US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

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..Yup, as we all know, as of now, the ue rate is 4.7% .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 You can believe anything you want. Because that is what trolls tend to do. It is your belief system. Believing what you want to believe. And a normal characteristic of stupid people. It simply proves to rational people, which are those unlike you, that you are a nut case. ..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???
Proving that you are delusional, you actually think anyone would pay attention to any message you are sending. Except that you are a nut case.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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.

So, the delusional clown forgets to read his source article. Must have been excited that it was a rational source. But at least his initials are good. DS for DipShit.
Your ass gets kicked yet again.......wasn't that hard to find this....
A Lot Fewer Americans Get Unemployment Benefits Than You Think
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy. It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate. Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ? You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate. Nice job. So, still 0 for 4. That means, in your terminology, I kicked your ass FOUR times, and you kicked mine ZERO!!!!
Perhaps you should try a different thing. Arguments or debates are things you are not good at. You are just too ignorant.

 

[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.

BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"

 

[Dale Smith]

!

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.


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
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy. It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate. Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ? You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate. Nice job.

Nope, those that are not getting unemplyment are not counted in the stats and that is a fact....We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

 

[Dale Smith]

!

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.


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
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy. It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate. Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ? You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate. Nice job.

Kickin' that leftard ass yet again........

Real Unemployment - Department of Labor (U-6)

 

[Rshermr]

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)

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)

Says the guy who is ZERO FOR FOUR. Wrong every single time. But posting something about the percentage of people that are unemployed that do not get ue insurance, when he thought it was the percent unemployed, could be counted as a near miss. No, actually, it was bullshit.

 

[Rshermr]

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.
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
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy. It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate. Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ? You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate. Nice job.

Nope, those that are not getting unemplyment are not counted in the stats and that is a fact....We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

do you simply not read your linked articles ever, dipshit. As the BLS stated, they are indeed counted. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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.

BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"
did you just discover the participation rate is declining, has been for years, and is expected to for many more. So, did you think that was a problem. Post a link that agrees with you and is an impartial source. But this little con stat has been debunked time after time. You will lowe again, me boy. But what the hell, it is kind of fun kicking oyou around.

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.

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,

BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"

The labor force participation rate simply tells you how many people do not want to work. It includes retirees, people unable physically to work, those in college (look it up), those who do not need to work. So no, it is not 38.4% of those that are counted as unemployed, because THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK OR ARE NOT CAPABLE OF WORKING.
NICE JOB OF EMBARRASSING YOURSELF, AGAIN. MORON. JESUS, YOU DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PARTICIPATION RATE. DAMN, YOU ARE IGNORANT.

STILL 0 FOR 4. AND LOOKING STUPID.

 

[Faun]

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)

Spits the flaming imbecile who actually said folks are no longer counted as unemployed if they exhaust their unemployment benefits.

 

[Faun]

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.

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

It's gotten to the point where now you're just kicking yourself in the ass.

... did you even read your own link?? It says nothing about the unemployment rate or folks exhausting their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"

Shits the idiot who doesn't know the difference between the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate.

 

[Faun]

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.
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
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy. It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate. Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ? You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate. Nice job.

Nope, those that are not getting unemplyment are not counted in the stats and that is a fact....We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits

Holyfuckingshit! You're completely fucking deranged.

That article doesn't even specifically say anything about unemployment benefits or the unemployment rate.

How many more links are you going to post which highlight how delusional you are?

And why do you persist with this insanity of yours about people losing their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed when I gave you the link to the BLS site, the ones who do the counting, which proved you wrong?

See that? You should have taken my advice earlier and just STFU about this before you make an even bigger schmuck of yourself.

Too late now.

 

[rdean]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's going to be a hoot to watch if Hillary Clinton DOES get elected President? All of you liberal drones trying to explain why we don't have a booming economy like we did back during the Bill Clinton Presidency! I can't wait to see it slowly dawn on you that Bill Clinton ISN'T an economic "savant"...but rather happened to be in the right place at the right time.

 

[Faun]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

 

[Faun]

You know what's going to be a hoot to watch if Hillary Clinton DOES get elected President? All of you liberal drones trying to explain why we don't have a booming economy like we did back during the Bill Clinton Presidency! I can't wait to see it slowly dawn on you that Bill Clinton ISN'T an economic "savant"...but rather happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Likewise, if the economy does boom, it'll be amusing watching the loony right credit Ronald Reagan.

 

[Rshermr]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That is true, but it is not a con talking point. So, OS can not use or believe that. He only believes what he is told.

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That is true, but it is not a con talking point. So, OS can not use or believe that. He only believes what he is told.

Unlike you, Georgie...I don't have to use other people's "talking points" because I'm intelligent enough to make my own! It's what you get from actually attending college, not simply pretending that you did!

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans try to rewrite history. Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate. Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate. And everything went to shit. Them's the facts. No way around it. If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier. It's as simple as that!

You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp! The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly. That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie. Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall! What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!

As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.

That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom? That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!