Discussion:
More Bad Economic News, November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate Is Now 17%, Thanks Mr. Obama!
(too old to reply)
Bradley K. Sherman
2012-11-30 20:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Welcome to Obamaville!
November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate, The Unemployment Rate
That Reflects The Actual State Of Unemployment In The United States,
Is Currently 17%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
Ron
2012-11-30 21:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Welcome to Obamaville!
November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate, The Unemployment Rate
That Reflects The Actual State Of Unemployment In The United States,
Is Currently 17%http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
Referring to the Gallup Poll cited:

The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED. The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.

Be more precise.
jane
2012-11-30 22:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Welcome to Obamaville!
November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate, The Unemployment Rate
That Reflects The Actual State Of Unemployment In The United States,
Is Currently 17%http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED.  The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.
Be more precise.
The BLS reports 6 unemployment rates, U1 through U6. The typical
number that is reported in the news is the U3 rate, which is 7.9 for
October.

The U6 figure typically isn't important because those without jobs end
up finding new jobs in the post recession recovery. However, the
reason the U6 rate is so important in this post recession recovery is
because of the duration of the unemployed.

The BLS.gov reports the U6 figure for October as 14.6

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the
labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally
attached to the labor force: 14.6


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-11-30 22:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jane:

Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???

We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.

Gracias!

-Ramon

ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???

Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics, alt.society.liberalism
From: BroilJAB <***@wmconnect.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Nov 30 2012 2:38 pm
Subject: Americans STOP Giving to Obama Nigs, Leeches

Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
2012-12-01 02:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?

Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.
Gracias!
-Ramon
ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???
Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
--
The Enraged Apostate
Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
Made possible by Slackjaw

Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
jane
2012-12-02 02:40:29 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when, due to their
own ignorance, they should have used the words bigoted or prejudiced.
This is ironic because you are one of the most prejudiced people I
have read.
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.
Gracias!
-Ramon
ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???
Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
--
The Enraged Apostate
  Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
  Made possible by Slackjaw
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
2012-12-02 07:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when, due to their
own ignorance, they should have used the words bigoted or prejudiced.
Right-wing filth has a fondness for non-sequiturs and strawmen.

Where has race been mentioned in the posts of this thread you have responded
to??
Post by jane
This is ironic because you are one of the most prejudiced people I
have read.
Most prejudiced??

Proof of your nonsense?
--
The Enraged Apostate
Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
Made possible by Slackjaw

Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-12-03 14:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when [...]
Care to answer any of my challenges?

-Ramon

--------------------------------

"Tea Party movement full of racists and conspiracists according to FOX
poll"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0212/Tea-Party-movement-full-of-racists-and-conspiracists-according-to-FOX-poll


Let's hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were:

Interviewer: "Why do you hate Mexicans?"
Tea Party Member: "Because they are filthy, stinky ANIMALS!!!"


Ramon F. Herrera
2012-12-03 14:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when,
due to their own ignorance, they should have used the words
bigoted or prejudiced.
(1) The term "Racist" has a more energetic punch. I thought you knew
all about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism in linguistics.

(2) The UN recently decreed that prejudice against any ethnicity
(say, Latino) or nationality (say, Mexican) is equivalent to racism.

De nada,

-Ramon
jane
2012-12-03 15:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
 > liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when,
 > due to their own ignorance, they should have used the words
 > bigoted or prejudiced.
 (1) The term "Racist" has a more energetic punch. I thought you knew
all about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism in linguistics.
 (2) The UN recently decreed that prejudice against any ethnicity
(say, Latino) or nationality (say, Mexican) is equivalent to racism.
De nada,
-Ramon
Yes, I understand prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. The dictionary
simply defines usage and, as such, needs to be updated on a regular
basis. However, without a set of rules to use as a starting point,
there is no communication.

For example:
In English, when a person asks, "You don't have any marbles", I would
answer "no" if I don't have any marbles.
If Korean, when a person asks, "you don't have any marbles", I would
answer "yes" if I don't have any marbles.

An example regarding acceptable misuse of word usage:
The word "literally" has a very specific meaning. When people say,
"He is *literally* up to his ass in alligators", the word is misused,
but we still know the originally meaning of the word.

