Re: It's all falling apart, isn't it?
wis...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>It's all falling apart, isn't it?
>I've been taking a look at the big picture again lately and forgive me
>if I speak the obvious but, it's all falling apart. America. It's
>falling apart.
>
>We have Ivy League Schools whose graduates are dumber than sand. Need
>proof? Look at the financial debacle. These Ivy League Bankers, Brokers
>and Money Managers were too friggin stupid to figure out they were
>running themselves into bankruptcy!
>
>Many of today's American businessmen who aren't outright stupid, are
>turning out to be sociopaths; brazenly robbing, defrauding and scamming
>anyone they can. Take the head of AIG for example; such a schemer that
>he wrecked his company by intentionally doing business in such a way as
>to make bigger bonuses for himself. Same thing with the top guys in
>Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
>These guys ran their companies right into Bankruptcy just to enrich
>themselves.
>
>American public school kids are graduating high schools and even
>colleges so dumb that most of them cannot find their own home states on
>an unlabeled map! A whole slew of them can't do basic calculus and their
>ability to spell or think critically is virtually non-existent.
>
>We have a government that is spending so much money there isn't enough
>on the entire planet to lend to them, so they have to print their own
>just to keep pace. That can't last much longer.
>
>We have millions of diseased, uneducated illegal aliens in the country
>who have brought with them their filthy, third-world cultures. These
>pieces of human filth have caused resurgence in diseases like polio,
>long cured from this land!
>
>We treat homosexuals like they're some sort of gift instead of a plague;
>and in some places, the boards of education are unleashing these
>sodomites on young school children to "teach them" about the so-called
>"alternative lifestyle."
>
>If you dare speak out about this stuff, you're smeared as a 'hater" or
>racist, bigot, homophobe or some other such thing.
>
>Things are so bad on so many levels that I no longer recognize my own
>country. Somethings gotta give. This cannot go on.
When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
attention. Yes, America is in decline via dilution of it's european
population. (yes, means White!)
ted
sites to visit:
http://www.wvw.net/ Western Voices World News
http://www.newnation.org/ New Nation News
wis...@yahoo.com
Perhaps when the unemployment rate hits 10% we might get a rise
from the general public. It will take a radical rebuild of America
whose demographics are declining from a qualitative standpoint.
(90% White, 1970, 69% White, 2008)
ted
sites:
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
http://www.vdare.com/ V-Dare
Igor The Terrible
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:45:15 -0500, Test User <T...@NosSpam.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So...........? Big deal. The rest of the world's human population
is still thriving.
GLOBALIST
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree.....this US supremacy bullshit was getting real old. I hope
to hell we will not be a super power anymore, since all it meant was
we can kill whoever we want for our greed.
Dan
The "top->down flat-landers" don't understand that economic activity is
a non-linear system. Therefore, top->down policies can have devastating
effects. In a nut shell, cronyism fascists are pushing their reckless
behavior losses onto the naive taxpayer. As this continues to happen,
the private market will be starved of needed capital and the economy
will contract.
Dan
Africa is thriving? Europe is thriving? China is thriving? Do read
the financial papers? Russia is basket case.
Dan
If the USA loses reserve currency status, you will see real financial
problems as America will not be able to continue as debtor nation buying
imports and the exporting nations buying US Treasuries to fund deficit
spending year after year. It is not sustainable in the long run, but
politicos are too stupid to realize that. So expect things to get real
ugly...like rioting in the streets and young against old.
Dave
> attention.
The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last REPORT
(that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was changed/fudged so
that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if this was
say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%. -Dave
Dan
I don't think it is 22% but over 15%. When is a worker not a worker?
Similar to "I will create or save 2.5 million jobs".
William Boyd
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
Friday, February 06, 2009
By Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics today released the unemployment
figures for January showing that the economy shed 598,000 jobs last
month, bringing the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, its highest level
in 16 years.
December's jobless rate was 7.2 percent.
Manufacturing was the sector that was the hardest hit, losing 207,000
jobs during the month and accounting for about 35 percent of all of the
recent job losses.
Pennsylvania job numbers for January won't be released until later this
month.
First published on February 6, 2009 at 11:14 am
Dave
"William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49957037$1...@news.x-privat.org...
> Dave wrote:
>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>> attention.
