t use forks, so we’ll use sporks.” — I wasn’t able to find the abortion-rates to compare before and after, but I think I read somewhere that the PBA did nothing to the overall rate of abortions, if that is the case then the Act was useless and indeed counterproductive in that it gives people a false sense of accomplishment.

> Ronald Reagan himself continued the drug war. He appointed among others, Bill Bennett to be his Drug Czar.
> Are you going to not vote for someone like him simply because of this one issue?

I’m not over thirty, when you say “Ronald Regan” it hits me as personally as saying “John Adams”... Actually, Adams is one of my favorite presidents, so you’d get more connection there.

>> RE: If they were, they’d have made an issue of his eligibility.
>
> And how’s that going to help? Many people have made his eligibility an issue, nothing came out of it.
> I guess you wanted a lawsuit.

Hm, I think I’d let Butter answer that question... and only an idiot would comment like that, considering that all the multiple lawsuits so far have been thrown out because of “lack of standing.”

> If so, why did your candidate (the one you voted for) not file one? He didn’t and you still voted for him.

I don’t know — why don’t you ask him? The point isn’t me, or him, but that the Republican party rolled over on this issue... and Fast and Furious, and the “KMA” Obama pulled in Syria, and... maybe, soon to be, Benghazi. Hell, what issues are they actually pushing back on?

>> RE: You know, Jesus had something to say about people that don’t use even the little that they have: even that little bit will be taken away.
>
> And Romney/Ryan is THAT little that we have. So yes, I DID use it.

LOL, you say that and I hear: “There is only one Party, and Romney is its Prophet.”

[SeekAndFind]

RE: A 2007 article in The Boston Globe reported that, in response to this statute, many abortion providers had adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions.

So, your complaint is Bush signed a law but did not enforce it? Would a libertarian Gary Johnson do the better?

What reasons do we have to believe that he would?

RE: I’m not over thirty, when you say “Ronald Regan” it hits me as personally as saying “John Adams”... Actually, Adams is one of my favorite presidents, so you’d get more connection there.

Ronald Reagan is considered by most conservatives to be one of the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps the best of the 20th century.

But even he could not reverse abortion. And by voting for Gary Johnson, you think he could have done better? Why?

RE: only an idiot would comment like that, considering that all the multiple lawsuits so far have been thrown out because of “lack of standing.”

Well, here you are complaining that nothing is done about Obama’s eligibility and I asked you what Gary Johnson (your candidate) would have done and you haven’t answered my question.

If the GOP rolled over this issue, then your candidate rolled over this issue too. Yet, You’d vote for him anyway.

Why so soft on Gary Johnson and so hard on the rest of the Republicans?

As for Benghazi, again let me say that this issue is not dead yet. And going back to Gary Johnson, what makes you think he would have done better than what we have now?

RE: you say that and I hear: “There is only one Party, and Romney is its Prophet.”

What you hear and what I actually meant are two different things. You ignore the words — the lesser of the evil ( which I repeated several times ).

[OneWingedShark]

> What you hear and what I actually meant are two different things. You ignore the words — the lesser of the evil ( which I repeated several times ).

No, I’ve addressed that MULTIPLE times. You refuse to hear: the compromise between good and evil only works to evil’s favor: you do no-one any good by endorsing a “lesser of two evils” philosophy.

Or, let me put it another way: point out a spot were electing a “moderate” left us in a better position than trying for a “conservative”?

> Ronald Reagan is considered by most conservatives to be one of the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps the best of the 20th century.
> But even he could not reverse abortion. And by voting for Gary Johnson, you think he could have done better? Why?

I never said he could do better than Reagan, in fact I’ve claimed that I’m very ignorant of Reagan other than some mere mostly-meaningless historical data. — And that brings up a better point, why do you bring Reagan up if he’s supposedly the “best of the 20th Century”? Wouldn’t it be better to bring up the most average (or even worst) Republican president for your argument?

> Well, here you are complaining that nothing is done about Obama’s eligibility and I asked you what Gary Johnson (your candidate) would have done and you haven’t answered my question.
> If the GOP rolled over this issue, then your candidate rolled over this issue too. Yet, You’d vote for him anyway

My point about the GOP isn’t *ONLY* this issue, it’s that they do it on _*EVERY*_ issue.
Name *THREE* issues from their platform that the GOP [AS A PARTY] has stood firm on, not on simply slowing down but reversing current bad-policy.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: No, I’ve addressed that MULTIPLE times. You refuse to hear: the compromise between good and evil only works to evil’s favor: you do no-one any good by endorsing a “lesser of two evils” philosophy.

