Significant Strategic Warning Provided by the Intelligence Community—In the months before the attacks on September 11, 2012, the IC provided strategic warning through numerous intelligence reports that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi. State Department Failed to Increase Security Enough to Address the Threat—The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi—including two previous incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6, and June 6, 2012. “Tripwires” Were Crossed, But Other Nations Kept Their Facilities Open Along with the U.S.—There were “tripwires” designed to prompt a reduction in personnel or a suspension of operations at the Mission facility in Benghazi and although there is evidence that some of them had been crossed, operations continued with minimal change. Some nations closed their diplomatic facilities in Benghazi as the security conditions deteriorated during the summer of 2012, but other nations stayed along with the United States, contrary to some public reports and statements that the U.S. was the last country represented in Benghazi. U.S. Military Assets Were Not Positioned to Respond in Time to Save the Four Americans Killed—There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and its Annex. Unarmed U.S. military surveillance assets were not delayed when responding to the attack, and they provided important situational awareness for those under siege during the attacks. The Intelligence Picture After the Attacks Contributed to the Controversial CIA Talking Points—In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers. Failure to Bring the Attackers to Justice—More than a year after the Benghazi attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice. The IC has identified several individuals responsible for the attacks. Some of the individuals have been identified with a strong level of confidence. However, insight into the current whereabouts and links between these individuals in some cases is limited due in part to the nascent intelligence capabilities in the region.
In a lengthy statement, committee member Susan Collins (R) of Maine lauded the report’s “analysis of much of what went wrong” in Benghazi. But she said its conclusions did not go far enough in three key areas related to the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.
“I believe that more emphasis should have been placed on the three issues I have discussed” in “additional views” filed with the full Benghazi report,” Senator Collins writes: “the administration’s initial misleading of the American people about the terrorist nature of the attack,… the failure of the administration to hold anyone at the State Department … fully accountable for the security lapses, and … the unfulfilled promises of President Obama that he would bring the terrorist to justice.”
A bipartisan report blames the State Department for failing to increase security and adds that 15 people in Benghazi who have tried to help the FBI investigate have been killed.
U.S. officials involved in security at the consulate testified before a House committee last year that Stevens had informed his superiors of several incidents that concerned him greatly about the need for improved security. The CIA has also said it had made its concerns about security known to the White House.
Among the incidents leading up to the attacks were assaults on the Red Cross and British embassy personnel, and local militia charged with protecting U.S. staff acting in suspicious manners.
Yet the requests for a boost in security were denied by State.
In a House report released in April on Benghazi, Republicans say Clinton personally signed off on cuts in security at the compound.
The April cable from State acknowledged then-Ambassador Gene Cretz's formal request for additional security but still ordered "the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned," the Republicans said.
According to the official White House schedule for Wednesday, September 12, Obama left the White House for Andrews Air Force Base and the flight to Las Vegas at 2:05 pm. That was less than 24 hours after the drawn-out attack in Benghazi began; less than 16 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Twitter first reported that an unnamed State Department “officer” had been killed in Benghazi; and about six hours after Clinton tweeted confirmation that four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were dead.
Obama began his campaign speech that night by remembering the four Americans lost and pledging that “we will bring their killers to justice.” He campaigned the next day in Colorado, where his remarks included the warning, “To all those who would do us harm: No act of terror will go unpunished,” and returned to Washington around 7 pm.
The following day, Friday, Obama and Clinton were at Andrews AFB at 2.15 pm for a ceremony marking the arrival from Libya of the flag-draped caskets carrying the remains of Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Obama returned to the White House at 3:15 pm, and at 7 pm attended another campaign event, at a private residence in Washington, the schedule shows.
Open request to everybody who is so outraged by this. Tell the rest of us exactly what you want to see happen. Not some bullshit answer that you want Obama or Clinton held accountable, but an exact run down of what you want to see happen and to whom it should happen followed by an example of when some other president was held to a similar standard.
cannot be done Max. Being an ambassador to a war torn country is a risk. We will never know why when Stevens was offered extra security he declined it. What the report does do is determine that there were no other assets available to get there in time to make a difference.
During the Clinton years, the attacks which took place an average of every 18 months were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different.
During the Bush years the embassy attacks were took place and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then to late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said two days after the event that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence.
During the Nixon years we had a petty break in. What made the break in so offensive was the aftermath of lies and deceit to the point of presidential resignation. Democrats as well as Republicans stood up and demanded he resign or face impeachment, men of integrity.