>>
>>
>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
>> REPORT
>> (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was changed/fudged
>> so
>> that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if this
>> was
>> say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%. -Dave
>>
>>
> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>
> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>
> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is far
greater than 7.6% -Dave
Day Brown
> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
> attention. Yes, America is in decline via dilution of it's european
> population. (yes, means White!)
does not seem affordable on incomes in the face of global competition.
Any effort to drive wages up, drives jobs away or outsourced.
The alternative is to adapt the lifestyle to the level of sustainable,
competitive wage levels. Thus, some move back in with parents. Others
move in with other adults in communal housing, to quit buying room board,
and utilities retail, and move up to wholesale.
--
When the Goddess invented sex, She was beside Herself.
Dan
NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 13, 2009
The euro-zone economy contracted by a record amount in the last three
months of 2008 as industrial output was hit hard by the sharp slowdown
in global demand. The decline was led by the biggest quarterly fall in
German gross domestic product for more than two decades. Data from the
European Union's Eurostat statistics agency showed euro-zone GDP
contracted 1.5% on a quarter-to-quarter basis and was 1.2% weaker on an
annual basis, the biggest falls by both measures on record.
The Real Bev
> "William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
>>> REPORT (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
>>> changed/fudged so that it no longer included discouraged workers. In
>>> other words, if this was say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would
>>> be about 22%.
>>>
>> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>>
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>>
>> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>
> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is far
> greater than 7.6% -Dave
Clearly, but I wonder how that number is determined. Do government workers
survey the people who exhausted their unemployment? Perhaps this is a good job
for the people who have exhausted their unemployment...
--
Cheers, Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork. It's useless to
fight the forms. You've got to kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze
freeisbest
> Dave wrote:
> > "William Boyd" <williamb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
> >>>> attention.
>
> >>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
> >>> REPORT (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
> >>> changed/fudged so that it no longer included discouraged workers. In
> >>> other words, if this was say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would
> >>> be about 22%.
>
> >> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>
> >>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>
> >> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>
> > and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The
number
> > is far greater than 7.6% -Dave
>
> Clearly, but I wonder how that number is determined. Do government
> workers survey the people who exhausted their unemployment?
> Perhaps this is a good job for the people who have exhausted
> their unemployment...
The last time the Bush admin 'adjusted' the figures, they
emphatically did not count the people are no longer collecting
unemployment. The only thing that matters to a Repub administration
is whether or not their money (i.e., the money we used to think of as
the U.S. Treasury) is being wasted on 'welfare'.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> "I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork. It's useless to
> fight the forms. You've got to kill the people producing them."
> -- Vladimir Kabaidze
Oh sure, now he tells us.
Lawyerkill
According to former Labor Secretary Bob Reich unemployment was
redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower
the unemployment rate
>
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> �> "I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork. � It's useless to
> �> � fight the forms. �You've got to kill the people producing them."
> �> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -- Vladimir Kabaidze
>
> � � Oh sure, now he tells us.- Hide quoted text -
Rod Speed
Thats because fools like you spend too much time with your dick
in your hand and not enough time with your dick in a woman, stupid.
fang
Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
Rod Speed
> Dave wrote:
>
>> "William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>>>> attention.
>>>>
>>>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
>>>> REPORT (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
>>>> changed/fudged so that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if this was say, 1968, the
>>>> REPORTED unemployment
>>>> level would be about 22%.
>>>>
>>> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>>>
>>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>>>
>>> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>>
>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is far greater than 7.6%
> Clearly, but I wonder how that number is determined.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> Do government workers survey the people who exhausted their unemployment?
Yep.
> Perhaps this is a good job for the people who have exhausted their unemployment...
Nope, they have those they use for that already.
Rod Speed
> On Feb 13, 12:43 pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> "William Boyd" <williamb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>>>>> attention.
>>
>>>>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
>>>>> REPORT (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
>>>>> changed/fudged so that it no longer included discouraged workers.
>>>>> In other words, if this was say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment
>>>>> level would be about 22%.
>>
>>>> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>>
>>>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>>
>>>> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>>
> > > and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The
> number
> > > is far greater than 7.6% -Dave
>>
> > Clearly, but I wonder how that number is determined. Do government
> > workers survey the people who exhausted their unemployment?
> > Perhaps this is a good job for the people who have exhausted
> > their unemployment...
