US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

[/QUOTE]

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?So, you think the washington examiner is impartial? You have to be kidding. Even you must know better. Lets see what Sourcewatch has to say:
"The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a formerWashington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard."
Washington Examiner - SourceWatch
So, not at all impartial You loose again. Just can not find an impartial source, eh.

 

[Dale Smith]

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?So, you think the washington examiner is impartial? You have to be kidding. Even you must know better. Lets see what Sourcewatch has to say:
"The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a formerWashington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard."
Washington Examiner - SourceWatch
So, not at all impartial You loose again. Just can not find an impartial source, eh.[/QUOTE]

So you are claiming that USA.INC was 100 percent "debt free" and was actually running a surplus and owed nothing to the central bankers???? Is that what you are declaring because if so, you are about to get yet another serious ass kicking. What USA.INC budgets compared to their debt are two very different things. There is INTEREST attached to every single fiat dollar loaned to "da gubermint" and there is interest attached to every fiat dollar loaned out by their member banks....so with that being said? How and the fuck did Bill "drop trou" not only pay off the debt but the interest as well WHILE creating a surplus on a a fiat currency that has debt attached to every fucking note? It is impossible....a mathmatic impossibility, dumb ass....

 

[Faun]

Well maybe you can answer the question then that Markle could not ....

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

I have no idea but the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll. The numbers are totally "fudged" and do not represent the unemployment problem of DECENT paying jobs in this country.

Here's another question you can't answer.... you'll notice that shadowstats mirrors the U-6 rate from 1994 only at a higher rate; but then deviates from the U-6 at around 2009...

... and now for the question you can't answer (at least not with any amount of lucidity) .... what changed in 2009 with the way the BLS collects CPS data to cause shadowstats to veer off into la-la land?

Anything that doesn't paint the Barrypuppet in a good light is going to piss of partisan shills like you. You kiss his skinny shanks when he has followed the orders of his puppetmasters to the proverbial "T" that has killed job growth. Part-time workers are counted as being "employed" and still the numbers suuuuuuck.

The only thing I'm kissing is the proverbial paddle I'm kicking your ass with.

Here's yet another example... you go by shadowstats.com, even though you don't have the foggiest clue how he arrives at the numbers he posts, and now you can't explain what the BLS changed in 2009 to inspire shadowstats.com to go off the rails that year.

None of my business but this was so easy it is fun to make a fool of you and your kindred spirit Rsherme.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf

Other than suffering from delusions, I can't say I'm sure how you convince yourself you've made a fool of anyone?

But thanks for the link. It reveals shadowstats makes up their own numbers.

They claim they use the U-6 figures but then blindly add an arbitrary number of folks who have been out of work for more than a year. To reach 23% would require they add some 21 million people to what they call their alternative rate measure. The problem there is we have had 14 million people fall off the U-6 rate since Obama's been president, not 21 million. And 8 million of them were baby boomers who retired.Millions others are those who have gone onto disability and millions of others are students who choose school over work.

Even worse for shadowstats -- there is no entity which determines how many people have been unemployed for more than a year. They claim the number is derived from a proprietary model but won't say what that model is.

They just make the number up.

Beyond using the BLS U.6 estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS.

 

[Faun]

45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.

As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.

No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.

 

[Faun]

As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

 

[Dale Smith]

As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.

No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.

You are a blithering idiot and devoid of any common sense if you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent...you live in a different reality but because you are a leftard, you buy into the Barrypouppet bullshit and that things are coming up roses and that we need MORE leftardism because that is the answer!!!! I believe that the unemployment rate is much closer to 23 percent than I do that it is 4.9 percent....the numbers saying that is 4.9 are total bullshit...much like your fool-fueled rants about the greatness of leftardism...do you get the message that I am sending???

 

[Faun]

Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept?

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya get any more retarded, dale??

Unemployment benefits have absolutely nothing to do with being counted as unemployed.

Four common unemployment myths

The official unemployment rate is based on a survey of about 60,000 households, not on unemployment benefits, which are administered by the states.​

... so who is no longer counted as unemployed ... ? Those who are neither employed nor unemployed

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.​

... so who is in the labor force ... ? Those who are either employed or unemployed

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

Do ya see that, moron?? Nothing about unemployment benefits to determine unemployed status.



Do you see now why folks here laugh at you when you claim to be so much smarter? Now STFU on this before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.[/INDENT]

 

[Dale Smith]

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.