Today we have an Embassy attack in a dangerous place. People died and from the recently released information which was bi-partisan, the president and secretary of state lied and deceived the American people. The men of integrity in the democratic party are gone and what remains is what we deserve a petty politicians in the House and Senate a president who is a liar and another liar trying to run for office.
We truly get what we deserve, politicians without honor and integrity.
If you listened to all the information about this affair that we can now hopefully put behind us, instead of what you just want to hear you would already know some things about this. #1 Stevens was offered additional security in the weeks before the attacks as the security environment declined. He turn down that offer. #2 the attack was reported by the second in command and he reported Stevens as already dead. Stevens died of asphyxiation after the safe room in the compound was set on fire by the intruders. The two men with Stevens escaped through a bathroom window and are alive today. We will never know why Stevens chose not to follow them. Was security reduced in Libya. Yes because you on the right continually bitched about have troops in Libya just like you do about everything else that isn't your idea.
It's not about the deaths, but the lies that followed. How's that video thing working for you today? It clearly shows Obama to be a political animal willing to throw anyone under the bus for political gain. Just ask Rev. Wright.
Really rick, the matter is settled because you say so. The facts remain, Obama and the Hillary were briefed, says so in the report by the general. The came out with their own story about a video. A mis statement?
Read all about it: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=17D69AFC-744A-43DA-8BEA-D582975C1277
Leon Panetta, then-Defense Secretary and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee which is conducting the Benghazi investigation, that they briefed the president directly as the event was unfolding that the incident was a terrorist attack.
The video story was well before the election and after he was told it was a terrorist attack. What, the truth can't be told because he didn't want to hurt his election chances after declaring terrorism dead after killing Bin Laden? Our election have become about who can hide the most information from the American people so you can be re-elected. It has been proven that Obama knew millions of Americans would have their insurance policies cancelled before the election Think they would have voted for him if he would have disclosed what he knew? State secret, can't do that.
Right ricky. Had my policy cancelled as I changed my deductible from 1K to 2.5K in 2011. A special thank you as I now have maternity case and BC pills access. Certainly will make good use of both. What the idiots in the democratic party fail to realize is one size doesn't fit all.
That little withheld information from Obama cost me 200 a month more. Fortunately I found insurance outside the exchange and the money I spend goes to the insurance company not supporting the free ride or subsidized masses.
But you have yours and that's all that matters as everyone else should pay for those with out insurance. Talk about the hypocrite of the year.
Yes people died, yes there was mass chaos. Yes, the president went to bed instead of insuring things were done to assist Stevens and of course he went campaigning first thing the next morning. Hillary, who cares anyway. I certainly wouldn't allow a family member to enlist as long as he remains in office.
The Democrats were right in toasting Nixon for his involvement in Watergate and no one was killed.
more talking points Lou? If she offers enough free, that is getting to be a worn out talking point. Yes Lou more people went on public assistance 2009-2011. We were in a financial mess. Lou you have known me long enough to know I have said this, since you won't research it yourself. A financial recession takes 7 or more years to recover from. We are doing better the public rolls are less then they were in the years mentioned above and more people are finding employment. We are recovering a recovery that will pick up steam this year. Housing is slowly coming back, foreclosures are down, home prices up in many markets, excess inventory is being reduced. Manufacturing in fits and starts is increasing, the auto makers just had a record quarter. So whomever is the president next is going to look like a savior be they repub or dem. It won't take promises of gifts and grants and free money. Pull you head outta the sand, turn of Fox news and see what is going on around you. Go into Colorado Springs and like Raleigh you will see expansion. It hasn't gotten everywhere yet and sometimes it never does but expansion is coming. Unemployment is falling. Ah you say it's just people leaving the workforce. Well Lou that is part of it as we are in the midst of retiring the largest generation ever. Boomers are retiring at a rate of over 1000 a day. Why doesn't it open jobs. It does. There are 3 million unfilled jobs in America today. Problem is we have pampered the succeeding generations and they are not prepared mentally or have the skills to step into these jobs. Ask any major employer and they will tell you they can't find qualified help. Some of the jobs won't come back because the American economy is now leaner and meaner then it was in 2007. We are more productive in the workplace so therefore some jobs are permanently gone. That isn't Obama's fault or anyone else's it's just what happens when you make productivity progress. The biggest problem with our recovery right now is people like you. People who don't want to see Obama marshal in a recovery so you are going to do everything in your power to prevent it and discourage it. Sorry my friend it is coming regardless of what you and your conservative greedy friends do. It's America it's how it works. We recover we move forward and none of us is big enough to stop it.
"Given that the average length of the ten recessions since World War II has been 10.4 months, with a range of 6 months in the 1980 recession to 16 months in the 1981-82 one,"
"the Great Depression (43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933)."