And again you seem to ignore the fact that PRACTICALLY, we do not have a third choice. You might insist that Gary Johnson is it but he isn’t.

The main practical choice is to either stop Obama with an imperfect candidate who can reverse many of his policies or let him romp.

THOSE are the two practical choices in 2012.

RE: Or, let me put it another way: point out a spot were electing a “moderate” left us in a better position than trying for a “conservative”?

The Bush tax cut that lasted for 10 years and got us out of the DOT COM bust recession and the terrorism attack that almost destroyed our economy.

Bush was a moderate, he was not a conservative by any means, but he was the better choice compared to Al Gore.

RE: And that brings up a better point, why do you bring Reagan up if he’s supposedly the “best of the 20th Century”? Wouldn’t it be better to bring up the most average (or even worst) Republican president for your argument?

Because you brought up abortion and want a change in policy pronto. I brought Reagan up to show you that even as conservative a president as he is, he couldn’t do anything to reverse abortion.

So, to castigate Romney or the Republicans for not reversing the trend ASAP is to demand the impossible.

Both conservative anti-abortion candidates — Todd Akin and Richard Murdock lost on this issue.

And you expect Gary Johnson to do something about it?

RE: Name *THREE* issues from their platform that the GOP [AS A PARTY] has stood firm on

1) Gun control has not passed.

2) Even background checks did not pass

3) They held firm on the sequester.

4) Congress voted to repeal Obamacare

5) Congress voted for the balanced budget amendment.

6) Other than Rob Portman ( whose son is gay ) and Susan Collins, I don’t see any Republican switching to vote for gay marriage.

The GOP is still firm in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Both upper and lower house.

My personal conclusion is this — you want change? stick with those Republicans who held firm and continue to hold firm on conservative issues.

And if are dealt a bad hand (e.g. a Romney ), vote for the lesser evil.

And if they are REALLY just as bad as each other, then vote third party.

But clearly Romney is BETTER than Obama. That’s why I won’t go third party.

One caveat: If Gary Johnson were the GOP candidate (as he originally planned to be), I’d vote for him.

[OneWingedShark]

>> RE: No, I’ve addressed that MULTIPLE times. You refuse to hear: the compromise between good and evil only works to evil’s favor: you do no-one any good by endorsing a “lesser of two evils” philosophy.
>
> And again you seem to ignore the fact that PRACTICALLY, we do not have a third choice.

So I should give aid and comfort to those that are assisting in raping my country in the hopes that my influence will touch their heart and cause them to have a conversion?

> The main practical choice is to either stop Obama with an imperfect candidate who can reverse many of his policies or let him romp.
> THOSE are the two practical choices in 2012.

And there’s no evidence that Romney would actually reverse any policies... I think the best we could have realistically hoped (under Romney) for would be a slight lessening of the pressure/overt statist-nature of our governing body.

> RE: Or, let me put it another way: point out a spot were electing a “moderate” left us in a better position than trying for a “conservative”?
> The Bush tax cut that lasted for 10 years and got us out of the DOT COM bust recession and the terrorism attack that almost destroyed our economy.

The Bush tax-cut was a lie: ie wasn’t a cut so much as a “we’ll waive the charges” (a real cut would have involved touching the actual rates permanantly and without qualification).

> Bush was a moderate, he was not a conservative by any means, but he was the better choice compared to Al Gore.

Because of Bush we have the Patriot Act, the TSA, and many other things that have matured under Obama’s term were started in Bush’s term (bailouts started, IIRC, with the Airlines post 9/11). I’m not saying he was utterly bad, but I no-longer think he was a *good* president — “we had to abandon the principles of the free market in order to save it” did it for me.

To not realize that some of what is objectionable in government now was planted then is to ignore reality. (The War on Drugs came from Nixon, and I maintain that no other single policy has been as destructive to the Bill of Rights as that.)

> Because you brought up abortion and want a change in policy pronto. I brought Reagan up to show you that even as conservative a president as he is, he couldn’t do anything to reverse abortion.
>
> So, to castigate Romney or the Republicans for not reversing the trend ASAP is to demand the impossible.