 

[Faun]

You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.

No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.

You are a blithering idiot and devoid of any common sense if you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent...you live in a different reality but because you are a leftard, you buy into the Barrypouppet bullshit and that things are coming up roses and that we need MORE leftardism because that is the answer!!!! I believe that the unemployment rate is much closer to 23 percent than I do that it is 4.9 percent....the numbers saying that is 4.9 are total bullshit...much like your fool-fueled rants about the greatness of leftardism...do you get the message that I am sending???

Your paranoid delusions worsen. Obama does not decide nor tell me what the unemployment rate is.

The message I get from you is that you're batshit insane.

 

[Faun]

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.

I'm not about to waste bandwidth explaining tax revenues to an abject imbecile who actually thinks people are no longer counted as unemployed because their unemployment benefits expire.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept?

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya get any more retarded, dale??

Unemployment benefits have absolutely nothing to do with being counted as unemployed.

Four common unemployment myths

The official unemployment rate is based on a survey of about 60,000 households, not on unemployment benefits, which are administered by the states.​

... so who is no longer counted as unemployed ... ? Those who are neither employed nor unemployed

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.​

... so who is in the labor force ... ? Those who are either employed or unemployed

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

Do ya see that, moron?? Nothing about unemployment benefits to determine unemployed status.



Do you see now why folks here laugh at you when you claim to be so much smarter? Now STFU on this before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.[/INDENT]

So 101 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy are doing so just because they can?????? STFU yourself...nothing has gotten better and nothing has improved. Kicking your ass is becoming toooo easy.

We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

 

[Dale Smith]

But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.

No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.

You are a blithering idiot and devoid of any common sense if you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent...you live in a different reality but because you are a leftard, you buy into the Barrypouppet bullshit and that things are coming up roses and that we need MORE leftardism because that is the answer!!!! I believe that the unemployment rate is much closer to 23 percent than I do that it is 4.9 percent....the numbers saying that is 4.9 are total bullshit...much like your fool-fueled rants about the greatness of leftardism...do you get the message that I am sending???

Your paranoid delusions worsen. Obama does not decide nor tell me what the unemployment rate is.

The message I get from you is that you're batshit insane.

So can I can put you on record that only 4.9 percent of those seeking employmentr are unable to find work.........is that your stance????? Yes or no........

 

[Dale Smith]

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.

I'm not about to waste bandwidth explaining tax revenues to an abject imbecile who actually thinks people are no longer counted as unemployed because their unemployment benefits expire.

Good for you...because how could you try and explain something that you know nothing about. Every dollar in existence has usury attached to it...be it from the Fed or one of their member banks....so where does the "money" come from to pay the debt to these international banking POS? You must have an answer.... btw, having one's labor that bartered their time in exchange for something of value was never part of the U.S constitution....why does "da gubermint" feel that they are entitled to a certain percentage of my labor? This system was set up by the international bankers that extend "credit" to USA.INC and Wooodrow Wilson and FDR pledged our labor as surety against a debt that only USA.iNC is responsible for because it is INCORPORATED. Let's say that you signed a contract to a company that agreed to mow your lawn, fertilize it and "weed eat" it and suddenly went bankrupt....would that make you resposnible for the debt of that company? Of course not...but that is what USA.INC is...it's a corporate "for profit" entity that was contracted to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services per the corporate charter Constitution of 1871 that creatred the "14th amendment" citizen....they collect the profits of their endeavors and their 185,000 subsidiaries and pass their credit card bill off on us and that is a fucking fact, dipshit. I know more than you....infinitely more. Kicking your ass is mere child's play.

 

[Faun]

Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept?

Holyfuckingshit!

Can ya get any more retarded, dale??

Unemployment benefits have absolutely nothing to do with being counted as unemployed.

Four common unemployment myths

The official unemployment rate is based on a survey of about 60,000 households, not on unemployment benefits, which are administered by the states.​

... so who is no longer counted as unemployed ... ? Those who are neither employed nor unemployed

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.​

... so who is in the labor force ... ? Those who are either employed or unemployed

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)

Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

Do ya see that, moron?? Nothing about unemployment benefits to determine unemployed status.



Do you see now why folks here laugh at you when you claim to be so much smarter? Now STFU on this before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.[/INDENT]

So 101 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy are doing so just because they can?????? STFU yourself...nothing has gotten better and nothing has improved. Kicking your ass is becoming toooo easy.

We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

That's it???