" During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate surged to 25% and GDP contracted by 28% between 1930 and 1932,"
"The average recession during the past fifty years lasted eleven months, whereas the average recession was more than twice that long in the nineteenth century. "
" WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009, making the 18-month slump the longest since the Great Depression, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Pray tell oh great prognosticator, when was the recession that lasted 7 years?
The great Depression lasted 3 years 7 months, Roosevelt's recession or 37/38 lasted 1 year, 1 month.
The GREAT recession or so it's called lasted 1 year, 6 months. But then again recessions are tagged to the market not to the how it affects people or how long.
The longest recession on record, the panic of 1873 which lasted 5 years, 5 months.
cool then we have been in a recovery since Obama took office. Your humbers are wrong but then we can find anything on the web to support our position. The great Depression lasted a lot longer then 43 months. That was Hoover's part. Roosevelt wasn't even elected until 1933 and he was elected promising to improve the economy. All the programs that you hate so much that began to bring the country out of depression were passed after 1933. So if you want to believe that the great Depression ended when Hoover left office believe your skewered numbers. What brought us out of the depression was World War 2, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor (you do you about that don't you) which almost overnight created a 50% increase in America's workforce. 911 attack worked for Bush in 2001 as we were facing a pretty serious bubble burst in technology, probably just postponed our problems until 2007.
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
List of recessions in the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Great depression 8/29-3/33 Recession of 1937 5/37-6/38
Rick, I suppose it's how we define recessions. I agree that Roosevelt's policies kept us in depression until WWII but recessions be common definition are listed in the wiki article.
Reading Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" will raise the hair on your backside considering the similarities in socialist "experimentation" between the Obama and Roosevelt administrations.
Key Findings of the Report:
ReplyDeleteSignificant Strategic Warning Provided by the Intelligence Community—In the months before the attacks on September 11, 2012, the IC provided strategic warning through numerous intelligence reports that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.
State Department Failed to Increase Security Enough to Address the Threat—The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi—including two previous incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6, and June 6, 2012.
“Tripwires” Were Crossed, But Other Nations Kept Their Facilities Open Along with the U.S.—There were “tripwires” designed to prompt a reduction in personnel or a suspension of operations at the Mission facility in Benghazi and although there is evidence that some of them had been crossed, operations continued with minimal change. Some nations closed their diplomatic facilities in Benghazi as the security conditions deteriorated during the summer of 2012, but other nations stayed along with the United States, contrary to some public reports and statements that the U.S. was the last country represented in Benghazi.
U.S. Military Assets Were Not Positioned to Respond in Time to Save the Four Americans Killed—There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and its Annex. Unarmed U.S. military surveillance assets were not delayed when responding to the attack, and they provided important situational awareness for those under siege during the attacks.
The Intelligence Picture After the Attacks Contributed to the Controversial CIA Talking Points—In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.
Failure to Bring the Attackers to Justice—More than a year after the Benghazi attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice. The IC has identified several individuals responsible for the attacks. Some of the individuals have been identified with a strong level of confidence. However, insight into the current whereabouts and links between these individuals in some cases is limited due in part to the nascent intelligence capabilities in the region.
In a lengthy statement, committee member Susan Collins (R) of Maine lauded the report’s “analysis of much of what went wrong” in Benghazi. But she said its conclusions did not go far enough in three key areas related to the Obama administration’s response to the attacks.
ReplyDelete“I believe that more emphasis should have been placed on the three issues I have discussed” in “additional views” filed with the full Benghazi report,” Senator Collins writes: “the administration’s initial misleading of the American people about the terrorist nature of the attack,… the failure of the administration to hold anyone at the State Department … fully accountable for the security lapses, and … the unfulfilled promises of President Obama that he would bring the terrorist to justice.”
A bipartisan report blames the State Department for failing to increase security and adds that 15 people in Benghazi who have tried to help the FBI investigate have been killed.
ReplyDeleteU.S. officials involved in security at the consulate testified before a House committee last year that Stevens had informed his superiors of several incidents that concerned him greatly about the need for improved security. The CIA has also said it had made its concerns about security known to the White House.
ReplyDeleteAmong the incidents leading up to the attacks were assaults on the Red Cross and British embassy personnel, and local militia charged with protecting U.S. staff acting in suspicious manners.
Yet the requests for a boost in security were denied by State.
In a House report released in April on Benghazi, Republicans say Clinton personally signed off on cuts in security at the compound.