> The last time the Bush admin 'adjusted' the figures, they emphatically
> did not count the people are no longer collecting unemployment.
Bare faced lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> The only thing that matters to a Repub administration is
> whether or not their money (i.e., the money we used to
> think of as the U.S. Treasury) is being wasted on 'welfare'.
Another bare faced lie.
Rod Speed
> On Feb 13, 1:05?pm, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 12:43?pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> "William Boyd" <williamb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>>>>>> attention.
>>
>>>>>> last REPORT (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. ?But the
>>>>>> formula was changed/fudged so that it no longer included
>>>>>> REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%.
>>
>>>>> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>>
>>>>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>>
>>>>> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>>
>> number
>> ?> > is far greater than 7.6% ?-Dave
>>
>> ?> Clearly, but I wonder how that number is determined. ?Do
>> government ?> ?workers survey the people who exhausted their
>> unemployment? ?>?Perhaps this is a good job for the people who have
>> exhausted
>> ?> their unemployment...
>>
>> ? ? The last time the Bush admin 'adjusted' the figures, they
>> emphatically did not count the people are no longer collecting
>> is whether or not their money (i.e., the money we used to think of as
>> the U.S. Treasury) is being wasted on 'welfare'.
> According to former Labor Secretary Bob Reich unemployment was
> redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower
> the unemployment rate
Another bare faced lie.
Rod Speed
> wismel wrote
>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>> attention. Yes, America is in decline via dilution of it's european
>> population. (yes, means White!)
> Where do we get reliable relevant data?
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
> The per capita carbon footprint does not seem
> affordable on incomes in the face of global competition.
Oh bullshit.
> Any effort to drive wages up, drives jobs away or outsourced.
Tell that to the execs and CEOs that have got those bonuses.
> The alternative is to adapt the lifestyle to the level of sustainable,
> competitive wage levels. Thus, some move back in with parents.
> Others move in with other adults in communal housing, to quit
> buying room board, and utilities retail, and move up to wholesale.
And anyone with a clue bought the house they live in long ago.
Dave
>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>
> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different
> words for a reason, stupid.
>
People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are called
unemployed. Many more are called discouraged. It is semantics only. The
only "stupid" thing about it is that some people claim that they aren't all
unemployed. You've been duped. -Dave
clams_casino
If I understand it correctly, those who have exceeded their
unemployment comp are no longer included in the unemployment (as with
spouses that may have quit work, but now want / are in need of work.
I believe the 7% only includes those currently collecting unemployment.
fang
>>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
> People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are called unemployed.
Those who are no longer looking for work for whatever reason, arent unemployed.
> Many more are called discouraged. It is semantics only.
Nope, we have different words for the different groups of people for a reason, stupid.
> The only "stupid" thing about it is that some people claim that they aren't all unemployed.
Next you'll be claiming that those who have retired are unemployed too.
> You've been duped.
Nope.
Rod Speed
> Dave wrote:
>
>>
>>>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>>>
>>>
>>> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have
>>> different words for a reason, stupid.
>>>
>>
>> People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are
>> called unemployed. Many more are called discouraged. It is
>> semantics only. The only "stupid" thing about it is that some people
>> claim that they aren't all unemployed. You've been duped. -Dave
> If I understand it correctly,
You dont.
> those who have exceeded their unemployment comp are no longer included in the unemployment
Thats just plain wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> (as with spouses that may have quit work, but now want / are in need of work.
And that in spades.
> I believe the 7% only includes those currently collecting unemployment.
You're wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Gordon
news:gn3u7f$br0$1...@reader.motzarella.org:
It's not just discoraged workers. Eventually they get whatever
job they can find. Instead of making a profesional wage of
50K+ per year they end up making minimum wage or slightly
better. But, hey! They are now employed. So the unemployment
rate goes down. Gee, so why does the economy still suck?
Jack G.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I 1940 after FDR had been in office for two terms the unemployment
rate was 15%.
If Oabma wants to be like FDR he needs more pork and less jobs.
Chump change for the greedy great unwashed who voted for Obama.
I love change.
Just like the Carter years.
phil scott
<igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> > population. (yes, means White!)
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
not actually thriving if you take a closer look.
