Potential DHS shutdown.

[Daelak]

The legislature doesn't need to pass bills just to say they passed some bills. Depending on the lay of the land, I'm perfectly comfortable with a legislature having done literally nothing other than pass a budget (an actual FY budget, not a continuing resolution of one that's now, what, 6 years old?).

The country has voted in favor of gridlock in the past, there's nothing different or special about it having done so now. The Republicans bigger issue is how often they ignore what mandate they are given. Pro-tip, GOP -- if the country's goal had been to elect a Congress for the purposes of working with the President to pass his agenda, they'd have elected his party into the majority. You were elected to serve an adversarial function, just as were the GOP in 1994 and the Democrats in 2006.

And yes, as our metrics continue to slide in comparison to other countries, the republicans will deflect, stating that natural market forces and government bureaucracy is the reason for the US sliding into mediocrity and disrepair, not because of their collective non-action in steering public and private investment into the new century.

[Drsolders]

This is a major disconnect from the fact there are serious current issues.

That neither side is willing to budge on. Republicans try to pass a bill to fix it and it gets vetoed, Dems try to pass one? It never makes it out of the house. The president tries to sidestep congress? It gets taken up on appeals. The problem is neither side will work. Here's a hint congress, working =/= throwing your ideas at one side and if they don't agree calling them obstructionist. This goes for BOTH sides, not just one.

[Stormdash]

And yes, as our metrics continue to slide in comparison to other countries, the republicans will deflect, stating that natural market forces and government bureaucracy is the reason for the US sliding into mediocrity and disrepair, not because of their collective non-action in steering public and private investment into the new century.

I don't suppose you would survive the implosion of being told that "the metrics" are themselves not subject to total mutual assent across political lines, like, that there is not even agreement as what it is that should be measured and what constitute a good score?

It's becoming moot in this case, because the Senate Majority "leader" (for want of a term) is signalling he's going to fold like a cheap umbrella and make millions of Republican voters wonder why they even bother with these spineless beltway barnacles.

[Daelak]

I don't suppose you would survive the implosion of being told that "the metrics" are themselves not subject to total mutual assent across political lines, like, that there is not even agreement as what it is that should be measured and what constitute a good score?

It's becoming moot in this case, because the Senate Majority "leader" (for want of a term) is signalling he's going to fold like a cheap umbrella and make millions of Republican voters wonder why they even bother with these spineless beltway barnacles.

Oh right, the metrics are flawed, produced by federal grant grubbers, and secretly bank rolled by foreign and domestic enemies that want to see us fail. So what should we use as a measurement of our country's health?

Oh poor baby, your ideological purity tests still not translating to actual governance?

[Endus]

I don't suppose you would survive the implosion of being told that "the metrics" are themselves not subject to total mutual assent across political lines, like, that there is not even agreement as what it is that should be measured and what constitute a good score?

If the metrics used are objectively flawed, this can be argued in an entirely objective manner, and a more accur, at ate measure can be introduced that has no ideological weight whatsoever.

The issue is that often the complaints about the metrics aren't about the metrics, they're a complaint that the reality the metrics numerate doesn't reflect the ideological preferences of those complaining.

If the metrics were flawed, they were always flawed. They don't suddenly "become" flawed because they no longer give you the results you want.

[Stormdash]

"Flawed" may not be the right word -- after all, I have no idea which metrics you even have in mind -- but it should be self-evident that what is important to, what makes a country successful and just and prosperous to A may not be what makes it so to B. I don't take it as given that where you think progress goes, is anywhere worth getting.

[Rukentuts]

"Flawed" may not be the right word -- after all, I have no idea which metrics you even have in mind -- but it should be self-evident that what is important to, what makes a country successful and just and prosperous to A may not be what makes it so to B. I don't take it as given that where you think progress goes, is anywhere worth getting.

Except economical factors can be quantified objectively, even things like mobility. Which are trending for the worse.

[Vyxn]

You're ignoring migration and the demographic dip; the bracket you're talking about is the "echo" generation, the kids of the boomers. You're now also misinterpreting what the labor force is, since it is not the sum of all able-bodied people between 18 and 65. The proportion of people who are retired is increasing, despite the pretzels you're twisting yourself into to deny a pretty basic demographic fact. And the retirees, over 65, do count against the labor force participation rate, as non-participants.

these figures came from the 2010 census which will include legal immigrants
and I took into account ones that don't enter the work force at 18 is why I listed the 15 to 19 bracket so to include those that went to college and not enter the workforce right away

Participation rate usually refers to the portion of the economy's working age population that is in the civilian labor market.


