What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

merc, what's the total number of government jobs?

What is it for every municipality of local government?

What's the total payroll of the Federal government including military, CIA, ATF, etc., even those entities which ostensibly pay for themselves such as the Post Office, Freddie and Fannie, but in reality need continual tax dollar bailouts?

Now, if that number is five million, then half a million is an impressive number, however, if the number is closer to 50 million, then, again, we see that government has little or no skin in the game.

Now, you may continue to wish to try and claim that government is "shrinking," but the rest of us see 4,000 lines of code creating quite a boon in jobs, not to mention the wave of Czars...

I remember the last time the government shed jobs, it affected my little brother. He was laid off from his government job and rehired as an independent contractor the same day, doing the same job, in the same office with a two grade promotion to make up for the loss of his benefit package...

Stop changing the subject and just admit you're wrong. The number of government jobs is shrinking even while the population is increasing. I've already demonstrated this and provided multiple sources.

Despite this plain fact, you're sticking to your emotional thinking though. It *FEELS* to you like government payrolls are expanding. The thinking part of you sees them shrinking by half a million, but you're deciding to set that aside and go with "feelings" that you have from reading your fearmongering propaganda. You're being completely illogical but hey, your choice.

And if you want to bring the post office into the equation we can look up their payroll numbers as well. And since they're shrinking too it will just provide more evidence to back my point. But then you will just counter with "It FEELS like the post office is getting bigger" or something, wont you?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

how about you take a cup of "man" and man-up! stop crying in your beer, and get off your ass

Look who's talking. You do absolutely nothing and you alt the name of another equally do-nothing bitch who most likely does less of the nothing that you do since she has to be a ho for her husband, embarrassingly.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/Jim_stfu.jpg

 

[JenAltArmy]

seeing that you are one of the fab 5, demanding more taxes (for those in higher income level that yourself), demanding more entitlements, and more government jobs.

hum....isn't this what got us in the mess? isn't obama leading us into a double dip recession?

time to end the welfare gravy train

Look who's talking. You do absolutely nothing and you alt the name of another equally do-nothing bitch who most likely does less of the nothing that you do since she has to be a ho for her husband, embarrassingly.

 

[JenAltArmy]

didn't you say that obama added 140,000 last qtr?

hum, if you added 140,000 is that shrinking? granted, you only know "government" math

Stop changing the subject and just admit you're wrong. The number of government jobs is shrinking even while the population is increasing. I've already demonstrated this and provided multiple sources.

Despite this plain fact, you're sticking to your emotional thinking though. It *FEELS* to you like government payrolls are expanding. The thinking part of you sees them shrinking by half a million, but you're deciding to set that aside and go with "feelings" that you have from reading your fearmongering propaganda. You're being completely illogical but hey, your choice.

And if you want to bring the post office into the equation we can look up their payroll numbers as well. And since they're shrinking too it will just provide more evidence to back my point. But then you will just counter with "It FEELS like the post office is getting bigger" or something, wont you?

 

[mercury14]

didn't you say that obama added 140,000 last qtr?

hum, if you added 140,000 is that shrinking? granted, you only know "government" math

Jenny-poo, those were jobs in the overall economy, not government jobs. And as The Bureau's monthly report pointed out, the number of government jobs continued to shrink last month, just as it has ever since peaking in 2008. That's right, it peaked in 2008 after 6 years of total Republican control. The once the dems came into power government payrolls stopped growing and started shrinking. Now I know this goes against everything you WANT to believe but it's right there plain as day for you to see.

And no I didn't say 140k the last quarter, I said +200k PER MONTH for each of the past 3 months. (or rather 2 months a little under 200k, 1 month over 210k).

 

[JenAltArmy]

Jenny-poo, those were jobs in the overall economy, not government jobs. And as The Bureau's monthly report pointed out, the number of government jobs continued to shrink last month, just as it has ever since peaking in 2008. That's right, it peaked in 2008 after 6 years of total Republican control. The once the dems came into power government payrolls stopped growing and started shrinking. Now I know this goes against everything you WANT to believe but it's right there plain as day for you to see.

And no I didn't say 140k the last quarter, I said +200k PER MONTH for the past 3 months. (or rather 2 months a little under 200k, 1 month over 210k).

why do you live in the past? think about today and tomorrow.

uncle oabma is out to destroy America, do you see that yet?

wait, wasn't there 35,000 new jobs (private sector) with the last report?

uncle obama is doing more damage to the economy than Bush

 

[mercury14]

why do you live in the past? think about today and tomorrow.

uncle oabma is out to destroy America, do you see that yet?

wait, wasn't there 35,000 new jobs (private sector) with the last report?

uncle obama is doing more damage to the economy than Bush

There were +35,000 jobs in May but that was later upgraded to +54,000. See the Bureau of Labor Statistics website for yourself if you wish. And not sure who "unble oabma" is, but under President Obama we went from -600,000 per month to +138,000 per month so far this year.

