On Oct 22, 9:10*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner

No it wouldn't, not even close. "Destruction of American
Manufacturing" started with a vengence under the Reagan mis-
admistration when many of the regulations relating to off shoring were
loosened, same with many of the financial regulations started after
the '29 crash as an attempt to prevent it happening again.Regan got
the ball rolling, Clinton didn't do much to slow it,and GWB added to
momentum ,guess where we are today?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the
right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed at
a historical low point when Bush took over.

In fairness to Mr. C, this wasn't anything he cooked up, that
bookkeeping system had been the same since the 80s. Also, the surplus
topped out and was back into deficit even with the creative bookkeeping
by before GW's first budget.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
om...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus" when
the national debt *increased*.

It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the
right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed at
a historical low point when Bush took over.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no reflection.

In fairness to Mr. C, this wasn't anything he cooked up, that
bookkeeping system had been the same since the 80s. Also, the surplus
topped out and was back into deficit even with the creative bookkeeping
by before GW's first budget.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

In article ,
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote:


There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.
Thus the statement "There was but it was largely accounting.(g)


It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the
right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed at
a historical low point when Bush took over.


It isn't a matter of semantics, though. It is the major reason that
we are going to have major problems with SS coming soon. It is a little
incongruous, though for the GOP to suggest that it was some kind of
slight of hand on Clinton's part. While it was slight of hand, it was a
bipartisan slight of hand that had gone on for years.
The funny part of the Clinton surplus is he largely has the GOP to
thank for it. They worked against Mr. C's baser instincts and stopped
him from enacting en total that really big tax increase he wanted in '91
or '92. THat would have cut the expansion off aborning.
The other interesting thing is he was a spectator on this (as are
most presidents, Pres. O included). . It happened largely because of the
Greenspan/Gates expansion. Greenspan because he kept rates low and money
flowing and Gates as a proxy for the spectactular productivity gains we
saw from the computerization of commerce. I would also like to point out
that the biggest increases came AFTER tax cuts, specifically the cap
gains tax cut.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Isn't even IN a city!

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:26:05 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:10:39 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:51:38 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


GDP, the budget bottom line went from a

deficit of 4.7 percent in 1992 to a surplus


Clinton

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.

There was a Projected surplus..but when the dot com implosion hit...it
vanished.

Now he did have a Smaller debt..but it was still a debt.

It should also be noted..he had a Republican Congress to help.

Gunner

"Everyone knows Clinton did what no republican could ever do. Bush
squandered everything and turned the economy upside down. Clinton
created jobs and Bush lost everything. You can fool yourself but you
will never be able to change the facts. Clinton is still the
"President of the World" and Bush will always be a hated war criminal."

Must really suck to be me.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread..there was no surplus.
Only a forecast of one that never turned out, Alien.

As your paragraph shows your derangement in full bloom..the last line
really points out your issues.

Have you considered suicide to spare your family any further
embaressment?

Id strongly suggest it.

Gunner

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:20:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

lying war criminal Obama is a hero

Well..perhaps in your madness. But the vast majority of us are normal
people..so all we can do is shrug our shoulders..smile..and then laugh
at you.


Gunner

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:28:05 -0400, Alien Duck
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:10:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:21:51 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner


i

On 2011-10-22, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39?pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

Gunner

Talk is cheap like you but you have nothing to backup your lies like
every other winger. No facts. NOTHING.

So Alien Duck doesnt see cites? His insanity is farther along than Id
thought.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:31:53 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:11:49 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:50:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

The continued dive in the economy is simply fallout from the failure
of the previous administration. This is why the right is not serious
about winning the WH in 2012 and why they offered up who they did to
run against Obama in the first place. Any Dem could have beaten any of
your heroes on the right. Just look at who you nut jobs are putting up
for sacrifice once again. You are nothing but a joke from start to
finish Gumby. You have nothing and never did loser.

Must suck to be such a moron like you Gumby.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH!!! Oh...like the LAST Great Depression???

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists
calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression
dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously
thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and
Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed
into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great
mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always
worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,"
said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found
that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with
ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy,
Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures
that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible
for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension
reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also
a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package
that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry
to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to
demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been,
given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery,
but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages
and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By
adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use
the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been
during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone
into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and
wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies,
wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they
otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment
was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in
productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where
they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and
services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and
the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it
otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to
everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian
said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall
when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal
policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act
(NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they
agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly
raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but
ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries
took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries,
which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural
employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called
for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60
percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that
the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they
believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has
been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming
him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the
1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished
Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The
prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of
macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s,
how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely
scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional
within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because
they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian
said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and
prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition
policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found.
Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the
Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once
protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four
more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell
from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of
6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had
become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained
of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257
different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not
only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices.
Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14
percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome
practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National
Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so
did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936
to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries
remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been,
based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment
persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down
somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high.
By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the
highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped
up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor
suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations
of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to
recover from depressions and that significant government intervention
was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work
shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government
not intervened."