The April cable from State acknowledged then-Ambassador Gene Cretz's formal request for additional security but still ordered "the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned," the Republicans said.
According to the official White House schedule for Wednesday, September 12, Obama left the White House for Andrews Air Force Base and the flight to Las Vegas at 2:05 pm. That was less than 24 hours after the drawn-out attack in Benghazi began; less than 16 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Twitter first reported that an unnamed State Department “officer” had been killed in Benghazi; and about six hours after Clinton tweeted confirmation that four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were dead.
ReplyDeleteObama began his campaign speech that night by remembering the four Americans lost and pledging that “we will bring their killers to justice.” He campaigned the next day in Colorado, where his remarks included the warning, “To all those who would do us harm: No act of terror will go unpunished,” and returned to Washington around 7 pm.
The following day, Friday, Obama and Clinton were at Andrews AFB at 2.15 pm for a ceremony marking the arrival from Libya of the flag-draped caskets carrying the remains of Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Obama returned to the White House at 3:15 pm, and at 7 pm attended another campaign event, at a private residence in Washington, the schedule shows.
Open request to everybody who is so outraged by this. Tell the rest of us exactly what you want to see happen. Not some bullshit answer that you want Obama or Clinton held accountable, but an exact run down of what you want to see happen and to whom it should happen followed by an example of when some other president was held to a similar standard.
ReplyDeletecannot be done Max. Being an ambassador to a war torn country is a risk. We will never know why when Stevens was offered extra security he declined it. What the report does do is determine that there were no other assets available to get there in time to make a difference.
Delete"What difference at this point does it make?"
DeleteHillary Benghazi Clinton
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDuring the Clinton years, the attacks which took place an average of every 18 months were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different.
DeleteDuring the Bush years the embassy attacks were took place and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then to late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said two days after the event that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence.
During the Nixon years we had a petty break in. What made the break in so offensive was the aftermath of lies and deceit to the point of presidential resignation. Democrats as well as Republicans stood up and demanded he resign or face impeachment, men of integrity.
Today we have an Embassy attack in a dangerous place. People died and from the recently released information which was bi-partisan, the president and secretary of state lied and deceived the American people. The men of integrity in the democratic party are gone and what remains is what we deserve a petty politicians in the House and Senate a president who is a liar and another liar trying to run for office.
We truly get what we deserve, politicians without honor and integrity.
If you listened to all the information about this affair that we can now hopefully put behind us, instead of what you just want to hear you would already know some things about this. #1 Stevens was offered additional security in the weeks before the attacks as the security environment declined. He turn down that offer. #2 the attack was reported by the second in command and he reported Stevens as already dead. Stevens died of asphyxiation after the safe room in the compound was set on fire by the intruders. The two men with Stevens escaped through a bathroom window and are alive today. We will never know why Stevens chose not to follow them. Was security reduced in Libya. Yes because you on the right continually bitched about have troops in Libya just like you do about everything else that isn't your idea.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about the deaths, but the lies that followed. How's that video thing working for you today? It clearly shows Obama to be a political animal willing to throw anyone under the bus for political gain. Just ask Rev. Wright.
DeleteBy the way, said like a true shill.
You are right about Obama, however, how does that make him any different from all the other politicians? As for Wright, he did it to himself.
Deleteah lou more name calling. That's about what you are good for. Never an original thought just toeing the talking points endlessly.
DeleteReally rick, the matter is settled because you say so. The facts remain, Obama and the Hillary were briefed, says so in the report by the general. The came out with their own story about a video. A mis statement?
DeleteRead all about it:
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=17D69AFC-744A-43DA-8BEA-D582975C1277
Leon Panetta, then-Defense Secretary and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee which is conducting the Benghazi investigation, that they briefed the president directly as the event was unfolding that the incident was a terrorist attack.
The video story was well before the election and after he was told it was a terrorist attack. What, the truth can't be told because he didn't want to hurt his election chances after declaring terrorism dead after killing Bin Laden? Our election have become about who can hide the most information from the American people so you can be re-elected. It has been proven that Obama knew millions of Americans would have their insurance policies cancelled before the election Think they would have voted for him if he would have disclosed what he knew? State secret, can't do that.
Right ricky. Had my policy cancelled as I changed my deductible from 1K to 2.5K in 2011. A special thank you as I now have maternity case and BC pills access. Certainly will make good use of both. What the idiots in the democratic party fail to realize is one size doesn't fit all.
That little withheld information from Obama cost me 200 a month more. Fortunately I found insurance outside the exchange and the money I spend goes to the insurance company not supporting the free ride or subsidized masses.