It must really suck to be you though, waking up every day in a country whose president is out to destroy it. If you ever want to join the real world, we're accepting new members.

 

[busybody..]

There were +35,000 jobs in May but that was later upgraded to +54,000. See the Bureau of Labor Statistics website for yourself if you wish. And not sure who "unble oabma" is, but under President Obama we went from -600,000 per month to +138,000 per month so far this year.

It must really suck to be you though, waking up every day in a country whose president is out to destroy it. If you ever want to join the real world, we're accepting new members.

only a FOOL NIGGER could be as dumb as you

keep protecting teh NIGGER

 

[onemadvagabond]

Dude, I JUST showed you a link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:



So there's minus a half-million government jobs right there.

The number of federal employees is the same as when Clinton was in office.

"From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

So um, we added a new cabinet department, entered into two wars, and are currently being flooded with demands for Veterans' services, and we still DECREASED the number of federal employees from 2.15 million to 2.11 million between 2010-2011. Add that to a -446,000 decrease in local government jobs and you have a total loss of half a million government jobs.

Sorry, your right wing narrative isn't supported by facts or data. It relies on stupid people not checking facts for themselves and just putting blind faith into their right wing overlords.

I hate to burst your bubble with those government employment statistics, but I guess the truth needs to be told since you are not looking at the whole truth just to prove you are right. Employment in local government is continuing to decline not because they decided to just start cutting back. If you look at the factors involved, you have the main one, which are taxes. Local governments throughout the country have been pointing out that those layoffs are due in a big part to lost tax income due to plunging home values. Lower home values means people pay less for their property taxes. Local and state governments take in less money; therefore they have to make cuts, which they have. It’s been talked about on the news here locally numerous times in the last couple of years. A lot of those are also DOT employees etc. Departments are cutting the fat in these hard economic times. Also, if you look at the more liberal states such as California, Illinoise etc., they have the added burden of the entitlement issue to deal with. I know that you love my anecdotes, but this one definately paints a picture. I have a good friend in San Diego that is on disability and gets $9,400. a month to sit at home and do nothing.
Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

Federal Employment for 2008 was roughly 1,927,000 civilian. For 2009 it was roughly 2,152,000 civilian. These numbers are from the U.S. office of personnel management. Those numbers are a bit higher than what the article points to, but they don’t give the total civilian employment now do they. I think I will go by what the OPM puts out, and not a Washington times article. The OPM has not updated for the 2010 or 2011 years yet, but as you can see, the trend is going up. The numbers went down for federal employment since last year, but that was due to letting go the temporary census workers. Therefore, they don’t really count for any of these arguments on federal employment numbers do they.

The article you alluded to in the Washington times doesn‘t really make your case. I mean the title of the article is Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million. Yet that doesn’t even tell the whole truth because there are a lot of numbers that are being left out of those statistics. Either way the title says it all. Largest federal payroll. I would also like to point out that they only talk about raising employment and point out the sectors where it will happen, yet say it will go down to 2.11 million in 2011, but do not say anything about where those cuts will come from. I’m guessing it will be the census workers that were only temporary anyway.

Now you are also confusing the difference between federal and local government jobs. That nearly half million you keep refering to is local and state. I don't know if you are just trying to hold on to your flimsy argument at all costs or if you just got yourself confused with the numbers.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I know that you love my anecdotes, but this one definately paints a picture. I have a good friend in San Diego that is on disability and gets $9,400. a month to sit at home and do nothing.
Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

I know you tried to emphasize this for dramatics, but it's still just an anecdote.

What kind of disability does your friend have? Is he just sitting at home with a stubbed toe or is he seriously fucked-up in some way that I wouldn't wanna trade places with him for, even with that monthly bank? What is it exactly that I'm supposed to be impressed by here?