No, I castigate the republicans on Romney because they added “no exceptions not even rape or incest” to the official party platform regarding abortion and then actively pushed Romney. (Remember the RNC debacles w/ the bus, or the teleprompter-incident, or the retroactive rule switching of at least one state so that Romney won that primary?)

>> RE: Name *THREE* issues from their platform that the GOP [AS A PARTY] has stood firm on
>
> 1) Gun control has not passed.
> 2) Even background checks did not pass

These two cannot count, I said pushing back not keeping things the same.

> 3) They held firm on the sequester.

I’ll actually count that one, even though it’s arguably keeping things as they are.

> 4) Congress voted to repeal Obamacare

Ok, I’ll count that... though that’s not really pushing back so much as trying to get back to status quo.

> 5) Congress voted for the balanced budget amendment.

BAHAHAHAHA! — I’m of the opinion that it’ll take a Constitutional amendment (likely one involving setting the Dollar explicitly to gold and tying the maximum debt-obligation to the amount of gold in the Treasury’s possession) would be the only way to balance the budget at this point... remember that the Congress was required to pass a budget for all of Obama’s first term and didn’t.

> 6) Other than Rob Portman ( whose son is gay ) and Susan Collins, I don’t see any Republican switching to vote for gay marriage.

Rejecting gay marriage is keeping things status quo.

> My personal conclusion is this — you want change? stick with those Republicans who held firm and continue to hold firm on conservative issues.

My personal position is that when the Republican party selects a liberal socalist/statist there is no way to “hold firm on conservative issues” and try to elect him.

> And if are dealt a bad hand (e.g. a Romney ), vote for the lesser evil.
>
> And if they are REALLY just as bad as each other, then vote third party.

And that’s what I’ve been saying all along: that I believe Romney really was as bad as Obama.

> But clearly Romney is BETTER than Obama. That’s why I won’t go third party.

And I disagree there — the best we could have hoped for w/ Romney is that he’d keep things where they were rather than charging “forward” — again, he’s a Fabian Socialist who thinks we ought to ease into it: that would be perfectly i-character. Oh, I firmly believe he’d make a big show about doing very little/mostly-symbolic acts. But I don’t believe that Congress or the people would “hold his feet to the fire” on the issues. — after all, did we hold Bush’s feet to the fire over the initial bailouts? Or his “abandon the free market principals to save it?” and he’s WAY more conservative than Romney.

> One caveat: If Gary Johnson were the GOP candidate (as he originally planned to be), I’d vote for him.

I would have voted Republican if he’d run as Republican... but then the Romney selection just proved to me that the Republican party was utterly unserious about pursuing its party-planks.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So I should give aid and comfort to those that are assisting in raping my country in the hopes that my influence will touch their heart and cause them to have a conversion?

That’s my point — your analogy of raping the country is not an apt one and an extreme description. I don’t call the goal of repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes raping the country.

If any, it’s fighting the raping of the country.

RE: And there’s no evidence that Romney would actually reverse any policies... I think the best we could have realistically hoped (under Romney) for would be a slight lessening of the pressure/overt statist-nature of our governing body.

And there’s no evidence that we WON’T REVERSE POLICIES EITHER. He chose Paul Ryan as his VP, which is positive evidence that he is serious about the budget crisis.

How do you know if you don’t give him a chance?

All you’re doing is speculating ( and I concede that I am too ). But you’ll never know unless you try.

Wasting your vote on someone who CAN’T win is not the way to go.

RE: The Bush tax-cut was a lie: ie wasn’t a cut so much as a “we’ll waive the charges” (a real cut would have involved touching the actual rates permanently and without qualification).

Excuse me? RATES WERE LOWERED ACROSS THE BOARD. It might not be the tax cut that you want, but it IS a cut. Also, he wanted to make it permanent but had to compromise under threat of opposition and filibuster. He got a 10 year deal. Long enough to at least eliminate short term uncertainty.

[butterdezillion]

My gut-level belief is that the Republicans’ refusal to stand firm on F&F, Benghazi, eligibility, DADT, SMART, Bin Laden’s son Hamza at the Boston bombing, etc are all branches growing out of a bigger root. Specifically, all our alarm systems have been disabled - within the government system and outside the system (within the media and in normal conversations). When we can have the advance warnings and whistleblowers after the fact in F&F, Benghazi, and the Boston bombing - and the system totally blew it off beforehand and nobody afterwards will hold anybody accountable - that tells us that our alarm system is broken.