It should be noted..that UCLA...University of California Los Angeles..is
hardly a Rightwing think thank...but a Leftwing one....


Gunner

So all you can do it ramble on about what happened so far in the past
and say nothing about how the right can change anything. Your empty
noise is noted. Post here and now what Obama did to make anything
worse other then to fight giving more tax breaks to the millionaires.

Crickets.................

Alien Duck tries desperately to swerve and divert away from the facts of
life.

Shrug..when you are insane..and a Leftwinger (but I repeat myself)...its
all one has.


Gunner

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking
full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts
"marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic
reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed
by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally
attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped
looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation
is 16 years and over

http://blog.readyforzero.com/2011/09...numbers-worse/


http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary...have-not-heard

From 2010"

Nevermind Those People NOT Working, They’re Not Unemployed
By: Nathan Aschbacher Wednesday November 3, 2010 12:42 pm

TweetTweet
digg stumbleupon

Look at all that gridlock!

Don’t worry. You’re not alone.

There’s stalwart refusal by the media and blogosphere to abandon
reporting U3 as the measure of unemployment in the United States. I
expect this from the mainstream media, but I can’t figure out why
bloggers clutch to such a dubious standard.

U3 doesn’t account for all the people who’ve been out of work so long
that they’ve given up looking, those who are working temp jobs because
there’s no other work, those people who are working part-time or reduced
hours even though they can and will work a full-time job. If you want
to get a picture of how depressed and stagnant the U.S. labor force is,
then it becomes pretty clear how pointless parroting U3, the “official”
unemployment rate, really is. The list of official caveats about what
it doesn’t measure should be enough for any thinking person to reject it
as a useful statistic entirely, but here we are still using it.

The Department of Labor actually publishes a more suitable measurement.
U6. This measurement contains:

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

It’s pretty easy to think of scenarios where even that isn’t a thorough
indicator for unemployment. Consider that there’s no accounting for the
quality of the job compared to a person’s education, training, or
experience. You could be a senior software architect with 15 years
experience, but working full-time flipping burgers, and you wouldn’t be
counted in U6 either. However, U6 is the broadest measurement that the
officialdom of the Department of Labor provides, and even in its
short-comings it’s still a vastly more relevant and accurate depiction
of unemployment in the United States than is the complete fiction
embodied by U3 that we constantly hear as the “unemployment rate.”

We don’t seem to have this problem in a lot of other areas. They’re
not, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” they’re torture. They’re not
,”isolated incidents of detainee abuse,” they’re a systemic regime of
abuses. They’re not, “the worst of the worst,” they’re overwhelmingly
innocent people detained without sufficient evidence to even charge them
with the weakest of crimes.

Unemployment isn’t, “9.6%,” it’s 17.1%

17.1%. That’s as close as our standard measurements get us to a real
picture of what the unemployment rate is, so let’s start using it. All
the people who can’t find work, can’t get enough work, have given up
entirely because they’ve been out so long, and those who have had to
slide way back down the ladder to find a job at all; they’re all
deserving of being included in “unemployment,” so include them.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

From 2010

How nation's true jobless rate is closer to 22%

Last Updated: 6:33 AM, January 12, 2010

Posted: 2:22 AM, January 12, 2010
More Print
headshotJohn Crudele

This'll make you laugh.

Back in November 2003 an economist named Austan Goolsbee from the
University of Chicago wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times
criticizing a Labor Department announcement about job growth the month
before.

And he attacked the idea that the country had just experienced nothing
more than a mild recession.

"Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interest of
both political parties," wrote Goolsbee. "The situation has grown so
dire, though, that we can't tell whether the job market is recovering."

OK, I promised you a laugh. So here it comes.

Goolsbee no longer works at the University of Chicago. He now has a job
at the White House as President Obama's top economic adviser.

So the president and Goolsbee will now have to convince the American
public that the slight statistical improvement in the employment
situation over the past year really is credible -- even if Goolsbee
doesn't believe it.

Laughing yet? Of course not. There's nothing funny about what we went
through either back in 2003 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks or what we
are experiencing now.

As you already know the Labor Department last Friday announced that
another 85,000 jobs disappeared from the economy in December and that
the unemployment rate stayed, unbelievably, at 10 percent.

On one level it was -- to say the least -- a disappointment for the
White House, Wall Street and every American who is out of work or thinks
they might be.

Yet on another level, the negative 85,000 figure was a blessing for
Goolsbee and President Obama.

At least, as they are quick to point out, this job loss wasn't as bad as
the hundreds of thousands per month that were coming earlier this year.

As any regular reader of this column already knows, I take the side that
Prof. Goolsbee took when he was in Chicago -- the government's
employment numbers aren't believable.

I thought it would be interesting today to present a few (not-so) fun
facts about the jobs market.

Fact 1: The next employment report will be worse.

When the Labor Department puts out the January employment figures on
Feb. 4, they will include an assumption that a lot of companies went out
of business.