Right now, a bench warmer under a multi-year contract on the NBA's worst team is making more than your friend. You can say that he is doing nothing, too, especially since he plays for roughly half a year. And since he ain't made the playoffs AGAIN, I bet he is crying the sorrows of his hard life away doing a few body shots off a stripper's bare suntanned ass in San Cabo Lucas right now. While we schmucks keep arguing about political shit on a porn board. Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

 

[mercury14]

I hate to burst your bubble with those government employment statistics, but I guess the truth needs to be told since you are not looking at the whole truth just to prove you are right. Employment in local government is continuing to decline not because they decided to just start cutting back. If you look at the factors involved, you have the main one, which are taxes. Local governments throughout the country have been pointing out that those layoffs are due in a big part to lost tax income due to plunging home values. Lower home values means people pay less for their property taxes. Local and state governments take in less money; therefore they have to make cuts, which they have. It’s been talked about on the news here locally numerous times in the last couple of years. A lot of those are also DOT employees etc. Departments are cutting the fat in these hard economic times. Also, if you look at the more liberal states such as California, Illinoise etc., they have the added burden of the entitlement issue to deal with. I know that you love my anecdotes, but this one definately paints a picture. I have a good friend in San Diego that is on disability and gets $9,400. a month to sit at home and do nothing.
Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

Federal Employment for 2008 was roughly 1,927,000 civilian. For 2009 it was roughly 2,152,000 civilian. These numbers are from the U.S. office of personnel management. Those numbers are a bit higher than what the article points to, but they don’t give the total civilian employment now do they. I think I will go by what the OPM puts out, and not a Washington times article. The OPM has not updated for the 2010 or 2011 years yet, but as you can see, the trend is going up. The numbers went down for federal employment since last year, but that was due to letting go the temporary census workers. Therefore, they don’t really count for any of these arguments on federal employment numbers do they.

The article you alluded to in the Washington times doesn‘t really make your case. I mean the title of the article is Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million. Yet that doesn’t even tell the whole truth because there are a lot of numbers that are being left out of those statistics. Either way the title says it all. Largest federal payroll. I would also like to point out that they only talk about raising employment and point out the sectors where it will happen, yet say it will go down to 2.11 million in 2011, but do not say anything about where those cuts will come from. I’m guessing it will be the census workers that were only temporary anyway.

Now you are also confusing the difference between federal and local government jobs. That nearly half million you keep refering to is local and state. I don't know if you are just trying to hold on to your flimsy argument at all costs or if you just got yourself confused with the numbers.

No dude, I'm not "confusing" federal and lobal government jobs. There were accusations that "government jobs" were increasing overall in number and as you can see they are not. Even using the slightly higher figures that you have, they are still decreasing significantly.

Yes there are certain sectors of the government that have expanded, mostly due to the War on Terror. The Bush Administration invented the Dept of Homeland Security, which is an entirely new sector of the executive branch. The CIA is beefed up. The FBI is beefed up. We have two wars which require a lot of troops and it's probably best not to get rid of them right now. And of course two wars require a lot of civilian Dept of Defense support. Then there's the TSA and all other associated security elements.

So getting back to the point, are the OVERALL number of government jobs increasing or decreasing? Even you will have to say decreasing. And that doesn't even include the fact that the Post Office is shrinking.

 

[busybody..]

Whem NIGGER can no longer blame BUSH

NIGGER blames EU and Japan

You must be proud of NIGGER

Loser, and you all protct him, cause you need to protect the NIGGER

Obama Blames Europe, Japan for US Economic Woes
Published: Saturday, 4 Jun 2011 | 12:27 PM ET Text Size By: Reuters

President Obama is pointing to problems in Japan and Europe as challenges for the U.S. economy, placing some blame on events abroad for a domestic recovery that is showing signs of slowing down.


Photo by: Pete Souza
President Barack Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government data released Friday showed employers in May hired the fewest number of workers in eight months and U.S. unemployment rose to 9.1 percent, up from 9.0 percent in April.

That bump is a political challenge for the president, whose re-election in 2012 may depend on his ability to convince voters that his economic policies have been successful.

Part of his pitch will include steering attention to outside forces as causes for economic woes at home.

The president did just that in his weekly radio and Internet address, broadcast Saturday, by highlighting "head winds" that are affecting the United States.

"Even though our economy has created more than two million private sector jobs over the past 15 months and continues to grow, we're facing some tough head winds," he said.

"Lately, it's high gas prices, the earthquake in Japan, and unease about the European fiscal situation. That will happen from time to time. There will be bumps on the road to recovery."

Republicans have zeroed in on those bumps, too, saying they are evidence that Obama's policies are not working.

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, in his party's radio address, emphasized the need for more private sector job growth and flexibility with unions—a key constituency for Obama's Democrats.

"Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs in this country," Alexander said. "Giving workers the right to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more manufacturers like Nissan and Boeing can make here what they sell here."


Weakness in private sector job growth is becoming a key talking point for Republicans, who see it as as a vulnerability for Obama ahead of the 2012 election.

The president, meanwhile, repeated his case that his administration's policies have helped job growth in the U.S. auto industry, revived from near collapse with the support of government bailouts.

