|
Post by thunderhawk on Nov 12, 2014 19:50:57 GMT -6
America Needs Farmers Farmer Needs American Taxpayer
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 12, 2014 20:13:19 GMT -6
Billiam, since your graph is so far off on the real percentage of people who are unemployed, i think it may cast some doubt on the validity of some of the otter numbers. Yep, I don't doubt that the average prole can name 1 out of 3 his/her pals who is unemployed or woefully underemployed. Thankfully, the Ministry of Truth has concocted a better way to calculate unemployment than just merely figuring out how many people have jobs divided by the actual labor pool.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 12, 2014 20:47:48 GMT -6
Billiam, since your graph is so far off on the real percentage of people who are unemployed, i think it may cast some doubt on the validity of some of the otter numbers. Yep, I don't doubt that the average prole can name 1 out of 3 his/her pals who is unemployed or woefully underemployed. Thankfully, the Ministry of Truth has concocted a better way to calculate unemployment than just merely figuring out how many people have jobs divided by the actual labor pool. I can't. Well, except Duff...but he probably consists of 6% of my social circle.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 12, 2014 20:52:42 GMT -6
Yep, I don't doubt that the average prole can name 1 out of 3 his/her pals who is unemployed or woefully underemployed. Thankfully, the Ministry of Truth has concocted a better way to calculate unemployment than just merely figuring out how many people have jobs divided by the actual labor pool. I can't. Well, except Duff...but he probably consists of 6% of my social circle. You ain't an average prole. Your high school probably consisted of the following cliques: Jocks Preps Nerds X-tian mafia Scumbags Losers Your clique was likely the x-tian mafia clique. As such, you don't keep in touch wif any cliques below yours or the jocks clique, which combined prolly constituted roughly one third to one-half of your school. Those fucks have a 90% unemployment rate.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 12, 2014 21:04:39 GMT -6
I can't. Well, except Duff...but he probably consists of 6% of my social circle. You ain't an average prole. Your high school probably consisted of the following cliques: Jocks Preps Nerds X-tian mafia Scumbags Losers Your clique was likely the x-tian mafia clique. As such, you don't keep in touch wif any cliques below yours or the jocks clique, which combined prolly constituted roughly one third to one-half of your school. Those fucks have a 90% unemployment rate. One, I wasn't a Christian in HS, and Two, I went to fucking Davenport West. The scumbags and losers (and associated acts) were a much larger block than 1/2. Shit, over 50% of the student body's getting lunch from uncle sucker. Still, the fuckers from high school that I keep in touch with? The one's that I would watch burn ganj when I came home from college? They have jobs too.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 12, 2014 21:07:26 GMT -6
Billiam, since your graph is so far off on the real percentage of people who are unemployed, i think it may cast some doubt on the validity of some of the otter numbers. The unemployment rate is 5.9%. I know conservative math doesn't like that, bince the rate doesn't reflect that 1/3 of the country is filthy immigrant teenagers giving birth, but facts is facts.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 12, 2014 21:20:24 GMT -6
I still don't understand why people were so butthurt over this: If you help me win this race, you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone who’s been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years, in a visible or public way, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or, you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.IF ALL THE FARMERS DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR WORK TOMORROW, YOU'D FUCKING DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!1!
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 12, 2014 21:26:57 GMT -6
Billiam, since your graph is so far off on the real percentage of people who are unemployed, i think it may cast some doubt on the validity of some of the otter numbers. The unemployment rate is 5.9%. I know conservative math doesn't like that, bince the rate doesn't reflect that 1/3 of the country is filthy immigrant teenagers giving birth, but facts is facts. BwaIs this really that funny.... Best troll job evah!
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 12, 2014 21:27:31 GMT -6
Do people in rural Iowa worship at the altar of Grassley? I mean, I honestly have nothing against the guy, even politically really, but his skeletor ass needs to go. I felt the same way about Harkin. Both of them were Senators when I learned what Senators were. No one...ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, should be in Congress for 40 years. I agree. That said I don't think it was the worship of Grassley but the fact that he was basically saying "he's just a farmer". That just isn't something you do when trying to get elected in a rural agricultural state like Iowa. The fact that he is a lawyer probably didn't help either. It's better to be all: "I'm a dumb fucking biscuit chef like all Iowans."
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 12, 2014 21:36:09 GMT -6
Actually I think what I said would be way over the head of your average voter. I bet 70-80% of registered voters don't even know that a Judiciary Committee exists, let alone who Scalia is. LULZ In addition, 70% of 'Murikans think the murder rate is rising, when in reality, it's been dropping for 25 years. An actual guess and an average guess eh? Y no actual % and average guess?