Im an old time contractor type, industrial systems and controls, semi
retired now.. I spend a lot of time in starbucks when im on a
project... a good drill is to notice whom there you think you could
hire to do what you need done..... any high end skill or even mid
range trade, you dont see many options running around lattely
ask any employer.... in the EU also, over run these days my people
from the middle east out breeding the natives eight to one; and not
adapting to the culture, instead rioting
Phil scott
phil scott
> on 2/13/09 4:01 AM wis...@yahoo.com said the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
very interesting... could you flesh that out a bit? One thing for
sure, the US is now 38th in the world in high school test scores,
we have the most in prison, and govt bloat beyond belief, and an
unpayable national debt,,, as our birth rate shrinks due to both
parents
having to work sometimes two jobs to make ends meet,... this mess did
not originate entirely at the very top, but down into mid range govt
also as the police
unions for example now have retirement packages that end up after
finagling in the 150k range per year,,, for beat cops,
no way in hell the working class can support such a rip off
Phil scott
phil scott
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> So...........? Big deal. The rest of the world's human population
> >> is still thriving.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I agree.....this US supremacy bullshit was getting real old. I hope
> > to hell we will not be a super power anymore, since all it meant was
> > we can kill whoever we want for our greed.
>
> If the USA loses reserve currency status, you will see real financial
> problems as America will not be able to continue as debtor nation buying
> imports and the exporting nations buying US Treasuries to fund deficit
> spending year after year. It is not sustainable in the long run, but
> politicos are too stupid to realize that. So expect things to get real
>
> - Show quoted text -
Im in calif, one of our towns, stockton is laying off cops,,, compton
calf years ago laid off all of its police, the county sherrif handles
that now,, the state cant print money, its credit rating wont allow
it to sell bonds anymore recent fed bail out will last em a year at
best) the sales and ppty tax income is accelerating its decline,,,
no way to pay the police,,, or their 5 to ten times bigger retirement
packages than the average
tax payer,
there are solutions:
cut govt 70 percent, let retired people man cop cars for traffic
enforcement, combine fire and police duty so the firemen have work do
to between the occasional fires... fire 90 pct of the city and state
pork barrel appointment jobs, cut taxes by fifty percent as a
result
that would help
Phil scott
phil scott
no need to rude,,,, its the recourse of a man without an argument,,,
just abuse
to shut the other person up,
not impressive
the govt stats have been spun badly for years,,,, for the analysis
see www.shadowstats,com
others will filll you in on how the unemployment stat has been spun.
its closer to 15 pct than 7pct/ and purchasing power is below 1970
levels.
google has thusands of USGAO reports on that and university level
studies etc
Phil scott
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
govt knows who is working and who is not by employer quarterly reports
and w2 and w9 form submissions, it just servers their'
purposes to use only active unemployment claims... a way to make
things look better than they are and limit panic in the population
Phil scott
Igor The Terrible
> >>> population. (yes, means White!)
> >>> ted
> >>> sites to visit:
> >>>http://www.wvw.net/Western Voices World News
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > to hell we will not be a super power anymore, since all it meant was
> > we can kill whoever we want for our greed.
>
> If the USA loses reserve currency status, you will see real financial
> problems as America will not be able to continue as debtor nation buying
> imports and the exporting nations buying US Treasuries to fund deficit
> spending year after year. It is not sustainable in the long run, but
> politicos are too stupid to realize that. So expect things to get real
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are preaching to the choir. I agree 100%
Igor The Terrible
> on 2/13/09 4:14 AM Igor The Terrible said the following:
>
> Africa is thriving? Europe is thriving? China is thriving? Do read
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't say anything about economics, simply population growth.
Seems like the Anglo-Saxon/protestant work ethic or fragments thereof
and principles seem to survive even until this day. Some folks feel
if they can't afford to raise a family and give their kids what they
believe they should have--they simply don't have them. There are
other reason of course, but this is just one of them. You can blame
other crap like people putting careers before family, others simply
don't want them and the responsibilities, they don't want to bring
them into this rotten world, fertility problems and no insurance or
money to pay for medical assistance, downright resentment toward
marriage--especially the 24 hour American meet-screw-marry-divorce
institution which in the same has become a cash cow for lawyers,
etc.... I'm sure you get the picture.