How it works/Example:


The participation rate measures the number of people who are in the labor force who are working, willing to work, or are actively looking for work. It is the ratio between the active labor force and the overall size of the potential labor force (i.e. usually the population between the ages of 18 and 65).


Why it Matters:


The participation rate is an important measure of the civilian labor force. It does not include those who are not interested in working at this specific moment in time. The participation rate, therefore, is carefully watched by economists and investors as an indication of the direction of the economy

The labor force participation rate explains how the unemployment rate can grow, even when new jobs are being created in an economy. For example, if new workers are added to the labor force (increasing the participate rate), but are not able to find jobs, the unemployment rate grows..

http://www.investinganswers.com/fina...ation-rate-610

DEFINITION of 'Working-Age Population'

The total population in a region, within a set range of ages, that is considered to be able and likely to work. The working-age population measure is used to give an estimate of the total number of potential workers within an economy. Each region may have a different range of ages, but typically the ages of 20 to 65 are used.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/...population.asp

[Endus]

"Flawed" may not be the right word -- after all, I have no idea which metrics you even have in mind -- but it should be self-evident that what is important to, what makes a country successful and just and prosperous to A may not be what makes it so to B. I don't take it as given that where you think progress goes, is anywhere worth getting.

I was specifically thinking of the unemployment rate and the challenges, as raised in this thread, trying to redirect to labor force participation rates. The unemployment rate has been steadily declining since 2009. That's a fact. If you take issue with the idea that Obama's administration has reduced unemployment, then you're simply wrong. They objectively have. And if you're going to argue that unemployment is a bad measure, then your argument must be that it was always a bad measure, just as bad in 1983 (year chosen at random) as today. And you're gonna be expected to objectively prove this, in a way that everyone can agree to it.

Metrics aren't biased. They're measurements. You can take issue with how useful the measurement is, in terms of actual productive policy change or whatever, but the metric itself isn't biased. And if you can't objectively confirm to both sides that your metric is important, then it's a subjective issue, not an objective one.

- - - Updated - - -

these figures came from the 2010 census which will include legal immigrants
and I took into account ones that don't enter the work force at 18 is why I listed the 15 to 19 bracket so to include those that went to college and not enter the workforce right away

That doesn't in any way account for that. In fact, it makes your error signficantly worse, since now you're also including 15 year olds. And there's plenty of other factors you're still excluding. Because you're preferring to extrapolate projections from 65 year old birth rates rather than go by actual data.

You're fractally wrong. Errors upon errors. You're still erroneously including the entire cohort as workers. You're ignoring the long-term demographic effects of migration. You're ignoring the Baby Boom itself, and the echo generation that followed, and the obvious demographic effects both create. And so on. Errors upon errors.

[WskyDK]

DHS is for more than stopping domestic attacks it also handles immigration/naturalization/residency.

True, the reasoning in Washington for this "crisis" is that somehow we'll be defenseless against the terrorists.

[ringpriest]

True, the reasoning in Washington for this "crisis" is that somehow we'll be defenseless against the terrorists.

Without the DHS to keep them in check, the terror-plotting crazies over at the Dept. of Justice (i.e. the FBI) will escalate straight up to anti-anti-terror attacks!

But perhaps if the government is really worried, it would like to invest in some of my anti-terror rocks:
For only $150 each, I'll deploy millions of them around the country at likely terrorist targets, with a money-back guarantee that they'll be 99.999% effective!

[Vizardlorde]

If were in government i'd be fear the unpaid "necessary employees" skipping out on "necessary work" cause they are not getting paid and they have bills to pay by the end of the month.

[Nadiru]

That neither side is willing to budge on. Republicans try to pass a bill to fix it and it gets vetoed, Dems try to pass one? It never makes it out of the house. The president tries to sidestep congress? It gets taken up on appeals. The problem is neither side will work. Here's a hint congress, working =/= throwing your ideas at one side and if they don't agree calling them obstructionist. This goes for BOTH sides, not just one.

The real question is "Why is neither side willing to budge?" The easy answer is "Partisanship!" except that doesn't satisfy if you think about it for more than five seconds. A whole bunch of these issues are of varying importance to either party, and if you're a partisan, chances are that you have a hot-button issue for which you would do a hell of a lot. And if you really just care about a few issues, then you certainly have the political capital to make horse trading a viable option. But you don't see that here.

[Beazy]

DHS is a fucking joke. Seriously, its gets more grins than a Sienfield episode.

The DHS should be closed, and the dip shits who voted to create it should be barred from serving in all three branches of gov. . . for life. And lets not forget about the TSA while were at it. Fuck those guys, with a fist dipped in glass.