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".

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.

But he is right in that liberal-dims always like to tout a far more
optimistic and meaningless numbers into it. What does 0.1% increase really
mean? Just liberal filler.

The real damage is while many will find jobs, they will pay much less or be
underemployed. With taxes looking for a big hike, government debt-spending
right out of control, this is supposed to be a good part of the season for
employment, one can only surmise we are still heading straight smack into a
depression. Obamanomics is failing bad, the only question now is how much
damage to the USD will occur as a result.

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
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.

But he is right in that liberal-dims always like to tout a far more
optimistic and meaningless numbers into it. What does 0.1% increase really
mean? Just liberal filler.

The real damage is while many will find jobs, they will pay much less or be
underemployed. With taxes looking for a big hike, government debt-spending
right out of control, this is supposed to be a good part of the season for
employment, one can only surmise we are still heading straight smack into a
depression. Obamanomics is failing bad, the only question now is how much
damage to the USD will occur as a result.


Until they do many things to bring back domestic production and
eliminate predatory Global Merchants and Banking there is not going to
be much recovery. Swapping dollars or Euros or whatever in a service
economy doesn't not build wealth. The drain of buying everything off
shore and exporting jobs, technologies, etc is hitting home. No wealth
creation and an incessant drain. The Globalist Wall Street crowd is
making money or not but America's Main Street is not making much. The
work force is losing ground in dollars and in its devaluation, and
predation of Global credit and Banking, underemployment, benefits,
pensions and available jobs. It's all "legal" since they bought their
way into changing Laws and elimination of some of them.
This supplier side economics and government can lead to but one thing
Feudalism. Everybody willing to slave for whatever they will pay. They
are cutting their own throat, it would seem but wealth is the spread
between have and have not. The few that have are more wealthy.

"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.

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.