Igor The Terrible
> On Feb 13, 4:14 am, Igor The Terrible
>
>
>
>
>
> <igor_the_terri...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > So...........? Big deal. The rest of the world's human population
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> to hell we will not be a super power anymore, since all it meant was
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree 100% based on the conditions you have given. OTST, being a
strong power on the planet is not necessarily a bad thing if you have
sensible foreign policies to go along with it. Namely: Mind your own
business. If you are a super power, odds are you have more than
enough domestic problems to tend to much less some other nation's(').
Dave
"fang" <fa...@fang.com> wrote in message
news:6vmb19F...@mid.individual.net...
> Dave wrote
>
> >>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>
> >> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different
words for a reason, stupid.
>
> > People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are called
unemployed.
>
> Those who are no longer looking for work for whatever reason, arent
unemployed.
I agree there. But these very few people aren't called unemployed or
discouraged. And they aren't counted in unemployment figures.
.
>
> Next you'll be claiming that those who have retired are unemployed too.
>
Believe it or not, SOME retired folks are indeed unemployed. When a company
starts making cuts, some older employees are often given a "choice". The
choice is, you can be fired, or retire early. Note that retiring early
means you don't get your full pension. So while you might be "retired",
that doesn't change the fact that you involuntarily left the workforce years
before you INTENDED to. -Dave
Dan
And with low birth rate and anti-immigration (young import workers), the
USA's pay-as-go system will collapse. Ditto for Europe. The dangers of
static thinking.
Dan
I classify any government or police or military as top->down
flat-landers. Any entity that takes away freedom from the individual by
onerous taxation and rules and regulations. The USA is in real trouble.
Dan
No, the real reason is that the elites didn't want to the producers to
realize that dole train was getting so big.
Igor The Terrible
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is what I was saying. Nothing to do from an economic point of
view. Just breeding. I think I elaborated on that point somewhere
else in this thread.
On that same note you are right about the skill sets. More people
seem to be shying away from the trades these days.
meport
More conniving than most, I doubt it because most people would have done the
exact thing given the chance. Lacking the moral core of most, possibly.
But not dumber.
--
John and Joan
<wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k7hap45mqma3uc0uc...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:45:15 -0500, Test User <Te...@NosSpam.net>
> Perhaps when the unemployment rate hits 10% we might get a rise
> from the general public. It will take a radical rebuild of America
> whose demographics are declining from a qualitative standpoint.
> (90% White, 1970, 69% White, 2008)
>
> ted
>
> sites:
>
> http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
>
> http://www.vdare.com/ V-Dare
Dave Garland
> Dave wrote
>
>>>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>
>>> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different words for a reason, stupid.
>
>> People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are called unemployed.
>
> Those who are no longer looking for work for whatever reason, arent unemployed.
"Employed" is logically a true-false item. You're either employed
(have a job) or you're unemployed (don't have a job). One can
usefully further subdivide into categories of reasons (a 4-year-old is
unemployed, but for these purposes maybe doesn't count as a human
being). Someone who can only find 8 hours work per week is employed,
but probably not adequately.
There are different ways to count. The US Government has six
different scales. The number they mostly use in news releases is
"U3", which ignores people who have stopped looking for work. But U4
and U5 count those people as unemployed. (U6 also counts people who
work part-time but can't find full-time work.) It looks like some of
the measures don't count military or people working on farms.
> Nope, we have different words for the different groups of people for a reason, stupid.
Indeed. As stupid as it is to think that there's only one way to
measure the number.
Another Dave
Dan
Breeding is directly related economics. See Pay-As-You-Go if you don't
understand it.
Dan
Just forget the unemployment rate. Look at your TOTAL TAXATION AND FEES
hit. That is directly correlated to the DOLE TRAIN.
Dave Garland
> Just forget the unemployment rate. Look at your TOTAL TAXATION AND FEES
> hit. That is directly correlated to the DOLE TRAIN.
If you include Halliburton and the military in the "dole train"
(invading and occupying foreign countries doesn't come cheap), along
with wealthy sports team owners who get tax money to build stadiums
with, and greedy business owners who demand tax breaks for their
business (so that the rest of us have to carry their share), and the
bankers who get multimillion dollar bonuses when their banks go down
the tubes (we have to bail them out because the Bushies failed to
regulate the banks), and the auto drivers who expect to have their
travel subsidized (gas tax only pays about half of the cost). And the
places where politicians let the infrastructure go to hell rather than
spending the money necessary to maintain it. Ya, the "dole train" is
pretty big. Personally, it ticks me off more when it's the rich with
their hands out.