However, "Racism" has been misused so often that the word no longer
has any meaning. If I dislike an opinion expressed by Bush AND I
dislike the exact same opinion expressed by Obama, then I am often
labeled a racist in the later, but not the former.

Racism used to mean that a person held the belief that one race as
superior to another race due to genetics. It was a word that had a
very distinct meaning. Today, it is impossible to define the word.

Prejudice, Bigotry, and Racism:

"I don't hire fat people; they are lazy" - Prejudice, with no racism
or bigotry

"Your colored run faster. They jump higher. They don't bruise as
easy.
And because of their what you call it, jungle heritage, ..." - Archie
Bunker, Racist statement with no prejudice or Bigotry

"I hate fags" - Bigotry, with no racism or prejudice
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-12-03 16:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
 > liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when,
 > due to their own ignorance, they should have used the words
 > bigoted or prejudiced.
 (1) The term "Racist" has a more energetic punch. I thought you knew
all about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism in linguistics.
 (2) The UN recently decreed that prejudice against any ethnicity
(say, Latino) or nationality (say, Mexican) is equivalent to racism.
De nada,
-Ramon
Yes, I understand prescriptivism vs. descriptivism.  The dictionary
simply defines usage and, as such, needs to be updated on a regular
basis.  However, without a set of rules to use as a starting point,
there is no communication.
In English, when a person asks, "You don't have any marbles", I would
answer "no" if I don't have any marbles.
If Korean, when a person asks, "you don't have any marbles",  I would
answer "yes" if I don't have any marbles.
The word "literally" has a very specific meaning.  When people say,
"He is *literally* up to his ass in alligators", the word is misused,
but we still know the originally meaning of the word.
However, "Racism" has been misused so often that the word no longer
has any meaning.  If I dislike an opinion expressed by Bush AND I
dislike the exact same opinion expressed by Obama, then I am often
labeled a racist in the later, but not the former.
Racism used to mean that a person held the belief that one race as
superior to another race due to genetics.  It was a word that had a
very distinct meaning.  Today, it is impossible to define the word.
"I don't hire fat people; they are lazy" - Prejudice, with no racism
or bigotry
"Your colored run faster. They jump higher. They don't bruise as
easy.
And because of their what you call it, jungle heritage, ..." - Archie
Bunker, Racist statement with no prejudice or Bigotry
"I hate fags" - Bigotry, with no racism or prejudice
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-12-03 16:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
 > liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when,
 > due to their own ignorance, they should have used the words
 > bigoted or prejudiced.
 (1) The term "Racist" has a more energetic punch. I thought you knew
all about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism in linguistics.
 (2) The UN recently decreed that prejudice against any ethnicity
(say, Latino) or nationality (say, Mexican) is equivalent to racism.
De nada,
-Ramon
Yes, I understand prescriptivism vs. descriptivism.  The dictionary
simply defines usage and, as such, needs to be updated on a regular
basis.  However, without a set of rules to use as a starting point,
there is no communication.
In English, when a person asks, "You don't have any marbles",
I would answer "no" if I don't have any marbles.
If Korean, when a person asks, "you don't have any marbles",
I would answer "yes" if I don't have any marbles.
Those are not questions and therefore, you lost your marbles. :^D

It is clear that the term "racism" has become (or is becoming) all-
encompassing. It includes "ethniticism", anti-semitism and national-
origin-cism.

That is why I always use "hatred" to indicate the illness that
afflicts Far Conservatives (*). For the good of America, let's hope
the Republican Party will soon recover.

-RFH

(*) I always write that you and David Hartung the only two exceptions
in forums.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
2012-12-03 16:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
On Nov 30, 9:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
liberals very often accuse conservatives of racism when, due to their
own ignorance, they should have used the words bigoted or prejudiced.
This is ironic because you are one of the most prejudiced people I
have read.
I see you did not back up your claim, RIGHT-WING FILTH!
--
The Enraged Apostate
Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
Made possible by Slackjaw

Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
2012-12-03 13:53:05 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 30, 8:59 pm, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
Post by Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
How do you know that even this ONE member of right-wing filth would buy a
shoeless, homeless man in NY a pair of boots?
Isn't kicking them in the side and screaming "I wish you would just die"
their REAL style?
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.
Gracias!
-Ramon
ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???
Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
--
The Enraged Apostate
  Formerly Winston Smith, American Patriot. (reset your killfiles)
  Made possible by Slackjaw
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oooohh. Such an ANGRY little leftist. Whassamatta, getting free food,
shelter, healthcare, education and cell phone not enough for you
deadbeat Gimmeecrats on the left? You still want more? Or are you
simply angry because Obama told you you should be??