This is something called the birth/death model that is used by the
department. Last year it caused 356,000 jobs to be subtracted from the
January job count.

So, the next employment figure should be shockingly bad.

Fact 2: The birth/death model will then turn optimistic in the spring,
causing jobs that really don't exist to be added to the Labor
Department's count.

It won't make the people who are unemployed feel any better. But it
could give Wall Street another excuse to rally and, really, isn't that
what it is all about?

Fact 3: Nobody in the media will pick up on this, but the Labor De
partment will also do something called a benchmark revision on Feb. 4
that will subtract around 840,000 jobs that the government thought
existed, but really don't.

This will mostly make up for the mistakes created by the birth/death
model.

Fact 4: That 840,000 job adjustment will only correct errors up to March
2009. Mistakes for the April 2009 to March 2110 period will be corrected
next year.

Fact 5: You keep reading that the unemployment rate stayed at 10
percent. But the press has been playing up the 17.3 percent rate that
includes those "underemployed," meaning they can't find a full-time job
but want one.

I've been mentioning that under-employed figure -- called U-6 by the
Labor Department -- for years and I'm glad everyone else has finally
caught up.

But that larger figure doesn't include a huge number of unemployed folks
who have given up looking for work because they feel the search is
hopeless. Last Friday's report said 661,000 such people left the labor
force in December.

If you count these hopelessly unemployed, the real jobless rate is
probably close to 22 percent. If these all weren't such important
issues, this would all be a big joke.

Read mo
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1bYUoErwY

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1340457/pg1

THE REAL Unemployment rate is 39.2 Percent; Welcome To 2011!!! Thanks
Obama!!!
Tier 1 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 2 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 3 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 4 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 5 needed before people lose it. When people lose all they have they
have nothing else to lose. NO ONE IS HELPING THEM!!! Still not working
since Tier 1 ended!!!

SO WHAT THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU IS THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED
ARE STILL NOT WORKING AND UNEMPLOYED!!!!

SO TAKE 9.8% X 4 = 39.2% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.....ADD THE MILLIONS THAT
WERE LEFT GO AT EACH TIER.....NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE LOSING IT. HOW MANY
PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW OUT OF WORK????? MILLIONS!!!

TIME TO STOP THE LIES!!! NO THE UMEMPLYMENT RATE ISN'T 9.8 IT'S
39.2%!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7bI_PAiCh0w

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:xqudnQvVrPHqbT_TnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthlink. com...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus"
when
the national debt *increased*.

It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html


It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the
right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed
at
a historical low point when Bush took over.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no reflection.


Yeah whatever...

On Oct 23, 6:59*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:20:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

lying war criminal Obama is a hero

Well..perhaps in *your madness. But the vast majority of us are normal
people..so all we can do is shrug our shoulders..smile..and then laugh
at you.

Gunner

your claim to being a normal person is rather bizarre!

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:21:46 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:xqudnQvVrPHqbT_TnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthlink .com...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus"
when
the national debt *increased*.

It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent

False. The debt rose, therefore spending revenue.

--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.

False. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/23...l-debt-by-year

The national debt increased every year. By *no* rational definition, was the
budget balanced during Clinton's term.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no reflection.


Yeah whatever...

Don't go home crying, but you're clueless.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:33:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:51:38 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


GDP, the budget bottom line went from a

deficit of 4.7 percent in 1992 to a surplus


Clinton

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.
In fairness to Mr. C, this wasn't anything he cooked up, that
bookkeeping system had been the same since the 80s. Also, the surplus
topped out and was back into deficit even with the creative bookkeeping
by before GW's first budget.

The reason it was "cooked" was that all of a sudden only part of the budget
mattered. Chest pounding about one column, while ignoring the one next to it
is what was "new". The "national debt" includes the SS "trust fund" - both
the assets *and* the liabilities. Ignoring the liabilities is how they got
morons to believe the "balanced budget" nonsense.

The "deficit" is the first derivative of the "debt". The derivative (deficit)
*CANNOT* be negative while debt is still growing.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:12:43 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

What is U6 unemployment rate ?

Dunno. Haven't checked. 20%? That wasn't my issue, though.

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking
full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts
"marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic
reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed
by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally
attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped
looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation
is 16 years and over

http://blog.readyforzero.com/2011/09...numbers-worse/


http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary...have-not-heard


No problems, so far.

From 2010"

Nevermind Those People NOT Working, They’re Not Unemployed
By: Nathan Aschbacher Wednesday November 3, 2010 12:42 pm

TweetTweet
digg stumbleupon

Look at all that gridlock!

Don’t worry. You’re not alone.

There’s stalwart refusal by the media and blogosphere to abandon
reporting U3 as the measure of unemployment in the United States. I
expect this from the mainstream media, but I can’t figure out why
bloggers clutch to such a dubious standard.

OK.