Dave
Dan
And all of that is reflected total taxes and fees (look at your
receipts!). I am trying to figure out where to move, but it seems the
whole world is jumping on the Dole Train.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
beyond whats on the reciepts you get is the taxes hidden in the cost
of producing the goods or service you bought... for instance if the
plumber you hired is in the 25% bracket federal. 15% self employment
tax, and 12% state tax...fuel and other fees... his cost is up 60% or
so... and that is passed on to you.... and of course he must buy
groceries and there is hidden taxes in that...
an accurate accounting for the actual total taxes we pay would have
most of us in the 70 to 80% range... and of course we cant pay it...so
we borrow. and our govt still over spends, so issues bonds to other
nations... we are now the worlds biggest debtor.... with no way in
hell to even pay the interest in it without going even deeper into
debt.
A way out it personally is to have no or very few taxable assets, and
earn less than the income tax threshold. that leaves you in a net
40 tax bracket (because the goods and serrvices you buy are taxed and
that is passed on to you.... that approach is at least
sustainable. You wont have to work yourself to death to live.
why are all these taxes necessary? Here is one of many examples...
did you know that police and firement, rank an file types, not
chiefs... retire at 90 to 100% of the last years pay in most
states...and that amount is based on their *last years pay... which
can be spiked to approxx double in the last year by saving vacation
time for a few years back, sick days. uniform allowances and by others
taking off sick so the last year guys can work double and triple over
time. These are retiring mostly well over 100,000 dollars year,
many over 150,000 dollars a year... half of that not taxable, and with
100% health insurance for life.
(chiefs retire at 250k after two years vested as chief, many then
rotate with others to draw several such retirments)
One might considerr how many working people it takes to fund just one
flat foots retirement (and no... police and firemen jobs are not
dangerous, not even in the top 10... roofers, nurses and plumbers are
in the top 10)
Net cost of that to cities is in the 70 to 80% of the net tax base...
and 45% of that pays *just the retirement costs.
It is this mess at the core of our state and local financial
disasters... at the federal level its a different set of issues.
Phil scott
Dan
I certainly hope as a business owner you are also looking at the tax and
fee hit assessed on your business.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
Im semi retired, largely below that threshold thank god.
staying small and ungreedy so to speak has wonderful advantages.
***
Here is a piece I wrote about the larger mess... we are breeding
idiots.
Summary:
We evolve on a second by second basis... our genetics are not changed
by this, but the magnitude of various driving charcteristics is
changed radically.
Survival characteristics, such as an ability to focus or seek out
ways to get ahead.... be productive, educated and be competent for
instance..... are vaporized.
In noticing the current generation... to a large extent.... these are
just fooling around, giggling in the coffee shops, and behaving like
idiots....
the trivial is their entire life.
they dont know strife. Let alone what previous generations
experienced, surviving wars, depressions, or hard fought business, and
trades work etc.
We have it easy now. These are the virulent seeds of absolute
disaster imo.
can I blame these people?
Not actually. I can't blame them.
These are products of the easy living culture we have, few of these
kids get any challenge, low end jobs given to illegal imigrants, the
high end work moved off shore....or into corporations where getting
along with a corrupt management is required to stay employed.
Such things as expressing a controversial opininion are now frowned on
or outright illegal... we have bred more than an incompetent class...
we have bred a class of people that will never know victor
We are now looking down the gun barrel of defeat on several fronts.
The epigenetics spinning from this situation second by second, then
extended during ones formative years are entirely fatal to a nations
ability to be economically viable.
***
Countering this and offering substantial hope historically and a vast
resurrection is the national collapse cycle of nations... starvation,
hard times...and civil strife brings back the grit and glint of intent
in ones eye....
These types run the pipe straight, the wring neat... they take the
time to understand why it is necessary to operate that way. Prior
to such stress we do sloppy work. Its fatal in the end... the person
degrades under such operating conditions.
Phil scott
Rod Speed
> The big banks knew what they were doing,
Like hell they did. No one would deliberately produce
a complete implosion of the world financial system.
> but they knew they were too big to fail, too politically connected to fail.
Utterly silly conspiracy theory.
> The people who created this disaster knew how it was going to end.
Utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> The U.S. economy is being restructured IMF style.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> meport <jjm...@earthlink.net> wrote
Harold Burton
"Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote:
> "William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49957037$1...@news.x-privat.org...
> > Dave wrote:
> >>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
> >>> attention.
> >>
> >>
> >> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
> >> REPORT
> >> (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was changed/fudged
> >> so
> >> that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if this
> >> was
> >> say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%. -Dave
> >>
> >>
> > OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
> >
> > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
> >
> > U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>
> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is far
> greater than 7.6% -Dave
Yeah, so, thank DemoCRAPs LBJ for the change.
Harold Burton
"Dave" <now...@noway2.not> wrote:
> > When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
> > attention.
>
>
> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last REPORT
> (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was changed/fudged so
> that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if this was
> say, 1968..
Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
> "Dave" <now...@nohow2.not> wrote in
> news:gn3u7f$br0$1...@reader.motzarella.org:
>
> >
> > "William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:49957037$1...@news.x-privat.org...
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
> >>>> attention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
> >>> REPORT
> >>> (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
> >>> changed/fudged so
> >>> that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if
> >>> this was
> >>> say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%.
> >>> -Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
> >>
> >> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
> >>
> >> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
> >
> > and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is
> > far greater than 7.6% -Dave
> >
>
> It's not just discoraged workers. Eventually they get whatever
> job they can find. Instead of making a profesional wage of
> 50K+ per year they end up making minimum wage or slightly
> better. But, hey! They are now employed. So the unemployment
> rate goes down. Gee, so why does the economy still suck?
Because so many whiners spend their time bitching on usenet instead of
working?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
>
> Wow, the intellectual level of Republicans continues to astound us.
> No wonder they gave us a depression.
But you couldn't actually dispute the accuracy of the claim.
Snicker
Cindy Hamilton
> Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
high
insults. That kind of rhetoric wouldn't pass muster in a high school
debate class.
Harold Burton
> "Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hal.i.burton-092A...@news.newsguy.com...
> what accuracy shithead ?
the part you edited out.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<8822ef0e-ed15-44b2...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
>
> You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
> high insults.
Which makes me different for all the lefturds posting, how?
I notice you chose to dodge the question. Good idea.
Snicker.
Jon von Leipzig@mayday.com
> In article <nridnfofLq2D4wbUnZ2dnUVZ_tfin...@posted.visi>,
> Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
> > Harold Burton wrote:
> > > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
>
> > Wow, the intellectual level of Republicans continues to astound us.
> > No wonder they gave us a depression.
>
> But you couldn't actually dispute the accuracy of the claim.
>
> Snicker
Axshully, going back to at least JFK, they're all guilty of fudging
the numbers a bit.
The Really Big Fudger was Clinton, according to this dude, who's been
studying the
official gubmint stats for some years:
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/54
<snip>
The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004,
seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment
rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%,
including discouraged and marginally attached workers.
Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who
was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because
there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to
the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers
who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the
less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the
netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.
The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling
from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the
inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments,
reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the
piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of
worsening poverty trends.
------------------------------------
for a recent unemployment chart, scroll down
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Trader100
> Such things as expressing a controversial opininion are now frowned on
> or outright illegal... we have bred more than an incompetent class...
> we have bred a class of people that will never know victor
I agree and this is the result of Tautological thinking as I explained
on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) the core of
which I wrote. They censored about 20% but the essence is still there.
For the full uncensored article see http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
Our minds and thinking have become tautological starting with
Aristotle, to James Hutton, Matthews, Wallace and finally Darwin who
plagiarized their ideas.
Dan
Just look at medical research. Associations and Tautologies galore!
But rarely Causation.
Mark my words: The USA GDP will contract >= 5% in 2009. Mark them!
Life is not aF(x) = F(ax)! The politicians are sending the USA economy
and the world's (via crony banking system) into a non-linear tailspin of
unnecessary destruction.
John A. Weeks III
<5d828586-96a3-4baf...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Trader100 <Steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:27 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> > Such things as expressing a controversial opininion are now frowned on
> > or outright illegal... we have bred more than an incompetent class...
> > we have bred a class of people that will never know victor
>
> I agree and this is the result of Tautological thinking as I explained
> on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) the core of
> which I wrote. They censored about 20% but the essence is still there.