Btw, can you PROVE the cop that bought the homeless guy new shoes
isn't a Conservative? You want to compare the amount of money given to
charity by Obama and Romney?


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/romney-gave-15-to-charity-obama-gave-1-to-charity/

Romney Gave 15% to Charity – Obama Gave 1% to Charity


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle
gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to
charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those
years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income
rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a
bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted
to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%
jane
2012-12-02 01:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.
Gracias!
-Ramon
ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics, alt.society.liberalism
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Nov 30 2012 2:38 pm
Subject: Americans STOP Giving to Obama Nigs, Leeches
Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
First, I am not a conservative. Conservatives do not believe that gay
couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
Conservatives do not believe that the government should get out of the
business of selling marriage licenses. Conservatives do not believe
that it should be a crime to have more than one spouse. Conservatives
do not believe that it should be a crime to grow, own or smoke a
plant.

Now that that is said, I can also say that I certainly am not a modern
liberal.

I am not a New Yorker, so I can not answer your question about knowing
someone buying shoes for a New York homeless man. However, I do know
a conservative man who bought a house to be used as a transition house
for a homeless family. I know a conservative married couple who
bought a 4 unit apartment to expand the operation. I know another
conservative couple who bought another 4 unit apartment house next
door for the same purpose. There is a group (and I would say that the
members are conservatives) that spends their own money to provide
food for the families in the transition housing.

I meet both conservatives and liberals doing charity work overseas.
Both are there out of kindness and compassion. There are exceptions
to both sides, and I certainly do not want to belittle the kindness or
the compassion, but generally what I see: the conservatives got there
on their own nickle and are not paid to be there; the liberals are
there working for a charitable organization and are paid to be there
and someone else paid to get them there.

ABC World news did a very un-scientific study comparing conservative
vs liberal donations. The study was very simple; they counted the
dollar value of donations received by the Salvation Army at a
conservative location in ND compared to the donations in a liberal
San Francisco location. The middle class conservative pot collected
more than the well-off liberal SF pot.

As I said, the ABC study was very UN-scientific, but you would have
to be a fool if you want to simply discount conservatives as being
cold, uncaring and lacking of compassion and charitable donations.

You would have to be extremely prejudiced to say that a conservative
wouldn't buy a pair of boots when I know an entire conservative family
that spent their own money and vacation time to fly half way around
the world to help build an orphanage for children that they have never
met. ( to those who are reading this, what did YOU do on your
vacation)
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-12-02 21:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
First, I am not a conservative.
Now that that is said, I can also say that I certainly am not a modern
liberal.
Then you admit to being WORSE----a loonytarian.

Despite the historical record being WORSE than conservatives (in most
issues)---you adopt a silly evasion.

Govt in this nation WAS based on a Loonytarian model---where it
existed mostly to protect business (hands off rules and regulations),
did not participate as protectors of people (small govt), let states
use arbitrary means to govern, and most certainly did not regulate
behavior unless it was at cross purposes with Business. (Govt enforced
business rules, BTW)