U3 doesn’t account for all the people who’ve been out of work so long
that they’ve given up looking, those who are working temp jobs because
there’s no other work, those people who are working part-time or reduced
hours even though they can and will work a full-time job. If you want
to get a picture of how depressed and stagnant the U.S. labor force is,
then it becomes pretty clear how pointless parroting U3, the “official”
unemployment rate, really is. The list of official caveats about what
it doesn’t measure should be enough for any thinking person to reject it
as a useful statistic entirely, but here we are still using it.

OK, but this is exactly my point. The U3 doesn't measure only those
collecting "unemployment insurance", as you stated. It measures those without
jobs (on UI, or not) who are seeking employment. The "99 weeks" (or whatever)
is meaningless, here.

The Department of Labor actually publishes a more suitable measurement.
U6. This measurement contains:

DoL publishes a U1, U2, U4, and U5, too.

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

It’s pretty easy to think of scenarios where even that isn’t a thorough
indicator for unemployment. Consider that there’s no accounting for the
quality of the job compared to a person’s education, training, or
experience. You could be a senior software architect with 15 years
experience, but working full-time flipping burgers, and you wouldn’t be
counted in U6 either. However, U6 is the broadest measurement that the
officialdom of the Department of Labor provides, and even in its
short-comings it’s still a vastly more relevant and accurate depiction
of unemployment in the United States than is the complete fiction
embodied by U3 that we constantly hear as the “unemployment rate.”

We don’t seem to have this problem in a lot of other areas. They’re
not, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” they’re torture. They’re not
,”isolated incidents of detainee abuse,” they’re a systemic regime of
abuses. They’re not, “the worst of the worst,” they’re overwhelmingly
innocent people detained without sufficient evidence to even charge them
with the weakest of crimes.

Unemployment isn’t, “9.6%,” it’s 17.1%

17.1%. That’s as close as our standard measurements get us to a real
picture of what the unemployment rate is, so let’s start using it. All
the people who can’t find work, can’t get enough work, have given up
entirely because they’ve been out so long, and those who have had to
slide way back down the ladder to find a job at all; they’re all
deserving of being included in “unemployment,” so include them.

Except that historically the U3 has been used for these "reports". The higher
number is not all that valuable as a comparison without a historical
comparison.

On 2011-10-22, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:21:51 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?


Not at all.

President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I
hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff
(which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).

One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.

Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it
would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit
unsold and taking room.

i

In article ,
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote:



It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.


The ONLY surplus was because of the extra SS money coming in and it
was counted as income. Despite the fact it was already (allegedly) spent
on (future) SS payments. It would not have eliminated the debt
altogether because it would have eventually be paid back to SS fund.
Even under these terms, the surplus had peaked in FY 2000 (starting in
October of 1999) and was gone by FY 2002 (starting October 2001 and was
the first Bush budget.) So the trajectory was already downward (and thus
not able to eliminate anything) before the election.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:35 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:


I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?


Not at all.

President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I
hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff
(which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).

One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.

Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it
would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit
unsold and taking room.

i

So Iggy..you came over before or after the fall of the USSR?

What...Stalin didnt inspire confidence in the Soviets?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 2011-10-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:35 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:


I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?


Not at all.

President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I
hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff
(which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).

One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.

Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it
would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit
unsold and taking room.

i

So Iggy..you came over before or after the fall of the USSR?

3 years after.

What...Stalin didnt inspire confidence in the Soviets?

Trading industrial surplus would not go well there under Stalin.

i

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:21:46 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:xqudnQvVrPHqbT_TnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthlin k.com...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in
by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and
counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today,
technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus"
when
the national debt *increased*.

It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent

False. The debt rose, therefore spending revenue.


Bull****.

I provided you with several links showing that revenue was indeed outpacing
spending at that period in time.

Here they are again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html

Have fun explaining why the line goes downward...

--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.

False. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/23...l-debt-by-year

The national debt increased every year. By *no* rational definition, was
the
budget balanced during Clinton's term.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no
reflection.


Yeah whatever...

Don't go home crying, but you're clueless.

Again, whatever...

--the closest we've come to balancing the debt in ~three decades was under
Clinton and things have only gotten worse from that point forward mostly due
to right wing ****wits and their two unfunded wars.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:59:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:20:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

lying war criminal Obama is a hero

Well..perhaps in your madness. But the vast majority of us are normal
people..so all we can do is shrug our shoulders..smile..and then laugh
at you.


Gunner
You are not a normal person Gumby. The vast majority are not
rightwing dings like you. Obama had been cleaning up your winger crap
and now has ended a war started over lies and war crimes in record
time. A decade of killing is over and our troops will be home for the
holidays thanks to Barry while Bush cowers in hiding snorting coke up
his nose. You are one pathetic fool little man.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:57:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:26:05 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:10:39 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:51:38 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


GDP, the budget bottom line went from a

deficit of 4.7 percent in 1992 to a surplus


Clinton

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.

There was a Projected surplus..but when the dot com implosion hit...it
vanished.

Now he did have a Smaller debt..but it was still a debt.

It should also be noted..he had a Republican Congress to help.

