Peace Through Blinding Force

Why do NONE OF THEM know Obama's LITIGATED position on this issue - that he announced repeatedly on the air?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

. . or are Democrats defective?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

Corey approaches Consular Officials about moving to the U.S., establishing residence, working etc.

Margaret approaches a mobster about infiltrating the U.S., establishing residence, working with a false or stolen identity etc.

Will someone explain why it's IMPORTANT that Margaret receive benefits for which Corey cannot be eligible; that Margaret be immunized from several other laws and that Margaret be placed "in line" YEARS AHEAD of Corey for a "green card" and even for citizenship?

Will you further explain why if their country is subject to U.S. immigration quotas (and most are) that people like Margaret MUST be counted as filling that quota so that people like Corey have NO CHANCE of moving forward in line - ever?

I realize that since this describes EXACTLY what 100% of the Democrat Caucus openly demands - with the consent of several Republicans - that a lot of people here will simply deny ANYONE wants any such thing.

> 10% fewer Senate Democrats

> 15% lower overall average Federal taxation

> 30% lower real per-capita Federal spending

> 75% of Bills signed into law written by Republicans

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

Bureau of labor Statistics has "Manufacturing - Multifactor Productivity, annual index" from 1987-2012 (No, I don't know why just those years.) Holding this index up against Party presence in D.C., we see:

> More Democrats (House + Senate + White House total) : lower index (t=-0.41 p<0.0055.) O.K. Wait. THAT'S a bad example.

O.K., turns out Senate Democrats vs Productivity doesn't make the case and neither does using Presidents or the total number of chambers under Democrat control, since all three lack a significant relationship to productivity numbers.

I GOT IT!!! HOUSE Democrats!!! t=-0.47 p<0.0015. Oh, crap. I missed the "-" sign. THAT'S even a WORSE example than the total number of Democrats.

O.K., so I couldn't find data suggesting Republicans don't HELP manufacturing, but everyone knows it's true or every Democrat wouldn't claim it, right?

So, SOMEONE has DATA they can cite to show this, I assume? Let's have it.

The Obama administration's Bureau Of Labor Statistics has numbers Employed going back to 1948 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000

> With a GOP minority in the Senate, the average is 94,833,800 employed, With a GOP majority in the Senate, the average is 119,237,690 employed. Those Republicans are gonna' make 24 million of us get jobs!!

> But seriously, on average, there's been about 26% more total employment, on average, with GOP Senates

> Oh, wait. I hear you. You imagine this is because the GOP level corresponds with the population level. Well, sure, PARTLY. We can fix that by looking at the employment RATE instead:

> On average, the employment RATE has been 5% higher with GOP Senates

Coincidence? Apparently not. The Kendall tau Rank Correlations are:

Employment : Senate GOP t=0.26 p=0.0026, a 99.7370% chance this is NOT a coincidence

Employment RATE : Senate GOP t=0.41 p=0.0000018, a 99.9998% chance this is NOT a coincidence

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has unemployment rates going back to 1948 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 so let's look at some 1948-2014 data.

A) Years Republicans led the House, Senate and White House averaged 13% lower unemployment than years Democrats had all three (p<0.25)

B) Sorting those years by Federal spending/GDP ratio: The high-spending half averages 36% higher unemployment that the low-spending half. (p<0.0025)

C) Sorting those years by real per-capita revenue to the Treasury: The high-revenue half averages 20% higher unemployment that the low-revenue half. (p<0.15)

D) Sorting years by minimum-wage and splitting as close to the middle as possible: With minimum-wage of $3.10 or less, unemployment averaged 19% lower than at $3.35 or more. (p<0.0020)

So, decreasing GOP policy control, raising taxes, increased spending and high minimum-wage are all known PREDICTORS of rising unemployment.

What OTHERS are you aware of? ANY that Democrats don't demand?

BLS has Civilian labor force participation rate going back to 1948. - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Since 1948, on average

> Participation is 2.77% lower when Democrats run the Senate

> Participation is 6.03% lower when top rates are higher than today's

> Participation is 0.95% higher with Republican Presidents

> Participation is 3.99% lower when Democrats run the House

> Participation is 3.99% lower when Democrats are the majority in D.C.

To show they want more people interested in working, do Democrats recommend sending more Republicans to D.C.; do they think turning over the Senate will do the trick; do they advocate reducing top tax rates or do they NOT recommend anything that's worked before?

