Doing the numbers
 

Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".

Doing the numbers
 

Frogwatch wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".


Actually, it's a case of your not understanding what the numbers mean.

Doing the numbers
 

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".

Liberal-dim mathematics, debts are credits. Some of the rest of us
non-liberals call it baffling with BS, others call it turd polishing.

The economy is clearly still in a nose dive, and while 479,000 job losses is
less than a few months ago, this is the high season for employment. Lets
see how the liberals will BS when September comes by and seasonal employment
numbers dry up.

Obamnomics is clearly failing. Just costing a lot and making the debt bill
higher. When will liberals learn you can't spend your way out of debt and
the load of government is too heavy to have a middle class.

Doing the numbers
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".

Actually, it's a case of your not understanding what the numbers mean.

So you think the numbers are good?

Doing the numbers
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".
Actually, it's a case of your not understanding what the numbers mean.

So you think the numbers are good?



I'm not commenting on "the numbers," but, rather, froggy's mathematical
interpretations. Perhaps he should consult with SW Tom, who has an
incredible misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

Doing the numbers
 

On Jul 4, 2:52*pm, HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
Frogwatch wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. *Do any Libs understand arithematic? *This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. *Uh, NO. *This far more
than the number of people in the USA. *The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. *I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".
Actually, it's a case of your not understanding what the numbers mean.

So you think the numbers are good?

I'm not commenting on "the numbers," but, rather, froggy's mathematical
interpretations. Perhaps he should consult with SW Tom, who has an
incredible misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

So, what is HK interpretation?

Doing the numbers
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".

Liberal-dim mathematics, debts are credits. Some of the rest of us
non-liberals call it baffling with BS, others call it turd polishing.

The economy is clearly still in a nose dive, and while 479,000 job losses is
less than a few months ago, this is the high season for employment. Lets
see how the liberals will BS when September comes by and seasonal employment
numbers dry up.

Obamnomics is clearly failing. Just costing a lot and making the debt bill
higher. When will liberals learn you can't spend your way out of debt and
the load of government is too heavy to have a middle class.




Whoosh.

Leaving aside the fact that Froggy knows not what he is talking about...

He claims 479,000 is about 2.5% of 200,000,000.

Let's make this really simple:

10% of 200,000,000 is 20,000,000.

1% of 200,000,000 is 2,000,000.

..5% of 200,000,000 is 1,000,000.

..25% of 200,000,000 is 500,000.


Yet another reason why Republicans can't handle the economy. They can't
do simple math.


Oh...*real* unemployment is between 15% and 20%, and has been for some
time, long predating Obama's arrival at the White House.

Doing the numbers
 

Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 4, 2:52 pm, HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Frogwatch wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".
Actually, it's a case of your not understanding what the numbers mean.
So you think the numbers are good?
I'm not commenting on "the numbers," but, rather, froggy's mathematical
interpretations. Perhaps he should consult with SW Tom, who has an
incredible misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

So, what is HK interpretation?


My interpretation is that one ought to be able to handle simple math
before one makes posits such as yours.

Doing the numbers
 

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. Do any Libs understand arithematic? This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. Uh, NO. This far more
than the number of people in the USA. The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".


They all lie about unemployment stats.
Bad news on that front nearly always drops the DJIA.
Can't have that.

--Vic

Doing the numbers
 

On Jul 4, 3:16*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
Hmm, so the job losses in June were 479,000 jobs and they say this was
a .1% increase. *Do any Libs understand arithematic? *This means the
number of workers would have been 479,000,000. *Uh, NO. *This far more
than the number of people in the USA. *The total number of workers is
less than 200,000,000 so a loss of 479,000 would be nearly 2.5%putting
us at nearly 10% unemployment. *I have not checked their figures for
preceding months but if they lied then too, we can assume the real
unemployment is well over 10%
Its a case of "Liars, damned liars and Democrats".

They all lie about unemployment stats.
Bad news on that front nearly always drops the DJIA.
Can't have that.

--Vic

Harry is right, I meant .25%, not 2.5%. The sun has fried my brain.
However, .25% is still 2.5X the figure of .1% they gave us.