> For the full uncensored article see http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
There is a huge difference between expressing a controversial opinion
and saying something stupid or inflammatory. If you post something
kooky, expect to be treated like a kook.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
-=DirtBag©
> In article
> <5d828586-96a3-4baf...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Trader100 <Steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 5:27 am, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>> Such things as expressing a controversial opininion are now frowned on
>>> or outright illegal... we have bred more than an incompetent class...
>>> we have bred a class of people that will never know victor
>> I agree and this is the result of Tautological thinking as I explained
>> on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) the core of
>> which I wrote. They censored about 20% but the essence is still there.
>> For the full uncensored article see http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> There is a huge difference between expressing a controversial opinion
> and saying something stupid or inflammatory. If you post something
> kooky, expect to be treated like a kook.
>
> -john-
>
That was some pretty dry reading Mr. Weeks. TauTological thinking is
one dry subject... Can we argue instead? <s>
Cindy Hamilton
> In article
> <8822ef0e-ed15-44b2-bffc-2198990c2...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 9:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
>
> > You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
> > high insults.
>
> Which makes me different for all the lefturds posting, how?
Does this rhetorical question mean that you don't care about
being different from the "lefturds"? I should imagine that
you would want to distinguish yourself from them as much
as possible.
> I notice you chose to dodge the question. Good idea.
I saw no question in your post, only assertions. I am
relatively indifferent to the political machinations that
result in underestimation of unemployment figures.
Politicians lie, regardless of which way they lean. It
is fruitless to point fingers in one direction when lies
emanation from all quarters.
-=DirtBag©
Yea they are just a lying bunch of liars.
I have suggesting each election to vote out ALL incumbents for years
now. How are you voting?
Harold Burton
<eacd8d83-56df-4b7f...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:50 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8822ef0e-ed15-44b2-bffc-2198990c2...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 9:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > > > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
> >
> > > You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
> > > high insults.
> >
> > Which makes me different for all the lefturds posting, how?
>
> Does this rhetorical question mean that you don't care about
> being different from the "lefturds"?
I just enjoy rubbing their noses in their hypocrisy. Using "junior-high
insults" is a way of baiting them, and they are stupid enough to bite.
> I should imagine that you would want to distinguish yourself from
> them as much as possible.
Doesn't bother me.
> > I notice you chose to dodge the question. Good idea.
>
> I saw no question in your post, only assertions. I am
> relatively indifferent to the political machinations that
> result in underestimation of unemployment figures.
>
> Politicians lie, regardless of which way they lean. It
> is fruitless to point fingers in one direction when lies
> emanation from all quarters.
I know that both sides lie and I enjoy baiting the idiots on the left
that labor under the delusion that their side is any better than the
other.
Harold Burton
-=DirtBagŠ <Di...@sonic.net> wrote:
the problem is that most people believe that it's someone else's
incumbent who's the problem. :-)
The Real Bev
I try, but it doesn't seem to work.
> the problem is that most people believe that it's someone else's
> incumbent who's the problem. :-)
Not me. California's incumbents are about as bad as it;s possible to get
without actually being indicted. Exception is made for Ahnold only because I
really hope he'll do the right thing. No hope at all for the rest.
--
Cheers, Bev
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"We're from the Government. We're here to help."
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
grow uo Harrold, you will no longer enjoy behaving like a high school
kiddie regardless your ratiionalizations,,, regardless the error of
others, or your
own error,, unless you are positing your own infalability, then
defending it in high school kiddie fashion... such behavior is a waste
of time Harrold.
there are more intelligent approaches ... some folks choose to apply
themselves to those ends.
this ends my remarks on the topic, reject them if you wish
Phil scott
Harold Burton
<3ecaa9f3-4279-4bc0...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
phil scott <ph...@philscott.net> wrote:
> grow uo (sic) Harrold (sic), you will no longer enjoy behaving like a
> high school kiddie regardless your ratiionalizations,,, regardless (sic)
> the error of others, or your own error,, unless you are positing your
> own infalability, then defending it in high school kiddie fashion...
> such behavior is a waste of time Harrold (sic).
Must be why you keep reading, and responding to, it.
> there are more intelligent approaches ... some folks choose to apply
> themselves to those ends.
Not that many in these newsgroups.
BTW have you made similar complaints to those on the left when they use
"junior-high insults" ore are you the typical lefturd hypocrite?