On Oct 29, 10:21 am, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Really,so less is more and black is pink.Explain how less
income(taxes) means more revenue. That approach has never worked no
matter how you cook the books.
I not saying anything about the fact that expenditures are out of
balance, I just questioning your statement that less taxes has always
meant more revenue.
On Oct 30, 10:19 am, " email@example.com"
Both cantor and McConnell are on record saying they are willing to
shut down the country if they don't get their way.
McConnell is on record saying his job is to make Obama a one term
president, and will not pass anything that may give the impression of
Because you can't, so you just try to turn it back and blame me for
being unwilling to open my eyes,
So now you add the word *rates*,semantics, lower rates = lower taxes =
less revenue. I will again cut and paste what you wrote
On Oct 30, 1:54 pm, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
You get asked, in a civil manner, to elaborate on your postings,to
show how less = more and you resort to insults,
You could have tried to explain your reasonings and maybe- just maybe
you could have had a convert.
But as it seems that you have nothing real to offer - or you have no
clue about what you speak - and so your only response is to state that
I am missing the obvious,and then resort to insults.
You seem to be just another TeaParty parrot. no thinking required or
While I'm here, as you obviously dislike Obama - I not that fond of
his presidency either- who do you think should replace him ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dunno. Haven't checked. 20%? That wasn't my issue, though.
No problems, so far.
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.
DoL publishes a U1, U2, U4, and U5, too.
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
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics
Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total
nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: -Data Type: ALL
Jan 2000 = 130781
Jan 2001 = 132469
Jan 2002 = 130591
Jan 2003 = 130266
Jan 2004 = 130420
Jan 2005 = 132453
Jan 2006 = 135094
Jan 2007 = 137094
Jan 2008 = 137996
Jan 2009 = 133563
Jan 2010 = 129281
Jan 2011 = 130328
In other words, either the US population has literally exploded over the
past decade or the employment situation isn't nearly as bad as the
"unemployment" numbers would make it appear.
Noteworthy is that the Jan 2011 totals are nearly identical to the numbers
seen in Jan 2000, 2002 and 2003, and that the Sep 2011 figures are actually
favorable as compared to the numbers in most of FY 2000, all of 2002 and
2003, as well as a good portion of FY 2004.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.