Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% after four years with his economic plan...

Rob Roy · Oct 7, 2014

reasonevangelist said:
If someone has 2x part-time minimum wage jobs...

Doesn't that make them 200% employed? Might skew the graphs a bit i think.

Interesting point you've made.

But wait there's even more....

People that are employed via parasitism (government forced redistribution of wealth) also skew the reality.
Their "employment" is actually a minus, since the way they are paid is not by creating value for value in a free exchange type market. They siphon off the fruit of the productivity of the producers.

So for the numbers to be put into any kind of a proper perspective, the dead weight of the parasites should be removed from the equation before formulating the employment / unemployment numbers.

In other words compiling government jobs and private sector jobs in the SAME AGGREGATE is mixing opposites and then taking the phony numbers as if they were providing real information......

There are real jobs and there are government jobs. Government jobs are not "real jobs" when measuring health of a productive economy , they are the incoming water in the leaky canoe. Bailing is not a great solution, patching the canoe is better.

jahbrudda · Oct 7, 2014

Obama's recovery is nothing but smoke and mirrors propped up by the feds dumping billions into the economy. Say what you will about Reagan but his economic recovery blew the doors off of Obama's

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
that's due to bush's recession.

with more people looking for work due to bush's recession, that allows employers to offer lower wages.

aren't we up to 54 straight months of job creation?

stock market at an all time high?

home values rising?

2006 was not a recession, best year in the US economy ever at that time.

54 straight months of people leaving the workforce, Bucky, that's what the graph from the BLS shows.

Stock market is not at an all time high, you don't own any stocks anyway, neither do 90% of the plebs.

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Interesting point you've made.

But wait there's even more....

People that are employed via parasitism (government forced redistribution of wealth) also skew the reality.
Their "employment" is actually a minus, since the way they are paid is not by creating value for value in a free exchange type market. They siphon off the fruit of the productivity of the producers.

We call that Rentier skimming. Similar to the Roman tribute system.

jahbrudda · Oct 7, 2014

NoDrama said:
2006 was not a recession, best year in the US economy ever at that time.

54 straight months of people leaving the workforce, Bucky, that's what the graph from the BLS shows.

Stock market is not at an all time high, you don't own any stocks anyway, neither do 90% of the plebs.

Funny that the same idiots on the left who demonize Wall St and the 1%, want to use them when they think it benefits their messiah. bongsmilie

reasonevangelist · Oct 7, 2014

Let's ask: what does "more jobs" actually mean? And, why do we need "more jobs?" I think we actually need Less jobs, and more profit. Less resources spent per gains received.

The whole thing is a massive scheme to make the most money (or rather, "gains") for the wealthiest people, while everyone else stays confused and struggling to even survive.

"They" want everyone to maximally contribute, but minimally gain, so that "they" can lay claim to the difference, thus ensuring their wealth, "power structures," and systems engineered for these purposes. This is another reason they don't like cannabis: for whatever reasons, by whatever methods, it causes quite a lot of people to realize they're being exploited, and to "see through the bullshit," which results in an unwillingness to comply... which reduces the profits of "they," while destabilizing their schemes, and potentially compromising their ability to maintain their own wealth and status, which has been strategically siphoned from the contributions of the majority.

Rob Roy said:
Interesting point you've made.

But wait there's even more....

People that are employed via parasitism (government forced redistribution of wealth) also skew the reality.
Their "employment" is actually a minus, since the way they are paid is not by creating value for value in a free exchange type market. They siphon off the fruit of the productivity of the producers.

So for the numbers to be put into any kind of a proper perspective, the dead weight of the parasites should be removed from the equation before formulating the employment / unemployment numbers.

In other words compiling government jobs and private sector jobs in the SAME AGGREGATE is mixing opposites and then taking the phony numbers as if they were providing real information......

There are real jobs and there are government jobs. Government jobs are not "real jobs" when measuring health of a productive economy , they are the incoming water in the leaky canoe. Bailing is not a great solution, patching the canoe is better.

...such as IRS jobs, DEA jobs, NIDA jobs, ONDCP jobs, etc., which are paid for by taxes taken under duress (thanks IRS), and given to organizations which do unacceptable things that almost no one wants to pay for... but they try to take away that choice, by threatening violence and asset seizure for anyone who won't "voluntarily" (under duress) surrender a portion of their own gains.