The Yahoo! story on the ten safest States listed the 10 safest States and linked to a companion story about the 10 most dangerous but I didn't see comparisons between the two sets of States.

Is anyone looking at ways the worst States could emulate the best? Compared to the 10 most violent States, the 10 safest, on average:

> Have 13% lower State/local taxation

> Voted 15% more Republican in 2014

> Have 36% less "sensible gun control" (Based on scores by the Brady Campaign)

> Have 18% more conservatives per-capita (Poll responders self-identifying as conservative)

> Have 12% fewer registered Democrats per-capita

> Are 12% more gun-owner friendly (Based on scores by Guns & Ammo Magazine staff)

> Elected 28% fewer Democrats over time

> Have 21% more guns per-person

Are "Democrat Moms Demanding Action" recommending more people buy guns? Are they lobbying to repeal States' "gun-control" laws? Are they campaigning against Democrats?

No, they're actually demanding the safest States emulate the deadliest ones and lobbying D.C. to FORCE them to do it. Is that due to ignorance, mental illness or evil?

Bureau of Labor Statistics has job loss data going back to 1967 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13023621

Since 1967, on average:

A) There were 13% fewer jobs lost in years with Republican Presidents

B) There were 7% fewer jobs lost in years with at least two chambers (House, Senate, White House) under GOP control.

C) There were 33% fewer jobs lost in the years with the lowest minimum wage

D) There were 48% more jobs lost in the years with the highest real per-capita Federal spending

Which makes the best case for Democrat or Republican policy?

Bureau of Labor Statistics has job loss data going back to 1967 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13023621

Since 1967, on average:

A) There were 13% fewer jobs lost in years with Republican Presidents

B) There were 7% fewer jobs lost in years with at least two chambers (House, Senate, White House) under GOP control.

C) There were 33% fewer jobs lost in the years with the lowest minimum wage

D) There were 48% more jobs lost in the years with the highest real per-capita Federal spending

Which makes the best case for Democrat or Republican policy?

Bureau of Labor Statistics has data for "Alternative measure of labor underutilization" going back to 1994 - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

Since 1994, on average:

A) With Democrat House majorities, U-6 unemployment has been 24% higher than with GOP Houses

B) With Democrat Senate majorities, it's been 51% higher than with GOP Senates

C) With Democrat Presidents, it's been 27% higher than with GOP Presidents

D) With Democrats running all 3, it's been 58% higher than with the GOP running all 3

Bureau of Labor Statistics has Unemployment Rate - 25 Yrs. & Over, Some College or Associate Degree - going back to 1992 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14027689

From this we can see

> On average, college student unemployment was 48% higher in years with the most real per-capita Federal spending

> On average, college student unemployment was 29% higher when Democrats held most seats in D.C. (House + Senate + White House combined)

> On average, college student unemployment was 66% higher under Democrat Senates

> On average, college student unemployment was 18% lower under Republican Presidents

In 10 States, gun-owners are a MAJORITY of the population. Separating them from the other 40 States plus D.C., we can identify several other average demographic differences. Which is the biggest drawback from the Democrat perspective:?

A) Is it the 16 point Republican registration advantage?

B) Is it the 5% lower cost of living?

C) Is it the 5% higher graduation rate?

D) Is it the 14% lower State/local taxes?

E) Is it the 34% lower murder rate?

F) Is it the 9% lower illiteracy rate?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150...

The national unemployment rate is 5.8%

4 States have 5.8% unemployment

24 States have unemployment lower than 5.8%

22 States + D.C. have unemployment higher than 5.8%.

On average, compared to the high-unemployment States (and D.C.,) the low-unemployment states:

> Have a 6% Republican registration advantage vs 7% Democrat registration advantage in high-unemployment States.

> Have 8% lower State/local taxation

> Elected 16% more Republicans in 2014

> Are 17% more "gun-owner-friendly" as rated by Guns and Ammo staff (and have 19% more gun owners.)

> Elected 30% fewer Democrats over their histories

> Are 37% more conservative according to self-descriptions people gave surveys

> Have 40% less "sensible gun control" as rated by the Brady Campaign (and have 41% less violent crime, 46% less murder and 50% less murder by gunfire.)

What changes would Democrats recommend to bring your State's unemployment down?

Buy more guns? Register more Republican voters? Elect fewer Democrats?