Gunner

"Everyone knows Clinton did what no republican could ever do. Bush
squandered everything and turned the economy upside down. Clinton
created jobs and Bush lost everything. You can fool yourself but you
will never be able to change the facts. Clinton is still the
"President of the World" and Bush will always be a hated war criminal."

Must really suck to be me.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread..there was no surplus.
Only a forecast of one that never turned out, Alien.

As your paragraph shows your derangement in full bloom..the last line
really points out your issues.

Have you considered suicide to spare your family any further
embaressment?

Id strongly suggest it.

Gunner

You are one stupid wing tard there Gumby. The Clinton years was the
last of prosperity for a long while thanks to your heroes on the
right. Creating jobs and revenue is what balances the budget and pays
the bills not killing them and getting our troops killed for nothing
like was done under your administration's control. There is nothing
inaccurate about my last paragraph. This is your comeback? Stating
that other people have posted things but you are unable to post
anything yourself? You are clearly a retard but we have known that
for years of your rambling and melt downs Gumby.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:00:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:28:05 -0400, Alien Duck
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:10:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:21:51 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner


i

On 2011-10-22, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39?pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

Gunner

Talk is cheap like you but you have nothing to backup your lies like
every other winger. No facts. NOTHING.

So Alien Duck doesnt see cites? His insanity is farther along than Id
thought.

You have no cites that are meaningful. Simply wingnutery.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:10*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner

No it wouldn't, not even close. "Destruction of American
Manufacturing" started with a vengence under the Reagan mis-
admistration when many of the regulations relating to off shoring were
loosened, same with many of the financial regulations started after
the '29 crash as an attempt to prevent it happening again.Regan got
the ball rolling, Clinton didn't do much to slow it,and GWB added to
momentum ,guess where we are today?


Exactly. But Gummer won't reply. He never does to something he can't
disprove. Poor Gumby lost it a long time ago.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:19:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1340457/pg1

THE REAL Unemployment rate is 39.2 Percent; Welcome To 2011!!! Thanks
Obama!!!
Tier 1 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 2 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 3 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 4 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 5 needed before people lose it. When people lose all they have they
have nothing else to lose. NO ONE IS HELPING THEM!!! Still not working
since Tier 1 ended!!!

SO WHAT THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU IS THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED
ARE STILL NOT WORKING AND UNEMPLOYED!!!!

SO TAKE 9.8% X 4 = 39.2% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.....ADD THE MILLIONS THAT
WERE LEFT GO AT EACH TIER.....NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE LOSING IT. HOW MANY
PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW OUT OF WORK????? MILLIONS!!!

TIME TO STOP THE LIES!!! NO THE UMEMPLYMENT RATE ISN'T 9.8 IT'S
39.2%!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7bI_PAiCh0w


This sums it all up.

http://cons-lie.com/2010/01/26/why-republicans-suck/

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:25:26 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

On 2011-10-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:35 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:


I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?


Not at all.

President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I
hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff
(which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).

One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.

Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it
would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit
unsold and taking room.

i

So Iggy..you came over before or after the fall of the USSR?

3 years after.

So you didnt learn anything from the time before the Fall?

What...Stalin didnt inspire confidence in the Soviets?

Trading industrial surplus would not go well there under Stalin.

Keep that in mind when it comes time to vote in 2012. The Obamassiah
will become another Stalin if he wins the election. A Marxist who wont
be able to run again...is a dangerous person.

That Abizyana is a blatnoy chorn and will **** all of us over. And we
will all go down the toilet. Mi v polnom gavnie !

Just a heads up.



i

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:06:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:25:26 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

On 2011-10-23, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:35 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:


I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?


Not at all.

President Obama inspires confidence in me, and because of that, I
hired two unemployed guys to clean my dirty industrial surplus stuff
(which is now clean industrial surplus stuff).

One of them already worked more than 20 hours this week for me.

Posturing aside, I am very happy, they cleaned that stuff very, it
would take me a long time to do it alone, and the stuff would sit
unsold and taking room.

i

So Iggy..you came over before or after the fall of the USSR?

3 years after.

So you didnt learn anything from the time before the Fall?

What...Stalin didnt inspire confidence in the Soviets?

Trading industrial surplus would not go well there under Stalin.

Keep that in mind when it comes time to vote in 2012. The Obamassiah
will become another Stalin if he wins the election. A Marxist who wont
be able to run again...is a dangerous person.

That Abizyana is a blatnoy chorn and will **** all of us over. And we
will all go down the toilet. Mi v polnom gavnie !

Just a heads up.


Whahaha..What a moron. The only dangerous people are the ones that go
free after starting wars based on lies that kill his own troops and
can't stop what he started. Run the country into a ditch and admit he
is no longer concerned about a terrorist that attacked America killing
almost as many Americans as he has.

Still looking for those WMD Gumby?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:52:03 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:59:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:20:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

lying war criminal Obama is a hero

Well..perhaps in your madness. But the vast majority of us are normal
people..so all we can do is shrug our shoulders..smile..and then laugh
at you.