You make a complete schmuck of yourself criticizing others for not knowing how folks are no longer counted as unemployed when their unemployment benefits expire (when that's not even true) and that's the best you can come back with???

Dale, I'm embarrassed for you even if you are too stupid to comprehend why you should be embarrassed for yourself.

 

[Faun]

At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.

No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.

You are a blithering idiot and devoid of any common sense if you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent...you live in a different reality but because you are a leftard, you buy into the Barrypouppet bullshit and that things are coming up roses and that we need MORE leftardism because that is the answer!!!! I believe that the unemployment rate is much closer to 23 percent than I do that it is 4.9 percent....the numbers saying that is 4.9 are total bullshit...much like your fool-fueled rants about the greatness of leftardism...do you get the message that I am sending???

Your paranoid delusions worsen. Obama does not decide nor tell me what the unemployment rate is.

The message I get from you is that you're batshit insane.

So can I can put you on record that only 4.9 percent of those seeking employmentr are unable to find work.........is that your stance????? Yes or no........

Of course you can't since I never said that.

pssst ... this would be you listening to your delusions again.

 

[Faun]

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources. He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus. Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up. Poor guy is a clown.

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.

I'm not about to waste bandwidth explaining tax revenues to an abject imbecile who actually thinks people are no longer counted as unemployed because their unemployment benefits expire.

Good for you...because how could you try and explain something that you know nothing about. Every dollar in existence has usury attached to it...be it from the Fed or one of their member banks....so where does the "money" come from to pay the debt to these international banking POS? You must have an answer.... btw, having one's labor that bartered their time in exchange for something of value was never part of the U.S constitution....why does "da gubermint" feel that they are entitled to a certain percentage of my labor? This system was set up by the international bankers that extend "credit" to USA.INC and Wooodrow Wilson and FDR pledged our labor as surety against a debt that only USA.iNC is responsible for because it is INCORPORATED. Let's say that you signed a contract to a company that agreed to mow your lawn, fertilize it and "weed eat" it and suddenly went bankrupt....would that make you resposnible for the debt of that company? Of course not...but that is what USA.INC is...it's a corporate "for profit" entity that was contracted to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services per the corporate charter Constitution of 1871 that creatred the "14th amendment" citizen....they collect the profits of their endeavors and their 185,000 subsidiaries and pass their credit card bill off on us and that is a fucking fact, dipshit. I know more than you....infinitely more. Kicking your ass is mere child's play.

See post 1730 as I'm wasting even less bandwidth on this reply.

 

[rdean]

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

[/QUOTE]

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up. But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points. Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how to provide links. But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up. The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget:   The Era of big government lives on." The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy." The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus." You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned. In the interim, here is one I am sure of. Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years. And the issue here is actually easy to check:
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
And as we all know, when the rest of the country does well, the super rich do especially well.

 

[Rshermr]

My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.

But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.

You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????

I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.

1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.


Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.

Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.

!

First Rshermr claims the reason he can't spell is because his "secretary" always proofs his writing.I never said that, me boy. I said in the past she had done so. But as a dish washer you probably never had..now he claims that it's spellcheck that's screwing up...not him? There is a reason why he has the rating he does! He's not only an idiot and a poser but he always tries to pass the buck
Like many, I find many of the clowns that I am responding to not worth the time of spell checking anything.

So often I do not spend any time on it. As many others don't. There are phd economists on the board, and they have the same problem. But very, very small minds do get concerned about the issue of spelling and typo's Poor little minds.

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

I have no idea ...

Holyfuckingshit!

If you have no idea how he arrives at 23% unemployment; then you have no idea that his site is "legit."



Thinking is clearly not your strong suit.

How does the Barrypuppet and crew come up with the figure that we only have 4.9 percent unemployment? If you actually believe that, it's not me that has an issue with "thinking". Personally, I believe that 23 percent is being generous to the Barrypuppet's term.

First, anyone who uses derogatory names for a sitting president, either republican or democrat, proves that he has no class, no integrity. But then, it is common for you, me boy.
Second, if you would go to the BLS site you would find the definition of how they find it. But it is not controlled by the president, and it is not his crew. Just more of your bullshit. If you believe in 23%, using the same definitions as for the 4.7% number, you just lost another debate. Unless you can quickly come up with an expert and impartial source. Because here is the source that says 4.7% is the current ue rate:
"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MAY 2016 The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So, you loose again. 2 for 2 for me. O for 2 for you.

Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....sorry, you are wrong again. dumb ass. Wonder why you have no source;
"Jobless Rate and Unemployment Benefits

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on February 1, 2008

Q: Does the official jobless rate fail to count people who have no unemployment benefits?

A: They are counted, too. The rate is based on a huge survey and counts those who are out of work whether they get benefits or not."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
OOPS. Self professed really smart guy is WRONG AGAIN. See, me boy. There is the link, there is the statement proving what you say is wrong, and you again LOOSE. And we all feel so sorry for you, being wrong every single time. But no worry. Being a clown, you will tell us that you were correct the whole time. Funny. And you said you knew so much. So far every thing you said you know has proven WRONG. That is 0 for 3.


once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed" WRONG. how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes You should try to understand the word allude before you use it in a sentence. Perhaps if you had just finished high school. I know, i know. It was a typo. But it is a real word, just not the correct word. you) so hard for you to accept? Yes. I have an aversion to believing untrue information, me boy. Sorry you do not have such an aversion. You are out of your ever loving mind if you believe that only 4.7 percent of the population is looking for a job.
OK. A chance for you to get one correct. Lets see:
"The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care.Jun 3, 2016"
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Uh, there it is. BLS says latest is 4.7%. Soooooo..................YOU LOOSE AGAIN. LETS SEE, WHAT IS THAT. OH YEAH. 0 OF 4 FOR YOU, 4 FOR 4 FOR ME. WILL YOU EVER, EVER WIN A DEBATE, ME BOY?

Sorry, me boy. You are wrong again. Your stats came from a bat shit crazy site, so you believed them Your problem, not mine. You are beyond stupid if you don't understand that 101 million people depend on some type of "gubermint" subsidy in order to get by....what color is the sky in your world because it's not the same as mine....but then again I don't wear rose colored glasses because some socialist clown like the Barrypuppet is the figurehead of USA.INC....Jesus, you really are crazy....you see? I know more than you.....infinitely more...No, you know nothing. At all. You are proving yourself, to everyone, a complete joke. Wrong, time after time after time. ZERO for FOUR, me boy..not braggin'..You certainly should not be bragging. You are 0 for 4. Pretty sad..just fact Uh, again, no facts. ZERO for fuckin FOUR, Dipshit. . BTW, PLEASE learn the differenece between "loose" and "lose".....it's kinda important if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously.How many times are you going to try that ignorant nonsense, dipshit? I mean, a guy who has not finished high school and thinks he should comment on spelling. Maybe you should concentrate on you posts, and see if you could be correct even ONCE.
But this is kind of boring. But then, at this point, I be laughing. At you.
So far, the clown who told everyone he could get to listen (something like zero, most likely) how much smarter he is than me. And here he is 0 for 4 against me. Seems to be proving exactly the opposite. If you were not such an ass hole, I would almost feel sorry for you.

 

[Dale Smith]

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?

The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​

No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.

Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.

I'm not about to waste bandwidth explaining tax revenues to an abject imbecile who actually thinks people are no longer counted as unemployed because their unemployment benefits expire.

Good for you...because how could you try and explain something that you know nothing about. Every dollar in existence has usury attached to it...be it from the Fed or one of their member banks....so where does the "money" come from to pay the debt to these international banking POS? You must have an answer.... btw, having one's labor that bartered their time in exchange for something of value was never part of the U.S constitution....why does "da gubermint" feel that they are entitled to a certain percentage of my labor? This system was set up by the international bankers that extend "credit" to USA.INC and Wooodrow Wilson and FDR pledged our labor as surety against a debt that only USA.iNC is responsible for because it is INCORPORATED. Let's say that you signed a contract to a company that agreed to mow your lawn, fertilize it and "weed eat" it and suddenly went bankrupt....would that make you resposnible for the debt of that company? Of course not...but that is what USA.INC is...it's a corporate "for profit" entity that was contracted to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services per the corporate charter Constitution of 1871 that creatred the "14th amendment" citizen....they collect the profits of their endeavors and their 185,000 subsidiaries and pass their credit card bill off on us and that is a fucking fact, dipshit. I know more than you....infinitely more. Kicking your ass is mere child's play.

See post 1730 as I'm wasting even less bandwidth on this reply.

You don't have the slightest fucking clue....seriously......but "Go, Team Leftard!!!"....(snicker)

 

[Dale Smith]

You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????

I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.

1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.


Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.

Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.

!