You loonytarians are a joke.
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
2012-12-03 13:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
You mean those same hard working Conservatives that pay federal
income taxes that go to provide free healthcare, free education, free
food, free housing, free cell phones, and tax refunds on taxes they
never paid to millions of your fellow illegal invaders?
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
We patiently await your participation, since we know you are not a
quitter. No cheap excuses will be accepted.
Gracias!
-Ramon
ps: Maybe this one below? Patriot Games? The Phantom? Tracey? Steve
from Colorado? Marvin The Martian? Walt? Topaz The Far Right Anti-
Semite? ANY or the anti-Semites (all of whom, Republican voters)? The
ones that write against "faggots" (all of them Republican voters)? The
ones that write against greasers, wetbacks, spics, etc. (all of them
Republican voters)??? The ones that call women "whores" and say that
rapes are legitimate (all of them affiliated to your party)???
Are ALL black and mexxkin rappers Republican voters Ramon?
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics, alt.society.liberalism
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Nov 30 2012 2:38 pm
Subject: Americans STOP Giving to Obama Nigs, Leeches
Naomi Greenberg, on her last week of unemployment said, "I used to
donate to the deserving, but now they're all just niggers and Obama
leeches. I tell them Get your donations from Obama, you worthless
apes!" This Holiday season, 'black Santas' and other seasonal beggars
are either spit on or cursed out by disgusted Whites who are
already...
Are you a brown skinned, spainish speaking nigger Ramon? You sure seem
to be.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-12-03 14:41:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:45:56 -0800 (PST), "Robert Westergrom,1900
Post by Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Could you please mention ONE conservative on-line (other than
yourself, since you are the exception) that would buy a pair of boots
for a homeless in New York???
You mean those same hard working Conservatives that pay federal
income taxes that go to provide free healthcare, free education, free
food, free housing, free cell phones, and tax refunds on taxes they
never paid to millions of your fellow illegal invaders?
NO, we mean the idea that what you just posted is nonsense.

Healthcare, Education, food, housing, are STATE budget items paid for
by STATE taxes that come from taxes on "goods and services" which even
the poor pay, ya idiot.

The "illegals" pay into Federal treasury when they provide false SS
numbers---and cannot get reimbursed for it.

"Illegals" pay Federal taxes on anything they buy (gas, telephone
service, ect) the same as any citizen does.

They get no "refunds" because having false documention (or none at
all) would expose them to risk of being caught

Stop watching and listening to Faux and/or Limpballs.

Or---buy a better brain.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-12-01 17:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the
labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally
attached to the labor force: 14.6
That's doesn't rebut the Inference that the orignial poster was trying
to make.

Those looking for, but not working are the "unemployment" figures

The higher number that poster cited was to try and cast dispersion on
Obama

That being the case---you could merely have debunked that underlying
motivation.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-12-01 17:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Welcome to Obamaville!
November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate, The Unemployment Rate
That Reflects The Actual State Of Unemployment In The United States,
Is Currently 17%http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED. The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.
Be more precise.
It's a trick answer to infer something that isn't true

the "unemployment" figures (by US Govt rules)---reflect those not
working that are "looking for work".

The unemployment figures do not reflect those who are NOT looking for
work (ranging from sick, pregnant, lazy, or in re-training, or can't
find what they want)

Total unemployed then, is higher--but not reflective of the status of
the economy and the issues being discussed.
Mr.B1ack
2012-12-02 03:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Welcome to Obamaville!
November 30, 2012: The Real Unemployment Rate, The Unemployment Rate
That Reflects The Actual State Of Unemployment In The United States, Is
Currently
17%http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED. The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.
Be more precise.
Is "under" any better than "un" ???

The mortgage payment didn't go down. The credit
card companies still want ALL the money back,
with 17% interest. The utility bills are the
same. Insurance costs the same. Food costs the
same. So ... "under" is like pissin' on a forest
fire. Doesn't get the job done - and you may
scorch yer weenie in the process.

Especially now that the TIME-SPAN for unemployment
compensation is shrinking drastically. It's the
govt's way of saying "You WILL work for slave wages
OR ELSE".
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-12-02 21:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Ron
The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED. The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.
Be more precise.
Is "under" any better than "un" ???
"Better" isn't relevant.

The terms are for accounting and describing two disparate issues.

Total work force not working (the larger number) doesn't reflect the
economic picture

You can be part of that "17%" because (if a woman) you are pregnant,
take a break for school, or wifey wants you to be house-husband for a
while, you are sick, or any number of reasons why you, as a citizen
are not in the work force

"Unemployed" are those LOOKING for work and cannot find it.

You can be classed as "under" if you give up looking, and for that
reason be taken off the rolls.

If, for any reason, you return and "look for work" you become part of
the "7%" again.