Gunner
You are not a normal person Gumby. The vast majority are not
rightwing dings like you. Obama had been cleaning up your winger crap
and now has ended a war started over lies and war crimes in record
time. A decade of killing is over and our troops will be home for the
holidays thanks to Barry while Bush cowers in hiding snorting coke up
his nose. You are one pathetic fool little man.

Ended a war..which one? Afghanistan? Libya? Syria?.... Laugh laugh laugh

War crimes in record time...hell yes. That would be a Democrat who
committed war crimes. Obama in fact.. Bush cowers in hiding? Laugh
laugh laugh.....he isnt the president anymore. That ****tard your
Obamassiah is..and he killed more Americans in the Middle East than Bush
did.

Speaking of which..Bush visited the troops at Walter Reed at least 12
times

Your obamassiah ...3 times and only once did he spend time with the
wounded. The rest of the time..the miserable ******* used it as a speech
platform.

You are a waste of Skin, Alien Duck..a waste of skin.

Fortunately you will be dead in about a year..so it works for me.

Gunner

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:07:56 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


Have you considered suicide to spare your family any further
embaressment?

Id strongly suggest it.

Gunner

You are one stupid wing tard there Gumby. The Clinton years was the
last of prosperity


The Clinton years were prosperous? In what way? The collapse of the Dot
Com market? Bill Clinton was the main cause of the 08 recession and the
economic collapse. He did away with Glass Steagall Act that seperated
commercial banks from Wall Street speculatiors and he also did away with
rules that would have prevented the selling of dangerous derivitives
that were under funded, some case no funding. He cause the conditions
that created the lax Securities and Exchange oversight of Wall Street
and the 5 major lending institutions. He is responsible for AIG and
others not having sufficient funds to cover their losses if they bet
wrong.
Even though it did not happen on his watch he set the wheels in motion
and created the conditions for the near future economic collapse. He is
responsible for the FDIC no being funded now also or allowing them not
to collect the fees from the bank to keep FDIC fully funded. Others have
not reversed some of his dumb decisions but he set the wheels in motion.

The old Roosevelt Acts and Regulations that seperated commercial banks
and Wall Street were done away with by Bill Clinton. All the regulations
that required sufficient funds to cover losses were done away with by
Bill Clinton. The type of dangerous derivitives sold that caused the
econmic collapse could not have been sold before 1999-2000 when
Clinton's deregulation took effect.

Don't blame George Bush or the Republicans totally for the 08 recession
or the future economic collapse. Go back and look at the man that did
away with the Acts and Regultions put in place to prevent another 1929
style depression.

Clinton, the democratic darling is the one that sold out the working and
middle class.

So stick THAT in your pipe and stuff it up your ponderous ass, you
mentally sick twisted spot of cum

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:09:06 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:00:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:28:05 -0400, Alien Duck
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:10:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 10:21:51 -0500, Ignoramus10872
wrote:

I am creating jobs today, thanks to President Obama.

I have two unemployed guys working for me today, cleaning stuff for
sale.

So they are part of the U6 numbers. Less than 20 hrs a week.

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner


i

On 2011-10-22, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39?pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

Gunner

Talk is cheap like you but you have nothing to backup your lies like
every other winger. No facts. NOTHING.

So Alien Duck doesnt see cites? His insanity is farther along than Id
thought.

You have no cites that are meaningful. Simply wingnutery.

Alien Duck is once again in denial...

VBG

Its FUN watching you spasm

Gunner

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:11:23 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:10*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner

No it wouldn't, not even close. "Destruction of American
Manufacturing" started with a vengence under the Reagan mis-
admistration when many of the regulations relating to off shoring were
loosened, same with many of the financial regulations started after
the '29 crash as an attempt to prevent it happening again.Regan got
the ball rolling, Clinton didn't do much to slow it,and GWB added to
momentum ,guess where we are today?

We are in the toilet after the Obamassiah took office. What would have
been a small "normal" recession turned into the Great Depression 2.

Just like that fat rat ******* FDR did.


Exactly. But Gummer won't reply. He never does to something he can't
disprove. Poor Gumby lost it a long time ago.

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:20:29 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:19:18 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:30 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:52:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:41:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, Allen Drake wrote:
lost millions
of jobs. Obama has created millions.


If Obama has created millions of jobs, explain how the unemployment is
close to 10%. As far as I know, Obama has at best kept a lot of
government jobs going for another year, but those jobs will be lost
eventually. You are welcome to cite studies that prove Obama has
created jobs.


Dan

Actually...unemployment is actually up around 24-27%

The 9.x% number is simply those that are Currently on unemployment
insurance. This does NOT count those that have exhaused their 99 weeks,
or are working less than 20 hours a week

Not true. The "unemployment" number has nothing to do with the number of
people on UI. It's a completely separate set of numbers.

The U3 vrs U6 numbers.

Neither. U3 is the classical "unemployment number". U6 is basically the
number of "underemployed"; those not working 40 hours, who wish to. The exact
definitions are easily found with a web search.

So the Obamassiah has done exactly dick with the economy..and in
fact...has caused at least 10% higher unemployment..and more than
likely...17% or more unemployment.