First Rshermr claims the reason he can't spell is because his "secretary" always proofs his writing.I never said that, me boy. I said in the past she had done so. But as a dish washer you probably never had..now he claims that it's spellcheck that's screwing up...not him? There is a reason why he has the rating he does! He's not only an idiot and a poser but he always tries to pass the buck
Like many, I find many of the clowns that I am responding to not worth the time of spell checking anything.

So often I do not spend any time on it. As many others don't. There are phd economists on the board, and they have the same problem. But very, very small minds do get concerned about the issue of spelling and typo's Poor little minds.

I have no idea ...

Holyfuckingshit!

If you have no idea how he arrives at 23% unemployment; then you have no idea that his site is "legit."



Thinking is clearly not your strong suit.

How does the Barrypuppet and crew come up with the figure that we only have 4.9 percent unemployment? If you actually believe that, it's not me that has an issue with "thinking". Personally, I believe that 23 percent is being generous to the Barrypuppet's term.

First, anyone who uses derogatory names for a sitting president, either republican or democrat, proves that he has no class, no integrity. But then, it is common for you, me boy.
Second, if you would go to the BLS site you would find the definition of how they find it. But it is not controlled by the president, and it is not his crew. Just more of your bullshit. If you believe in 23%, using the same definitions as for the 4.7% number, you just lost another debate. Unless you can quickly come up with an expert and impartial source. Because here is the source that says 4.7% is the current ue rate:
"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MAY 2016 The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So, you loose again. 2 for 2 for me. O for 2 for you.

Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....sorry, you are wrong again. dumb ass. Wonder why you have no source;
"Jobless Rate and Unemployment Benefits

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on February 1, 2008

Q: Does the official jobless rate fail to count people who have no unemployment benefits?

A: They are counted, too. The rate is based on a huge survey and counts those who are out of work whether they get benefits or not."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
OOPS. Self professed really smart guy is WRONG AGAIN. See, me boy. There is the link, there is the statement proving what you say is wrong, and you again LOOSE. And we all feel so sorry for you, being wrong every single time. But no worry. Being a clown, you will tell us that you were correct the whole time. Funny. And you said you knew so much. So far every thing you said you know has proven WRONG. That is 0 for 3.


once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed" WRONG. how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes You should try to understand the word allude before you use it in a sentence. Perhaps if you had just finished high school. I know, i know. It was a typo. But it is a real word, just not the correct word. you) so hard for you to accept? Yes. I have an aversion to believing untrue information, me boy. Sorry you do not have such an aversion. You are out of your ever loving mind if you believe that only 4.7 percent of the population is looking for a job.
OK. A chance for you to get one correct. Lets see:
"The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care.Jun 3, 2016"
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Uh, there it is. BLS says latest is 4.7%. Soooooo..................YOU LOOSE AGAIN. LETS SEE, WHAT IS THAT. OH YEAH. 0 OF 4 FOR YOU, 4 FOR 4 FOR ME. WILL YOU EVER, EVER WIN A DEBATE, ME BOY?

Sorry, me boy. You are wrong again. Your stats came from a bat shit crazy site, so you believed them Your problem, not mine. You are beyond stupid if you don't understand that 101 million people depend on some type of "gubermint" subsidy in order to get by....what color is the sky in your world because it's not the same as mine....but then again I don't wear rose colored glasses because some socialist clown like the Barrypuppet is the figurehead of USA.INC....Jesus, you really are crazy....you see? I know more than you.....infinitely more...No, you know nothing. At all. You are proving yourself, to everyone, a complete joke. Wrong, time after time after time. ZERO for FOUR, me boy..not braggin'..You certainly should not be bragging. You are 0 for 4. Pretty sad..just fact Uh, again, no facts. ZERO for fuckin FOUR, Dipshit. . BTW, PLEASE learn the differenece between "loose" and "lose".....it's kinda important if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously.How many times are you going to try that ignorant nonsense, dipshit? I mean, a guy who has not finished high school and thinks he should comment on spelling. Maybe you should concentrate on you posts, and see if you could be correct even ONCE.
But this is kind of boring. But then, at this point, I be laughing. At you.
So far, the clown who told everyone he could get to listen (something like zero, most likely) how much smarter he is than me. And here he is 0 for 4 against me. Seems to be proving exactly the opposite. If you were not such an ass hole, I would almost feel sorry for you.

Your ass gets kicked yet again.......wasn't that hard to find this....
A Lot Fewer Americans Get Unemployment Benefits Than You Think