But it didn’t get that way by accident. The systems have been deliberately disabled.

How?

1. The media was threatened. That’s documented already. That means that any politician who wants to be elected and any commentator who wants to be considered “credible” has to ridicule even the thought that our enemies are conspiring to destroy us from within - even though we’ve got the written plans of both the communists and Islamists saying that is EXACTLY what they are conspiring to do, and Obama and his owner George Soros have always been allied with both those groups. Barack Obama’s Harvard law degree was financed by the Saudis and the logistics were worked through by the parents of Bill Ayers, and the only legal work he ever used that degree for was to enact the 2 planks within the communists’ Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America from within: push the Motor Voter Act to break the integrity of elections, and harass banks into subprime lending to break the integrity of our economic system. Francis Fox-Piven also helped to create The New Party in Chicago, with the intention of subverting the political parties into communism as well, and Obama had signed his name to become a member of that party.

The fear of being ridiculed as a “crazy conspiracy theorist” has effectively disabled the alarm systems built in by the First Amendment. We are self-censoring.

Andrew Breitbart had resolved to say what needed to be said about Obama’s connections and history, and had just found out that Sheriff Joe had credible evidence of forgery and fraud regarding Obama’s eligibility - and he dropped to the ground dead less than 5 hours later. The coroner’s office had a murder the same week as Breitbart’s autopsy came out, and the cops not only didn’t investigate the murder but they lied to make it seem like it wasn’t a murder and wasn’t related to Breitbart’s autopsy. The same day Breitbart died and Rush Limbaugh received a package referring to 2 famous assassinations, Arpaio gave his press conference announcing that the White House BC image is a forgery, and nobody in the media would report the evidence Arpaio gave.

Second, people were appointed to positions with the specific job of thwarting any legal investigations and/or prosecutions. I think it’s 5 inspectors general who were unlawfully replaced by Obama, and Obama’s “czars” had no confirmation necessary. And Congress also approved Napolitano, Holder, Brennan, etc - who have been central to Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency in the first place and have ever since been guarding the henhouse to keep anybody from being able to investigate wrongdoing in ANY issue.

Third, the whistleblowers inside the system were threatened and/or killed. Without getting into the eligibility issue in that regard, I’ll point to F&F, Benghazi, and the Boston bombing as a trifecta that establishes the pattern. I believe that pattern extended to Chief Justice John Roberts (as we see from the peculiar case of his very begrudgingly approving Obamacare) as well as to eligibility judges such as Michael Malihi and David Carter who both did sudden 180-degree turnarounds - and in Malihi’s case it involved basically a sharia ruling (”judge’s knowledge”) AND the illegal PROCEDURAL refusal to certify the proceedings so that contempt of court charges could be pursued against Obama and the attorney representing him in that case.

Why have the R’s been silent? Well, like I said, they were afraid of losing elections because of the media (including “conservative” media) ridiculing anybody who would sound an alarm on our enemies’ self-proclaimed conspiracies to destroy us from within. But we also have what Larry Sellin overheard one of the 2012 R Presidential primary candidates say - that nobody would address the eligibility issue because they know it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, they know there is treachery beyond just forging a BC. They know that the system itself has been taken hostage by a power greater than just Barack Obama, and they are afraid of attacking Obama for fear of what will be done to the hostage USA if they address the whole issue.

And I believe what has taken the US hostage is a communist-Islamist alliance. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Obama and his fellow communists have succeeded in the Cloward-Piven Plan over the years to such an extent that they are able to steal elections now and have the US economy so close to the edge of collapse that the money the Islamists are willing to pitch in toward the effort is enough to collapse the whole thing whenever they want. Bettina Viviano has said that top Hillary advisors told her that George Soros asked both Hillary and Obama during the 2008 primary if they were willing to go along with his plan to destroy the US economy. Obama was. Around the same time intelligence assets in Egypt were asking our CIA if they were aware of plans for an imminent Islamist economic terrorist attack on the US. I believe that attack was the Sept 2008 run on the bank. I’ve given some reasons on various posts; too much to go into now. I believe that President Bush, John McCain, Chief Justice Roberts, Dick Cheney, John Boenher, Mitch McConnell, Darryl Issa, etc were told that the run on the bank was done by a communist-Islamist alliance and that they would collapse the entire world economy unless Congress did exactly as they were told. And that is why Congress is doing exactly as they are told - THROUGH THE MANIPULATION OF THE REPUB LEADERSHIP, which has punished those who stand up. The machine doesn’t want to have to threaten them all; somebody might buck and go public. They need to have the leadership keep the members in line without telling the “little guys” why.