So Mr Drake is lying through his teeth. But then...he IS a
leftwinger..so its to be expected.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...age1340457/pg1

THE REAL Unemployment rate is 39.2 Percent; Welcome To 2011!!! Thanks
Obama!!!
Tier 1 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 2 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 3 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 4 they said it was 9.8% unemployed 99 weeks your done.

Tier 5 needed before people lose it. When people lose all they have they
have nothing else to lose. NO ONE IS HELPING THEM!!! Still not working
since Tier 1 ended!!!

SO WHAT THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU IS THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COLLECTED
ARE STILL NOT WORKING AND UNEMPLOYED!!!!

SO TAKE 9.8% X 4 = 39.2% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.....ADD THE MILLIONS THAT
WERE LEFT GO AT EACH TIER.....NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE LOSING IT. HOW MANY
PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW OUT OF WORK????? MILLIONS!!!

TIME TO STOP THE LIES!!! NO THE UMEMPLYMENT RATE ISN'T 9.8 IT'S
39.2%!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7bI_PAiCh0w


This sums it all up.

http://cons-lie.com/2010/01/26/why-republicans-suck/

ABC, CBS, CNN, Al Gore, Dan Rather, U.S.State Department, A.T.F, E.P.A.,
U.S.Senate. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are all target rich sources for
left wing nut jobs.

On Oct 23, 4:20*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:07:56 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:



Have you considered suicide to spare your family any further
embaressment?

Id strongly suggest it.

Gunner

You are one stupid wing tard there Gumby. The Clinton years was the
last of prosperity

The Clinton years were prosperous? In what way? The collapse of the Dot
Com market? *Bill Clinton was the main cause of the 08 recession and the
economic collapse. He did away with Glass Steagall Act that seperated
commercial banks from Wall Street speculatiors and he also did away with
rules that would have prevented the selling of dangerous derivitives
that were under funded, some case no funding. He cause the conditions
that created the lax Securities and Exchange oversight of Wall Street
and the 5 major lending institutions. He is responsible for AIG and
others not having sufficient funds to cover their losses if they bet
wrong.
Even though it did not happen on his watch he set the wheels in motion
and created the conditions for the near future economic collapse. He is
responsible for the FDIC no being funded now also or allowing them not
to collect the fees from the bank to keep FDIC fully funded. Others have
not reversed some of his dumb decisions but he set the wheels in motion.

The old Roosevelt Acts and Regulations that seperated commercial banks
and Wall Street were done away with by Bill Clinton. All the regulations
that required sufficient funds to cover losses were done away with by
Bill Clinton. The type of dangerous derivitives sold that caused the
econmic collapse could not have been sold before 1999-2000 when
Clinton's deregulation took effect.

Don't blame George Bush or the Republicans totally for the 08 recession
or the future economic collapse. Go back and look at the man that did
away with the Acts and Regultions put in place to prevent another 1929
style depression.

Clinton, the democratic darling is the one that sold out the working and
middle class.

So stick THAT in your pipe and stuff it up your ponderous ass, you
mentally sick twisted spot of cum

I thought you were against government regulations, things like Glass
Steagall that interfered with the free market,and increased profit,
and I thought you were seriously against the FDR regulations that put
some brakes on the run away speculations that contributed to the '29
crash,and gave some protections to those who are not "the job
creators"., now it seems that you are for government regulations,make
up your mind.
Glass Steagall repeal may have been signed by clintion but it was
mainly a Republican effort to get it passed,and done piece meal
starting in earnest under Reagan - remember the Savings and Loan
crash.
..and before you go ranting yes I know many Democrats also voted for
it. One thing you seem to be selective about is despite your rants the
President in not an absolute power and the D's did not have to votes
to reject the repeal .

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:17:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:52:03 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:59:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:20:58 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

lying war criminal Obama is a hero

Well..perhaps in your madness. But the vast majority of us are normal
people..so all we can do is shrug our shoulders..smile..and then laugh
at you.


Gunner
You are not a normal person Gumby. The vast majority are not
rightwing dings like you. Obama had been cleaning up your winger crap
and now has ended a war started over lies and war crimes in record
time. A decade of killing is over and our troops will be home for the
holidays thanks to Barry while Bush cowers in hiding snorting coke up
his nose. You are one pathetic fool little man.

Ended a war..which one? Afghanistan? Libya? Syria?.... Laugh laugh laugh

Do you live in a cave Gumby? You know right well that Obama has
called the troops home from the war started over lies by your heroes
on the right.


War crimes in record time...hell yes. That would be a Democrat who
committed war crimes. Obama in fact.. Bush cowers in hiding? Laugh
laugh laugh.....he isnt the president anymore. That ****tard your
Obamassiah is..and he killed more Americans in the Middle East than Bush
did.


Obama commited no crimes and ridded the world of terrorists that
killed American. Your insanity is so noted yet once again.

Speaking of which..Bush visited the troops at Walter Reed at least 12
times

Your obamassiah ...3 times and only once did he spend time with the
wounded. The rest of the time..the miserable ******* used it as a speech
platform.

