On 8/7/11 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

It's been that way for a long, long time (not counting those not looking)

In article ,
says...

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking.
That makes you "retired" from the work force.
Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate
often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking
again.
I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate.
Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better
than they are.
But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling
anybody.
A general rule is just double the number.
Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match
with the "real" unemployment rate.
Bob cracks me up.
20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but
whining about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united-
states/story?id=14231657

The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:07:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking.
That makes you "retired" from the work force.
Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate
often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking
again.
I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate.
Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better
than they are.
But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling
anybody.
A general rule is just double the number.
Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match
with the "real" unemployment rate.
Bob cracks me up.
20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but
whining about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united-
states/story?id=14231657

The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps.


The trend in food stamps is definitely up, mainly due to the sustained
unemployment.

http://www.leftandrightnews.com/2011...ipation-soars/

Of course, the Republicans don't actually give a damn about the
poor...

http://www.economist.com/node/18958475

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

no. you're stupid because you expect the metrology to change so that
bush looks better and the

black

president looks worse


Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public


maybe so. but obama didnt change the method of measurement.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 19:26:16 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

no. you're stupid because you expect the metrology to change so that
bush looks better and the

black

president looks worse


Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public


maybe so. but obama didnt change the method of measurement.

Well, I think there are stupid people here, along with racist/fascist
ones. But, I don't think Eisboch is one, at least I don't see any
direct evidence of it. He's certainly nowhere near the level of
crazy/stupid of some (that sounds like I'm saying he is crazy/stupid
on some level, but I couldn't figure out how to phrase it properly).
:-)

I believe there are rational people on the right (not on the far
right, however, or even the extreme left - like Earth Firsters who are
off the deep end). A conversation/debate is possible in that
situation. As long as both sides recognize that there are facts and
made up facts, then it's possible.

The extremes on both sides tend to promote or invoke violence or
hatred to "prove" something or to "solve" something. That's just wrong
in a civil society. I'm not equating the two extremes. The right is
far more likely to do nasty things, but there is a left element that
exists. To deny that would be irrational.

It's pretty easy to make a factual error. Maddow's recent one about
Limbaugh. The issue is whether or not one is willing to be corrected
and to admit the error. It's hard to argue that Maddow doesn't have a
left-leaning agenda, but it's also impossible for a rational person to
think that Limbaugh has anything but his own self-interest in mind,
and he's willing to lie and/or distort the truth to support himself.
He would never admit a factual error.

Sorry for the rant.

On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

In article ,
says...

On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.


He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost
everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over.
Otherwise, he's usually right.
German unemployment is about 6%.
Anybody can find that with a few key clicks.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

Here's some more economic facts.
There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating.
Austrailia
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Guernsey
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they
all have universal health care and old age pensions.
Seems crazy to them.
The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care.
Second class compared to the countries on the above list.
The U.S.A. does have food stamps.
About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps.
You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever
depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side.
Food stamps are second class "money."
Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble
understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps,
with which they can't buy beer.
Seems crazy to them.
You can decide for yourself who's crazy.

On 08/08/2011 9:45 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...

On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.


He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost
everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over.
Otherwise, he's usually right.
German unemployment is about 6%.
Anybody can find that with a few key clicks.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

Here's some more economic facts.
There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating.
Austrailia
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Guernsey
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they
all have universal health care and old age pensions.
Seems crazy to them.
The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care.
Second class compared to the countries on the above list.
The U.S.A. does have food stamps.
About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps.
You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever
depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side.
Food stamps are second class "money."
Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble
understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps,
with which they can't buy beer.
Seems crazy to them.
You can decide for yourself who's crazy.

Rating agencies are bull****. USA should have lost triple A 3 years ago.

I never understood why China was rated so low. Only $1.55 trillion in
civic, provincial and federal debt combined. And offset that they have
lent others more money than tat which makes China in a positive balance.

But then these were US companies doing the ratings. And we know liberal
media downplays that everyone but Moody downgraded USA, it wasn't just S&P.

No doubt in a US treasury you will gt your money back, the real question
is will it be worth as much. And that later prt has a certain risk that
assures it will not be worth as much.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 10:45:02 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.


He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost
everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over.
Otherwise, he's usually right.
German unemployment is about 6%.
Anybody can find that with a few key clicks.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

Here's some more economic facts.
There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating.
Austrailia
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Guernsey
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they
all have universal health care and old age pensions.
Seems crazy to them.
The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care.
Second class compared to the countries on the above list.
The U.S.A. does have food stamps.
About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps.
You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever
depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side.
Food stamps are second class "money."
Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble
understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps,
with which they can't buy beer.
Seems crazy to them.
You can decide for yourself who's crazy.




Actually, the US still has AAA from the two others, and S&P has had
all sorts of problems lately, not to mention their $2T error.

The problem with the other AAA rated countries is that they don't have
the financial depth to be the backstop currency. The US does and will
remain the currency of last resort for the foreseeable future.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:23:37 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/08/2011 9:45 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In ,
says...

On 8/7/2011 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)


Yes, this was the same dolt who some time ago claimed Germany had
significantly less than 20% unemployment.


He's only a dolt because he talks with the nuts, insults almost
everybody he speaks to, and repeats the same things over and over.
Otherwise, he's usually right.
German unemployment is about 6%.
Anybody can find that with a few key clicks.

Same deceptive math, but they want to believe what the want to believe.

Here's some more economic facts.
There's a whole bunch countries with an AAA credit rating.
Austrailia
Austria
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Guernsey
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Singapore
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Many people in the U.S.A. call those countries "socialist" because they
all have universal health care and old age pensions.
Seems crazy to them.
The U.S.A. has an AA rating and no universal health care.
Second class compared to the countries on the above list.
The U.S.A. does have food stamps.
About 20% of Americans qualify for and use food stamps.
You can't buy beer with food stamps, so personally I don't want to ever
depend on food stamps. Even if I had beer money on the side.
Food stamps are second class "money."
Many people living in the countries with AAA ratings have trouble
understanding why 20% of the people in the U.S.A. are on food stamps,
with which they can't buy beer.
Seems crazy to them.
You can decide for yourself who's crazy.

Rating agencies are bull****. USA should have lost triple A 3 years ago.

I never understood why China was rated so low. Only $1.55 trillion in
civic, provincial and federal debt combined. And offset that they have
lent others more money than tat which makes China in a positive balance.

But then these were US companies doing the ratings. And we know liberal
media downplays that everyone but Moody downgraded USA, it wasn't just S&P.

No doubt in a US treasury you will gt your money back, the real question
is will it be worth as much. And that later prt has a certain risk that
assures it will not be worth as much.

"I never understood...." Yes, we get that you never, don't, and will
never understand.