That’s why Ted Cruz is dangerous to them. He’s just one guy; he can’t change the vote of Congress. But he can rally the little guys to buck the leadership that is keeping them complicit in the communist-Islamist coup.

And that may well be what is happening on a bunch of different fronts - wherever the whistleblowers from within are willing to give the evidence necessary to eventually expose the treason: F&F, Benghazi, the Boston bombing .... and perhaps now also the eligibility issue. The pattern of treason and the intention to actually destroy this country is becoming clear enough to the “VIP’s” (as Zullo calls them) that they are realizing that it’s an all or nothing proposition. If we don’t face these hostage-takers now, the country will be killed anyway, so we’ve got nothing to lose. And it’s better if the confrontation comes BEFORE the illegal regime disarms the public. That’s why there is such a race to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

And perhaps that is also why Obama is willing to let the presence of terrorists within the country - that he knew about and allowed to stay here - be known to the public: in order to let the VIP resistors know that he has sleeper cells at his disposal to wreak terrible havoc within this country as well, if anybody bucks him. Havoc that guns can’t necessarily stave off.

But Obama’s willingness to keep the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks makes it all the more clear that the country is not going to be saved by appeasing this beast. The only way we can survive this communist-Islamist coup is by confronting it while we still can.

I hope and pray that ALL the America-lovers will realize that this is the case. If his stronghold on the “conservative” media breaks, Obama will not be able to contain the damage.

[notted]

Thank you. This post is a brilliant evaluation of our state of affairs.

I need an aspirin.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: No, I castigate the republicans on Romney because they added “no exceptions not even rape or incest” to the official party platform regarding abortion and then actively pushed Romney. (Remember the RNC debacles w/ the bus, or the teleprompter-incident, or the retroactive rule switching of at least one state so that Romney won that primary?)

Again you have to remember that I never said I was a fan of Romney, and I did say he was the lesser of the two evils.

I voted for him NOT with the expectation that abortion will be totally outlawed, but for him to slowly REVERSE what Obama did fiscally.

So, it was always Obama vs Romney ( and I don’t think Gay Johnson can do anything about abortion anyway ).

RE: These two cannot count, I said pushing back not keeping things the same.

Disagree... THEY MUST COUNT. You’re going against the President who has the bully pulpit AND a majority Democrat Senate WITH the media behind them.

To not support Republicans on this is to give the game up to the Democrats.

RE: BAHAHAHAHA! — I’m of the opinion that it’ll take a Constitutional amendment

Well, easier said than done. AT LEAST CONGRESS DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Imagine what could have been accomplished with the GOP in control of Senate AND a Romney/Ryan administration...

RE: Rejecting gay marriage is keeping things status quo.

But that’s the point — WE WANT THE STATUS QUO. We don’t want marriage redefined. Now that we have Obama in power for a second term, he’s going to push his agenda on America and the media will give him the bully pulpit for it.

RE: And I disagree there — the best we could have hoped for w/ Romney is that he’d keep things where they were rather than charging “forward” — again, he’s a Fabian Socialist who thinks we ought to ease into it: that would be perfectly i-character

Well let’s agree to disagree here.

I don’t consider repealing Obamacare or cutting corporate taxes or eliminating the estate tax “keeping things where they are”.

That would be a HUGE STEP AWAY from the train going towards the cliff.

RE: I would have voted Republican if he’d run as Republican... but then the Romney selection just proved to me that the Republican party was utterly unserious about pursuing its party-planks.

Gay Johnson DID attempt to run under the GOP umbrella. Unfortunately, he was not nominated ( not that I expected anything to come out of his campaign ).

So we both agree then, If Johnson were the GOP nominee, we’d vote for him.

Our disagreement always has been this — you believe there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I believe there is and Romney would have been the “better” President.