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Nov 12, 2014 21:59:34 GMT -6
Billiam, since your graph is so far off on the real percentage of people who are unemployed, i think it may cast some doubt on the validity of some of the otter numbers. Yep, I don't doubt that the average prole can name 1 out of 3 his/her pals who is unemployed or woefully underemployed. Thankfully, the Ministry of Truth has concocted a better way to calculate unemployment than just merely figuring out how many people have jobs divided by the actual labor pool. If the methodology is consistent then the numbers are legitimately comparable over the time period of the statistical measurement. IOW there's no conspiracy and the numbers have always been a little bullshitty. If you're older or less skilled you're just more fucked than before. Things are definitely way fucking better than 6 years ago but I admittedly live in a relatively shielded area.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 12, 2014 22:09:31 GMT -6
Yep, I don't doubt that the average prole can name 1 out of 3 his/her pals who is unemployed or woefully underemployed. Thankfully, the Ministry of Truth has concocted a better way to calculate unemployment than just merely figuring out how many people have jobs divided by the actual labor pool. If the methodology is consistent then the numbers are legitimately comparable over the time period of the statistical measurement. IOW there's no conspiracy and the numbers have always been a little bullshitty. If you're older or less skilled you're just more fucked than before. Things are definitely way fucking better than 6 years ago but I admittedly live in a relatively shielded area. Numbers ain't measured the same, though. The methodology was changed heavily in the '80's and '90's. The US has pretty massive structural unemployment (and I ain't laying blame on anyone, just stating facts). The employment picture is drastically improved from 6 years ago, but recall that I mentioned the headline unemployment number is designed to decrease during any period there aren't substantial job losses without any job gain. Once someone is unemployed for 6 months, they get tossed from the labor pool and the denominator in the equation goes down, which makes unemployment look better even if there is no improvement. The headline unemployment number is a gigantic crock of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Nov 12, 2014 22:29:47 GMT -6
If the methodology is consistent then the numbers are legitimately comparable over the time period of the statistical measurement. IOW there's no conspiracy and the numbers have always been a little bullshitty. If you're older or less skilled you're just more fucked than before. Things are definitely way fucking better than 6 years ago but I admittedly live in a relatively shielded area. Numbers ain't measured the same, though. The methodology was changed heavily in the '80's and '90's. The US has pretty massive structural unemployment (and I ain't laying blame on anyone, just stating facts). The employment picture is drastically improved from 6 years ago, but recall that I mentioned the headline unemployment number is designed to decrease during any period there aren't substantial job losses without any job gain. Once someone is unemployed for 6 months, they get tossed from the labor pool and the denominator in the equation goes down, which makes unemployment look better even if there is no improvement. The headline unemployment number is a gigantic crock of shit. You have to think that most people (not all) who go 6 plus months with out working, may have issues preventing them from being able to work. How could you still include them in the labor pool?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Nov 12, 2014 23:46:34 GMT -6
If the methodology is consistent then the numbers are legitimately comparable over the time period of the statistical measurement. IOW there's no conspiracy and the numbers have always been a little bullshitty. If you're older or less skilled you're just more fucked than before. Things are definitely way fucking better than 6 years ago but I admittedly live in a relatively shielded area. Numbers ain't measured the same, though. The methodology was changed heavily in the '80's and '90's. The US has pretty massive structural unemployment (and I ain't laying blame on anyone, just stating facts). The employment picture is drastically improved from 6 years ago, but recall that I mentioned the headline unemployment number is designed to decrease during any period there aren't substantial job losses without any job gain. Once someone is unemployed for 6 months, they get tossed from the labor pool and the denominator in the equation goes down, which makes unemployment look better even if there is no improvement. The headline unemployment number is a gigantic crock of shit. You're wrong in that they flatly get tossed from the labor pool, as you would see a marked drop in the unemployment numbers in 6 months time... or we would have been at a zero sum of pre-recession numbers after about 3 years. The number you are thinking of is that people get dropped from unemployment after 6 months / their unemployment exhausts after 6 months. The numbers are compiled via surveys and numbers from various agencies / companies. For example- I just received my 6 month call back from the Census that had selected my employed & doing OK family to represent approximately 150,000 families for calendar 2014. Am I average'ish? Is my story (employment / education / income / marital status / # of kids, etc.) identical to 15,000 other families? Perhaps so on both fronts when averaged, but I'd like to think I'm a bit above average. ...anyway, I got sidetracked & forgot the point I was going to finish with - but your thoughts on the blanket statement of people being dropped is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by TaterWanger on Nov 13, 2014 0:30:45 GMT -6