Rob Roy · Oct 7, 2014

NoDrama said:
We call that Rentier skimming. Similar to the Roman tribute system.

The quantification of two dissimilar entities into the same sum can lead to bad information. Bad information popularized then becomes "normal". Once normalized it is ready for constant regurgitation by the propagandists and word smiths. Then it "trickles down" to the useful idiots to bleat and pass off as knowledge.

In other words, time for a fat joint, some bemused head shaking and digging potatoes.

Rob Roy · Oct 7, 2014

reasonevangelist said:
Let's ask: what does "more jobs" actually mean? And, why do we need "more jobs?" I think we actually need Less jobs, and more profit. Less resources spent per gains received.

The whole thing is a massive scheme to make the most money (or rather, "gains") for the wealthiest people, while everyone else stays confused and struggling to even survive.

"They" want everyone to maximally contribute, but minimally gain, so that "they" can lay claim to the difference, thus ensuring their wealth, "power structures," and systems engineered for these purposes. This is another reason they don't like cannabis: for whatever reasons, by whatever methods, it causes quite a lot of people to realize they're being exploited, and to "see through the bullshit," which results in an unwillingness to comply... which reduces the profits of "they," while destabilizing their schemes, and potentially compromising their ability to maintain their own wealth and status, which has been strategically siphoned from the contributions of the majority.

...such as IRS jobs, DEA jobs, NIDA jobs, ONDCP jobs, etc., which are paid for by taxes taken under duress (thanks IRS), and given to organizations which do unacceptable things that almost no one wants to pay for... but they try to take away that choice, by threatening violence and asset seizure for anyone who won't "voluntarily" (under duress) surrender a portion of their own gains.

Those who determine what the questions are control the conversation. Question the question.

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2014

Rob Roy said:
The quantification of two dissimilar entities into the same sum can lead to bad information. Bad information popularized then becomes "normal". Once normalized it is ready for constant regurgitation by the propagandists and word smiths. Then it "trickles down" to the useful idiots to bleat and pass off as knowledge.

Sounds like CNBC to me.

UncleBuck · Oct 7, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Obama's recovery is nothing but smoke and mirrors propped up by the feds dumping billions into the economy. Say what you will about Reagan but his economic recovery blew the doors off of Obama's

another completely unsourced, uncited, unattributed graph from the same guy who has been caught citing holocaust deniers and white supremacists.

nice try, washere.

Red1966 · Oct 7, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Interesting point you've made.

But wait there's even more....

People that are employed via parasitism (government forced redistribution of wealth) also skew the reality.
Their "employment" is actually a minus, since the way they are paid is not by creating value for value in a free exchange type market. They siphon off the fruit of the productivity of the producers.

So for the numbers to be put into any kind of a proper perspective, the dead weight of the parasites should be removed from the equation before formulating the employment / unemployment numbers.

In other words compiling government jobs and private sector jobs in the SAME AGGREGATE is mixing opposites and then taking the phony numbers as if they were providing real information......

There are real jobs and there are government jobs. Government jobs are not "real jobs" when measuring health of a productive economy , they are the incoming water in the leaky canoe. Bailing is not a great solution, patching the canoe is better.

Screw you. I have a government job. I earn my money.

UncleBuck · Oct 7, 2014

NoDrama said:
2006 was not a recession, best year in the US economy ever at that time.

i never said 2006 was a recession, you lying jackass.

the reason why the poverty rate was higher in 2012 than 2006 is because of the massive recession that bush gave us in between.

but of course you knew that.

go collect some welfare checks now, plagiarist.

NoDrama said:
54 straight months of people leaving the workforce, Bucky, that's what the graph from the BLS shows.

back to that same olf conspiracy that obama made the baby boomers be born after WWII that way they would turn retirement age while he was in office, eh?

that's a really cool conspiracy you got there.

lots of kids born right after WWII? THANKS, OBAMA.

NoDrama said:
Stock market is not at an all time high

yes it is.

NoDrama said:
you don't own any stocks anyway

yes i do.