But you have yours and that's all that matters as everyone else should pay for those with out insurance. Talk about the hypocrite of the year.
Yes people died, yes there was mass chaos. Yes, the president went to bed instead of insuring things were done to assist Stevens and of course he went campaigning first thing the next morning. Hillary, who cares anyway. I certainly wouldn't allow a family member to enlist as long as he remains in office.
The Democrats were right in toasting Nixon for his involvement in Watergate and no one was killed.
The report does not name Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time and now is a potential 2016 presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteYes and if she promises enough free, she will likely be elected, just like barack. Integrity, ethics, honesty mean nothing to the American people.
Deletemore talking points Lou? If she offers enough free, that is getting to be a worn out talking point. Yes Lou more people went on public assistance 2009-2011. We were in a financial mess. Lou you have known me long enough to know I have said this, since you won't research it yourself. A financial recession takes 7 or more years to recover from. We are doing better the public rolls are less then they were in the years mentioned above and more people are finding employment. We are recovering a recovery that will pick up steam this year. Housing is slowly coming back, foreclosures are down, home prices up in many markets, excess inventory is being reduced. Manufacturing in fits and starts is increasing, the auto makers just had a record quarter. So whomever is the president next is going to look like a savior be they repub or dem. It won't take promises of gifts and grants and free money. Pull you head outta the sand, turn of Fox news and see what is going on around you. Go into Colorado Springs and like Raleigh you will see expansion. It hasn't gotten everywhere yet and sometimes it never does but expansion is coming. Unemployment is falling. Ah you say it's just people leaving the workforce. Well Lou that is part of it as we are in the midst of retiring the largest generation ever. Boomers are retiring at a rate of over 1000 a day. Why doesn't it open jobs. It does. There are 3 million unfilled jobs in America today. Problem is we have pampered the succeeding generations and they are not prepared mentally or have the skills to step into these jobs. Ask any major employer and they will tell you they can't find qualified help. Some of the jobs won't come back because the American economy is now leaner and meaner then it was in 2007. We are more productive in the workplace so therefore some jobs are permanently gone. That isn't Obama's fault or anyone else's it's just what happens when you make productivity progress.
DeleteThe biggest problem with our recovery right now is people like you. People who don't want to see Obama marshal in a recovery so you are going to do everything in your power to prevent it and discourage it. Sorry my friend it is coming regardless of what you and your conservative greedy friends do. It's America it's how it works. We recover we move forward and none of us is big enough to stop it.
"Given that the average length of the ten recessions since World War II has been 10.4 months, with a range of 6 months in the 1980 recession to 16 months in the 1981-82 one,"
Delete"the Great Depression (43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933)."
" During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate surged to 25% and GDP contracted by 28% between 1930 and 1932,"
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/karydakis.recession.fortune/index.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_mostpopular+(Most+Popular)
"The average recession during the past fifty years lasted eleven months, whereas the average recession was more than twice that long in the nineteenth century. "
Deletehttp://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Recessions.html
"
DeleteWASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. recession that began in December 2007 ended in June 2009, making the 18-month slump the longest since the Great Depression, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Pray tell oh great prognosticator, when was the recession that lasted 7 years?
DeleteThe great Depression lasted 3 years 7 months, Roosevelt's recession or 37/38 lasted 1 year, 1 month.
The GREAT recession or so it's called lasted 1 year, 6 months. But then again recessions are tagged to the market not to the how it affects people or how long.
The longest recession on record, the panic of 1873 which lasted 5 years, 5 months.
What we have here is stagnant growth.
cool then we have been in a recovery since Obama took office. Your humbers are wrong but then we can find anything on the web to support our position. The great Depression lasted a lot longer then 43 months. That was Hoover's part. Roosevelt wasn't even elected until 1933 and he was elected promising to improve the economy. All the programs that you hate so much that began to bring the country out of depression were passed after 1933. So if you want to believe that the great Depression ended when Hoover left office believe your skewered numbers. What brought us out of the depression was World War 2, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor (you do you about that don't you) which almost overnight created a 50% increase in America's workforce. 911 attack worked for Bush in 2001 as we were facing a pretty serious bubble burst in technology, probably just postponed our problems until 2007.
ReplyDeletehttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
DeleteTwo UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
List of recessions in the United States
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Great depression 8/29-3/33
Recession of 1937 5/37-6/38
Rick, I suppose it's how we define recessions. I agree that Roosevelt's policies kept us in depression until WWII but recessions be common definition are listed in the wiki article.
Reading Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" will raise the hair on your backside considering the similarities in socialist "experimentation" between the Obama and Roosevelt administrations.