You are a waste of Skin, Alien Duck..a waste of skin.

Fortunately you will be dead in about a year..so it works for me.

There you go again with you insane rants. I do enjoy yet another
meltdown.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:25:30 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:21:46 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:xqudnQvVrPHqbT_TnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthli nk.com...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in
by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and
counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today,
technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus"
when
the national debt *increased*.

It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent

False. The debt rose, therefore spending revenue.


Bull****.

Stop lying.

I provided you with several links showing that revenue was indeed outpacing
spending at that period in time.

Here they are again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html

Have fun explaining why the line goes downward...

You lie. The debt did *NOT* go down.

--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.

False. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/23...l-debt-by-year

No comment? I suppose not.

The national debt increased every year. By *no* rational definition, was
the
budget balanced during Clinton's term.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no
reflection.


Yeah whatever...

Don't go home crying, but you're clueless.

Again, whatever...

Don't get so caught up in your lies. You'll start believing them.

--the closest we've come to balancing the debt in ~three decades was under
Clinton and things have only gotten worse from that point forward mostly due
to right wing ****wits and their two unfunded wars.

....and the goalpost move. Lie admitted. QED.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:20:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:07:56 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:


Have you considered suicide to spare your family any further
embaressment?

Id strongly suggest it.

Gunner

You are one stupid wing tard there Gumby. The Clinton years was the
last of prosperity


The Clinton years were prosperous? In what way? The collapse of the Dot
Com market? Bill Clinton was the main cause of the 08 recession and the
economic collapse. He did away with Glass Steagall Act that seperated
commercial banks from Wall Street speculatiors and he also did away with
rules that would have prevented the selling of dangerous derivitives
that were under funded, some case no funding. He cause the conditions
that created the lax Securities and Exchange oversight of Wall Street
and the 5 major lending institutions. He is responsible for AIG and
others not having sufficient funds to cover their losses if they bet
wrong.
Even though it did not happen on his watch he set the wheels in motion
and created the conditions for the near future economic collapse. He is
responsible for the FDIC no being funded now also or allowing them not
to collect the fees from the bank to keep FDIC fully funded. Others have
not reversed some of his dumb decisions but he set the wheels in motion.

The old Roosevelt Acts and Regulations that seperated commercial banks
and Wall Street were done away with by Bill Clinton. All the regulations
that required sufficient funds to cover losses were done away with by
Bill Clinton. The type of dangerous derivitives sold that caused the
econmic collapse could not have been sold before 1999-2000 when
Clinton's deregulation took effect.

And yet the crumble happened because if the right. If they were so
concerned then why didn't they do something when they had complete
control of the government? Because they are totally inept an
unqualified to run anything.

Face the real facts that you can't weasel away from Gumby. The right
drove the country into a ditch and caused the biggest recession in
modern times.

Where are the jobs winger? All that could be heard in the lead up to
the mid terms was that lame cry. Now I am asking you the same thing
now that the right has the house.

Where are the jobs?


Don't blame George Bush or the Republicans totally for the 08 recession

not totally, just about 99%.

or the future economic collapse. Go back and look at the man that did
away with the Acts and Regultions put in place to prevent another 1929
style depression.

Clinton, the democratic darling is the one that sold out the working and
middle class.

Bush sold out America and got over 4 thousand troops killed, lost
millions of jobs and left the economy in shambles.


So stick THAT in your pipe and stuff it up your ponderous ass, you
mentally sick twisted spot of cum

You are the one that is smoking something Gumby.

Obama will get re-elected and fix even more of the failures of the
right.

Obama:

Killed Bin Laden-Quadaffi-countless other terrorists that Bush
created and ended the war of lies.

Bush-the lowest IQ of any leader-drunk drug addled moron that can't
even speak English.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to
the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6,
2006

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the
Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as
quoted by Robertson

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones
who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, D.C.,
July 12, 2007


"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --Saginaw,
Mich., Sept. 29, 2000


They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

I am sure you fully understand the total stupidity of Bush. You are
equally a dumb **** Gumby.

Whahahahahaha...................

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:23:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:11:23 -0400, Allen Drake
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Just Me
wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:10*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

And they were hired as a result of Obamas (and Democrats) destruction of
American Manufacturing.

Would that be a fair statement?

Gunner

No it wouldn't, not even close. "Destruction of American
Manufacturing" started with a vengence under the Reagan mis-
admistration when many of the regulations relating to off shoring were
loosened, same with many of the financial regulations started after
the '29 crash as an attempt to prevent it happening again.Regan got
the ball rolling, Clinton didn't do much to slow it,and GWB added to
momentum ,guess where we are today?

We are in the toilet after the Obamassiah took office. What would have
been a small "normal" recession turned into the Great Depression 2.

Just like that fat rat ******* FDR did.


Exactly. But Gummer won't reply. He never does to something he can't
disprove. Poor Gumby lost it a long time ago.

More denial from the mentally twisted Alien Duck

Where are the jobs winger? Where are the jobs?