"All three American automakers are now adding shifts and creating jobs at the strongest rate since the 1990s," he said. "That's remarkable when you think about where we were just a couple of years ago."

Obama Friday greeted workers and toured a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, as he reminded voters that his 2009 auto bailout saved thousands of U.S. jobs.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The economy will never return to how it once was, that's quite certain. Countries such as China, Brazil, and Chile are taking slices of the pie nowadays.

That's nonsense. It is not a zero sum game. That's the problem with liberal thinking and the soak the rich mentality. I used to be in the party of JFK, but I left it when it became the party of Marx and Mao...

 

[rosco rathbone]

That's nonsense. It is not a zero sum game. That's the problem with liberal thinking and the soak the rich mentality. I used to be in the party of JFK, but I left it when it became the party of Marx and Mao...

Should have stayed with it, not longer after that it became the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Stop changing the subject and just admit you're wrong. The number of government jobs is shrinking even while the population is increasing. I've already demonstrated this and provided multiple sources.

Despite this plain fact, you're sticking to your emotional thinking though. It *FEELS* to you like government payrolls are expanding. The thinking part of you sees them shrinking by half a million, but you're deciding to set that aside and go with "feelings" that you have from reading your fearmongering propaganda. You're being completely illogical but hey, your choice.

And if you want to bring the post office into the equation we can look up their payroll numbers as well. And since they're shrinking too it will just provide more evidence to back my point. But then you will just counter with "It FEELS like the post office is getting bigger" or something, wont you?

No, you have not proved your case sir, you have proved it for a subset.

Get back to me when you can prove it.

We know the Post office is shrinking and why, but those jobs are being replaced by other new agencies created in the health care and finacial care bills.
__________________
When you work for government, government works for you.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I hate to burst your bubble with those government employment statistics, but I guess the truth needs to be told since you are not looking at the whole truth just to prove you are right. Employment in local government is continuing to decline not because they decided to just start cutting back. If you look at the factors involved, you have the main one, which are taxes. Local governments throughout the country have been pointing out that those layoffs are due in a big part to lost tax income due to plunging home values. Lower home values means people pay less for their property taxes. Local and state governments take in less money; therefore they have to make cuts, which they have. It’s been talked about on the news here locally numerous times in the last couple of years. A lot of those are also DOT employees etc. Departments are cutting the fat in these hard economic times. Also, if you look at the more liberal states such as California, Illinoise etc., they have the added burden of the entitlement issue to deal with. I know that you love my anecdotes, but this one definately paints a picture. I have a good friend in San Diego that is on disability and gets $9,400. a month to sit at home and do nothing.
Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

Federal Employment for 2008 was roughly 1,927,000 civilian. For 2009 it was roughly 2,152,000 civilian. These numbers are from the U.S. office of personnel management. Those numbers are a bit higher than what the article points to, but they don’t give the total civilian employment now do they. I think I will go by what the OPM puts out, and not a Washington times article. The OPM has not updated for the 2010 or 2011 years yet, but as you can see, the trend is going up. The numbers went down for federal employment since last year, but that was due to letting go the temporary census workers. Therefore, they don’t really count for any of these arguments on federal employment numbers do they.

The article you alluded to in the Washington times doesn‘t really make your case. I mean the title of the article is Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million. Yet that doesn’t even tell the whole truth because there are a lot of numbers that are being left out of those statistics. Either way the title says it all. Largest federal payroll. I would also like to point out that they only talk about raising employment and point out the sectors where it will happen, yet say it will go down to 2.11 million in 2011, but do not say anything about where those cuts will come from. I’m guessing it will be the census workers that were only temporary anyway.

Now you are also confusing the difference between federal and local government jobs. That nearly half million you keep refering to is local and state. I don't know if you are just trying to hold on to your flimsy argument at all costs or if you just got yourself confused with the numbers.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Should have stayed with it, not longer after that it became the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller!

It's up for bid, ask BP...

__________________
"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn't come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."
Barack Hussein Obama

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Obama is "cornered..."



... according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Bill Galston:

He is in a corner, there is no question about it. He is in a political corner, a fiscal corner and an economic corner. The Federal Reserve has fired every gun in its arsenal, and there is no appetite in Congress for any more stimulus. There is every reason to think that the economy he has is the economy he is going to have for the reelection campaign, maybe plus or minus just a little bit.

Galston, the former Clinton adviser, is a true leftist.