Numbers ain't measured the same, though. The methodology was changed heavily in the '80's and '90's. The US has pretty massive structural unemployment (and I ain't laying blame on anyone, just stating facts). The employment picture is drastically improved from 6 years ago, but recall that I mentioned the headline unemployment number is designed to decrease during any period there aren't substantial job losses without any job gain. Once someone is unemployed for 6 months, they get tossed from the labor pool and the denominator in the equation goes down, which makes unemployment look better even if there is no improvement. The headline unemployment number is a gigantic crock of shit. You have to think that most people (not all) who go 6 plus months with out working, may have issues preventing them from being able to work. How could you still include them in the labor pool? problem statistics?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 13, 2014 7:44:30 GMT -6
Is there a "willingly unemployed" category? Is it called duffing? being a parent is a full time job. Thanks Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Nov 13, 2014 7:49:35 GMT -6
Is there a "willingly unemployed" category? Is it called duffing? being a parent is a full time job. Thanks Obama. His wife is lucky she has a wife. I wish I did.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Dec 16, 2014 14:18:51 GMT -6
Jesus R2...wut the fuck is going on down in Brownbackistan??? The Kansas Legislature’s nonpartisan research staff pointed out that Brownback’s proposal will use many one-time resources. He called for draining the highway fund of $100 million and axing tens of millions more from pension contributions, children’s programs and state agencies.
Now it appears that, starting in January, he and the Legislature may have to slash a staggering $648 million from the next budget, which begins July 1. That’s way up from the $436 million shortfall predicted just last month in a consensus revenue estimate.
And there’s more. The fiscal challenges could get worse if legislators follow Kansas law and set aside an added $400 million or so in general fund reserves.
All told, that could lead to a potential $1 billion in cuts in the next fiscal year in a budget of around $6 billion. That would put K-12 school funding, which makes up half of general fund spending, squarely on the chopping block.
Read more here: www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article4456850.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Dec 16, 2014 16:13:37 GMT -6
The thing that gets me...I mean, I don't give a shit if Kansas has a budget deficit. I mean, super libby lib states have teh same issue. Failed policies is failed policies. What I don't get is how the people keep buying this shit when the state is literally taking from the poor to give the rich.
|
|
0044
Prostate Massager
Posts: 241
|
Post by 0044 on Dec 17, 2014 9:12:56 GMT -6
The thing that gets me...I mean, I don't give a shit if Kansas has a budget deficit. I mean, super libby lib states have teh same issue. Failed policies is failed policies. What I don't get is how the people keep buying this shit when the state is literally taking from the poor to give the rich. But soon to haves bruh! We're a nation of 'em! Just ask Mr Soon To Have himself, tweetderp. Tell us all about it Robin Hood. Let's start with one example of when you have lifted a knuckle dragger up.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Dec 17, 2014 9:34:40 GMT -6
Underwrite me. And do it with a smile on ur face.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Dec 17, 2014 11:57:23 GMT -6
But soon to haves bruh! We're a nation of 'em! Just ask Mr Soon To Have himself, tweetderp. Tell us all about it Robin Hood. Let's start with one example of when you have lifted a knuckle dragger up. Does clear cutting forests count?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Dec 17, 2014 12:36:05 GMT -6
I've pumped moar of MY money into the merrkan economy over the past 5 years than any 8 of you combined. And that includes ok4p, who lives a VERY frugal life. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Dec 17, 2014 12:41:35 GMT -6
I've pumped moar of MY money into the merrkan economy over the past 5 years than any 8 of you combined. And that includes ok4p, who lives a VERY frugal life. Dude...I bought and sold a house, 4 cars... and I've added 3 kids. That last part puts me over the top on the economic output scale. The velocity of my money is liek warp speed.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Dec 17, 2014 12:48:40 GMT -6
I've pumped moar of MY money into the merrkan economy over the past 5 years than any 8 of you combined. And that includes ok4p, who lives a VERY frugal life. Dude...I bought and sold a house, 4 cars... and I've added 3 kids. That last part puts me over the top on the economic output scale. The velocity of my money is liek warp speed. HE THROWS AWAY BETTER FOOD FOR HIS DAWGS THAN YOUR FAMILY EATS ON CHRISTMAS!!!!
|
|