NoDrama said:
neither do 90% of the plebs.

try more than 50% of americans own stocks, you lying piece of shit.

jahbrudda · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
another completely unsourced, uncited, unattributed graph from the same guy who has been caught citing holocaust deniers and white supremacists.

nice try, washere.

are you still butthurt because I mentioned your wife being plus size?
I have a friend who also likes bbw, nothing to be ashamed about, big beautiful women need loving too. :mrgreen:

UncleBuck · Oct 7, 2014

jahbrudda said:
are you still butthurt because I mentioned your wife being plus size?
I have a friend who also likes bbw, nothing to be ashamed about, big beautiful women need loving too.

would have thought you would have at least tried to add some credibility to your unsourced graph.

still not gonna address your previous citations of holocaust deniers and white supremacists, beenthere?

jahbrudda · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
would have thought you would have at least tried to add some credibility to your unsourced graph.

still not gonna address your previous citations of holocaust deniers and white supremacists, beenthere?

Why do you keep running away from the fact your wife is a big woman, are you ashamed?

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
back to that same olf conspiracy that obama made the baby boomers be born after WWII that way they would turn retirement age while he was in office, eh?

That is an outright 100% lie, and you know its a lie.

Retired people aren't part of the workforce statistic dummy, how many times you gonna play ignorant? The workforce statistic only counts people physically able and willing to work, it doesn't count retired people, dummy. If every baby boomer retired tomorrow, nothing in that graph would change one bit.

Now that I have corrected you on this for the umpteenth time, perhaps you will remember it and stop spouting off lies.
As for the rest of your post, you weren't able to get the first part right, so doubtful a longtime racist like yourself and longtime Stormfront member would get anything right at all.

Harrekin · Oct 7, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Why do you keep running away from the fact your wife is a big woman, are you ashamed?

If I was on my PC now, I've an awesome photoshop idea involving a walrus, Buck and a Burberry hat...

UncleBuck · Oct 7, 2014

NoDrama said:
That is an outright 100% lie, and you know its a lie.

Retired people aren't part of the workforce statistic dummy, how many times you gonna play ignorant? The workforce statistic only counts people physically able and willing to work, it doesn't count retired people, dummy. If every baby boomer retired tomorrow, nothing in that graph would change one bit.

Now that I have corrected you on this for the umpteenth time, perhaps you will remember it and stop spouting off lies.
As for the rest of your post, you weren't able to get the first part right, so doubtful a longtime racist like yourself and longtime Stormfront member would get anything right at all.

that's a fancy little catch 22 you're trying to pull there, welfare farmer.

baby boomers keep retiring, and so you point to the fact that there are less people in the workforce. hence the quote from you:

Explain how we can have 300+ million people in the US, but only 120 million people working full time?

then you say i can't use the very people dropping out of the workforce due to retirement to explain why.

you'd be dangerous if you weren't actually so dumb.

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
that's a fancy little catch 22 you're trying to pull there, welfare farmer.

baby boomers keep retiring, and so you point to the fact that there are less people in the workforce. hence the quote from you:

Explain how we can have 300+ million people in the US, but only 120 million people working full time?

then you say i can't use the very people dropping out of the workforce due to retirement to explain why.

you'd be dangerous if you weren't actually so dumb.

I see, so now you are answering a question that you didn't quote, instead of the one you did. Gosh that sure is convenient.

The reason there are less people in the workforce has NOTHING to do with baby boomers retiring. It has to do with people not getting a job. The graph From the BLS tells us that.

Your vaunted gain of 280,000 jobs or whatever the lie was last firday, was BS, it was 99% all to people 55-69 years of age, all part time and all shit wages. Zero manufacturing jobs. Pitiful.

Go back to Stormfront.

reasonevangelist · Oct 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
that's a fancy little catch 22 you're trying to pull there, welfare farmer.

baby boomers keep retiring, and so you point to the fact that there are less people in the workforce. hence the quote from you:

Explain how we can have 300+ million people in the US, but only 120 million people working full time?

then you say i can't use the very people dropping out of the workforce due to retirement to explain why.

you'd be dangerous if you weren't actually so dumb.

i doubt the retirement rate is exceeding the birth rate.

but here:
1) new people (all)
2) old people (some)
3) broken people (some)
4) disenfranchised people (some)
5) ostracized people (some)
6) the ultra-wealthy (most)
7) uncounted people (???)

part-time people (?)
9) "institutionalized" people (??)

That's nine groups of people who aren't counted as "in the (full time) workforce."

There are more groups, but there is also some overlap between some of those groups.

Not sure where employed illegal immigrants fit into this...

edit: looking for the "turn off smilies" button... lol.

Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% after four years with his economic plan...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member