When the economy recovers and people get hired---the "Unemployment"
numbers "go down"

When jobs open up----those "not looking" begin to "look" and they add
to that "unemployment" figure

That's why the numbers need to be understood---so that idiots don't
use them stupidity.

You can create 800,000 "new jobs"----and yet not have the Unemployment
rate go down---IF 900,000 "underemployed" RETURN to look for work.

IOW you have to have the brains to know what, or why those numbers
reflect.
Post by Mr.B1ack
Especially now that the TIME-SPAN for unemployment
compensation is shrinking drastically. It's the
govt's way of saying "You WILL work for slave wages
OR ELSE".
Wrong analysis

The "govt" (in this case) was the long dominated Republican congress
that backs or sides with businesses. The attacks on Unions, Workers,
middle class are directed at Lessening the labor costs---which WAS a
republican (and still is) goal.

If the GOP can (and is doing) cause the ability of workers to not
negotiate with employers----then the current trend of stagnant wages,
middle class wealth goes down, and wingers are dancing in the streets.
Mr.B1ack
2012-12-03 13:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Ron
The 17% number refers to the UNDEREMPLOYED. The 7.7% refers to the
UNEMPLOYED.
Be more precise.
Is "under" any better than "un" ???
"Better" isn't relevant.
The terms are for accounting and describing two disparate issues.
Total work force not working (the larger number) doesn't reflect the
economic picture
You can be part of that "17%" because (if a woman) you are pregnant,
take a break for school, or wifey wants you to be house-husband for a
while, you are sick, or any number of reasons why you, as a citizen are
not in the work force
"Unemployed" are those LOOKING for work and cannot find it.
You can be classed as "under" if you give up looking, and for that
reason be taken off the rolls.
No ... that's the "stopped looking" segment, the
one they try to hide. The one that'll be turning
to 'welfare' and crime ....

"Under" is when the job you have today can't
pay to cover the bills you ran up yesterday.
"Under" gets you forclosed and reposessed.
"Under" means yer kids go to crappy schools
and only see a college from a distance. "Under"
means meatless, and everything-ELSE-less,
dinners once or more per week. "Under" means
living tripled-up in a cockroach-ridden mobile
home with some guys who are molesting yer kids.
"Under" means stealing and meth-dealing ...
so you can make a little more. "Under" means
the death of middle America and the genteel
society. "Under" is Charles Dickens's world.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
If, for any reason, you return and "look for work" you become part of
the "7%" again.
When the economy recovers and people get hired---the "Unemployment"
numbers "go down"
When jobs open up----those "not looking" begin to "look" and they add to
that "unemployment" figure
That's why the numbers need to be understood---so that idiots don't use
them stupidity.
You can create 800,000 "new jobs"----and yet not have the Unemployment
rate go down---IF 900,000 "underemployed" RETURN to look for work.
IOW you have to have the brains to know what, or why those numbers
reflect.
Post by Mr.B1ack
Especially now that the TIME-SPAN for unemployment compensation is
shrinking drastically. It's the govt's way of saying "You WILL work
for slave wages OR ELSE".
Wrong analysis
Spot-ON analysis. They intend to give people
NO CHOICE ... they can work new, shitty, jobs
for shitty wages OR they can be thrown out
into the street to starve. That's how it'll
play out in reality, no matter how they try
to candy-coat the language.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The "govt" (in this case) was the long dominated Republican congress
that backs or sides with businesses
And had very generous unemployment rules.

Until the Dems came to dominate the Executive
and Senate that is .....

Lincoln ended slavery ... but Obama is gonna
bring it back.
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
2012-12-05 07:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
"Unemployed" ...
"Under" is when the job you have today can't
pay to cover the bills you ran up yesterday.
"Under" gets you forclosed and reposessed.
"Under" means yer kids go to crappy schools
and only see a college from a distance. "Under"
means meatless, and everything-ELSE-less,
dinners once or more per week. "Under" means
living tripled-up in a cockroach-ridden mobile
home with some guys who are molesting yer kids.
"Under" means stealing and meth-dealing ...
so you can make a little more. "Under" means
the death of middle America and the genteel
society. "Under" is Charles Dickens's world.
That's so well described that I'm "carrying" the whole mini-essay
here (above). May I have permission to copy it to my Web site and
thus make it more widely accessible? Do you have a Twitter account
so that after I post it on my Web site and make a TinyURL for it,
you can tweet it?

Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi

Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
2012-12-05 07:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Total work force not working ...
That makes no sense to me. If you're not working, then you aren't
in the work force, by definition. How can *anybody*, even one
person, be in the work force but not working?? Please explain.
"Unemployed" are those LOOKING for work and cannot find it.
AFAIK the government has no way to know who is looking for work and
who isn't. There is no Web site, nor government office, where
people looking for work, but not eligible to file an unemployment
claim because they've exhausted their unemployment benefits and are
still unemployed, can declare that fact. So IMO the number of
people looking for work is unknown by the government, except those
few who have been unemployed such a short time that they are still
collecting unemployment benefits and thus actively renewing their
unemployment claim with evidence of work contacts, and any figure
they publish for the total unemployed, including long-term
unemployed, is bullshit, or more appropriately elephant and donkey
dung.
You can be classed as "under" if you give up looking, and for
that reason be taken off the rolls.
Since they have no way to know who is looking in the first place,
how can they know when somebody has stopped looking?
If, for any reason, you return and "look for work" you become
part of the "7%" again.
How exactly does somebody who has been unemployed for several years
and who is *still* looking for work, but who has been deemed not
looking for work, convince the government that they really and
truly are looking for work, in order to be put back into that
7%...8%...9% up and up it would go if everyone long-term unemployed
had a way to get the government to count them.

I'm thinking the only way to get the government to publish honest
unemployment statistics is for some non-profit public-service
agency to hire every long-term unemployed person for just a few
days, just long enough for their W-4 forms to get registered in
government databases, then fire them to hire another group of
long-term unemployed, until every such person has a new
unemployment claim to file.
When the economy recovers and people get hired---the
"Unemployment" numbers "go down"
Not really, if each such job is short-term, because each such
long-term unemployed person who now has a job briefly then loses it
has a new unemployment claim and is now back in the counting for
"looking for work".
When jobs open up----those "not looking" begin to "look" and they
add to that "unemployment" figure
They've been looking all along, but the government hasn't been
counting them as looking for work, and they merely continue to look
but with more hope, which turns out to be false hope if they don't
get a job, and they *still* aren't counted in the "unemployment"
figure. It's only if they get a job, then lose that job, and thus
are back in the system, that they push the official unemployment
figure up.

Here's an idea: All the long-term unemployed people hire each
other, through some temporary agency such as Manpower or Kelly, so
that they are "back in the system" when these contrived jobs end.
Since these people are hiring others as much as they are being
hired by others, the money going back and forth is the same for
each person, the only loss of funding from these people would be
the fee charged by the temporary agency to manage their employment,
and the FICA withheld. But if each person is hired only for a few
hours, at minimum wage, the amount of money each person earns is
only about a hundred dollars, so FICA plus agency fee is only about
10 or 20 dollars, a small price to pay to force the government to
be honest about unemployment rates. The true portion of adults over
18 (240 million) which are involuntarily unemployed (75 million) is
about 75/240 = 31% currently, while the portion of people actually
wanting employment (181 million) who can't find any employment is
about 75/181 = 41%, so either of these figures should be published
as the true unemployment rate. IMO the 41% figure is the most
honest. (See the first article I posted earlier Tuesday for more
details about how I calculated these figures.)

Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
2012-12-05 07:04:46 UTC
Permalink
The credit card companies still want ALL the money back, with 17% interest.
If you've been unemployed several years, and because of that you've
been forced charge basic living expenses (mostly housing and
utilities, not even food because you get your food from a "food
bank"), thus building up a big debt on multiple credit cards,
they increase your "finance
charge" to a lot more than just 17%:
17.90%/yr (Capital One) - OK, that's just a little over 17%
19.99%/yr (Discover)
23.90%/yr (Wells Fargo)
24.24%/yr (CitiBank)
24.98%/yr (MBNA)
26.96%/yr (Fleet, bought by BofA)
26.99%/yr (Union Planters)
27.74%/yr (AmEx)
29.99%/yr (Chase)
30.24%/yr (AT&T)
But those rates are cited as if applied once a year, but actually
are compounded monthly, so the actual yield per year is even
higher, for example "30.24%/yr" = 2.52%/mo which compounds to 34.8%
per year. Another way to express it is that the debt doubles every
28 months just from the compounded finance charge.
... the TIME-SPAN for unemployment compensation is shrinking drastically.
That burns you in another way too: As soon as you are no longer
eligible for continued unemployment benefits, you no longer have to
demonstrate every two weeks that you are still actively looking for
employment, but that reporting is the only way the government has
any way to count you as unemployed, so they dishonestly count you
as no longer looking for work, thus they don't have to include you
in the published unemployment rate. That's why they publish only 8%
instead of 31% which is the true rate of involuntary unemployment
of people over 18 in the USA, or 41% involuntarily unemployment
among just those over 18 who want jobs. (See my previous article in
this thread for how I calculated those two figures.)

Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
2012-12-05 05:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx
I have a problem with that Web page. It says "Unemployment and
underemployment are calculated as a percent of the workforce." but
the only logical definition of the term "workforce" is the people
who are currently employed. But if we use that definition, the
unemployment rate (among only the "workforce") is by definition
zero. So the unemployment percentage given in that Web page must be
drawn out of somebody's imagination.

On the other hand, it says "Payroll to Population is calculated as
a percent of the total population." (Earlier it says "Gallup tracks
daily the percentage of U.S. adults , ages 18 and older, who are
underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer,
without seasonal adjustment.", so I assume the term "total
population" really means USA population at least 18 years old.)

Now in the "% Payroll to population" column, it shows figures in
the range of 43% to 45%, so I assume that means only 43% to 45% of
adults over 18 are currently employed. If so, it means the gross
unemployment rate (people not employed, whether they want a job or
not) is really between 55% and 57% (of everyone over 18). Deducting
the people who don't want to work in the first place (students
still in college, people who have voluntarily retired with a
pension big enough that they don't need any additional income, or
people who just don't feel like working), which I estimate as about
25% of the adult population, that leaves a per-total-population
*involuntary* unemployment rate of about 31%. Or if you only count
the people who want to work, the unemployment rate among those is
about 41%.

If that didn't make sense to you, try using actual numbers of people:

Total population of USA = 314,884,000 (2012.Nov.01) 314,885,029 (2012.Dec.04)
Under 18 years old = 23.7% of total population = appx. 74.6 million
Over 18 years old = 76.3% of total population = appx. 240 million
18+ with jobs = appx. 44% of over 18 = appx. 106 million
18+ without jobs (unemployed) = appx. 56% of over 18 = appx. 135 million
18+ not want job anyway = appx. 25% of over 18 = appx. 60 million
18+ want job not have one = involuntarily unemployed = appx. 75 million

Total wanting job (whether they have it or not) = 75+106=181 million
Involuntarily unemployed / total 18+ wanting job = 75/181 = appx. 41%
(if I had my way, that 41% would be reduced to less than 1%)
Involuntarily unemployed / total 18+ = 75/240 = appx. 31%
Post by Bradley K. Sherman
Why do Obozo and the DemoCRETINs hate America?
Because, like the Refucklicans, they're owned by WallStreet/TBTF/ALEC.
By the way, many years ago I also renamed the donkey party "Democrap".

I am thinking of starting a new "Yellow-Green" party: Like the
Green party, wanting ecologically sound policies, but like the
yellow color of the radiation warning symbol associated with atomic
energy, wanting careful responsible use of nuclear-fission energy
to replace coal as fast as responsibly feasible, and after that,
replace petroleum by biofuel from agricultural waste (not from food
crops such as corn), and convert all use of natural gas to collect
the carbon dioxide to feed into closed-system photosynthesis
systems to create biofuel, using nuclear power to light the
closed-system algae 24/7, and convert all municipal waste that
can't be recycled the usual way to incineration where again the
carbon dioxide feeds into closed-system algae-biofuel. Over time as
the truly "green" energy is developed and the cost goes down, after
we are no longer using any fossil fuels at all, we can start
replacing nuclear energy by "green" energy.

References:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html (for today's total population)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (for percent 18+)

Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...