__________________
“I think she could win... She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win... Any time you have a contest — particularly when unemployment is as high as it is — nobody gets a walkover. Whoever the Republicans nominate, including people like Sarah Palin, whom the inside-the-Beltway crowd dismisses — my view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway...,”
Howard Dean

 

[koalabear]

For jobless, little US help on foreclosures


Already plagued by delays, poor participation, programs not designed to fully address unemployment


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43283120/ns/business-us_business

 

[Beco]

For jobless, little US help on foreclosures


Already plagued by delays, poor participation, programs not designed to fully address unemployment


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43283120/ns/business-us_business

foreclosure's slowed because they shut down the process, once that's ramped up again, foreclosures should go back to high levels. If you brake your leg, you should reset it and put a cast on it. This is like taking Advil to relieve the pain, not fixing the real problem.

 

[onemadvagabond]

I know you tried to emphasize this for dramatics, but it's still just an anecdote.

What kind of disability does your friend have? Is he just sitting at home with a stubbed toe or is he seriously fucked-up in some way that I wouldn't wanna trade places with him for, even with that monthly bank? What is it exactly that I'm supposed to be impressed by here?

Right now, a bench warmer under a multi-year contract on the NBA's worst team is making more than your friend. You can say that he is doing nothing, too, especially since he plays for roughly half a year. And since he ain't made the playoffs AGAIN, I bet he is crying the sorrows of his hard life away doing a few body shots off a stripper's bare suntanned ass in San Cabo Lucas right now. While we schmucks keep arguing about political shit on a porn board. Everybody stop right there and just really think about that for a moment.

That little anecdote was not aimed towards you or dramatics. It was a little joke towards mercury14. As far as my freind goes, he has a bad back. Not terrible mind you. He is still able to take care of himself. When he worked, it was as a finance guy for a car dealership. My point with that, even though he is my freind, is the fact that paying someone over a hundred thousand a year for disability is an integral part of why states like California are going bankrupt. I'm not arguing against disability payments. I was pointing out that sometimes it is a little out of control.

Your counter argument is ignorant at best. It's taxpayer money being paid over a hundred grand to my freind. If you don't like seeing guys sitting on their asses on the bench of a basketball game then don't pay to go see it. If you don't like seeing someone making over a hundred grand from tax dollars for doing nothing you can't stop paying your taxes.

 

[koalabear]

foreclosure's slowed because they shut down the process, once that's ramped up again, foreclosures should go back to high levels. If you brake your leg, you should reset it and put a cast on it. This is like taking Advil to relieve the pain, not fixing the real problem.

Minor paperwork snafu, it should be cleared up soon.

 

[busybody..]

We live in NIGGERVILLE

REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ABOVE 20% NOT 9.1%


WE LIVE IN OBAMAVILLE: A NATION OF BIG POVERTY AND BIGGER LEFTIST MEDIA LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WHICH IS AT GREAT DEPRESSION LEVELS OF ABOVE 20%.

But there's no hope (you have to keep this in mind) for any real reduction in the unemployment rate as long as that number is above 400,000, and economists are saying it will be for years to come. That 400,000, you have to get sickle below that before you even start talking about replacement level jobs. It's a disaster. The real question is whether or not this is what Obama intends. The real question is: "Is this the objective?" I still maintain that that must be seriously examined, because nobody in their right mind-- with a modicum of experience, economic intelligence, and education -- would ever double down, triple down on failed policies like this, to whom this mess can be directly traceable. Something is really, drastically wrong with all of this, and it's not the United States of America. This is not deserved, this is not called for, this is not just what happens to be up next for us.

There's more going on here than just it is cyclical nature of economics. -- Rush Limbaugh

 

[IrezumiKiss]

That little anecdote was not aimed towards you or dramatics. It was a little joke towards mercury14. As far as my freind goes, he has a bad back. Not terrible mind you. He is still able to take care of himself. When he worked, it was as a finance guy for a car dealership. My point with that, even though he is my freind, is the fact that paying someone over a hundred thousand a year for disability is an integral part of why states like California are going bankrupt. I'm not arguing against disability payments. I was pointing out that sometimes it is a little out of control.

Your counter argument is ignorant at best. It's taxpayer money being paid over a hundred grand to my freind. If you don't like seeing guys sitting on their asses on the bench of a basketball game then don't pay to go see it. If you don't like seeing someone making over a hundred grand from tax dollars for doing nothing you can't stop paying your taxes.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to feel this is why there's a problem, but I am saying with my reply anecdote that you can't arbitrarily decide another person's worth. Which is, despite the honest waste going on, a lot of what people sitting back in their easy chairs online are judging. Especially by biased people (often conservatives) towards whom they deem as "lazy" without having or caring to walk a few miles in another man's mocassins. If this is what is necessary for him to get by in disability, then so be it. If it isn't, then you prove and show through factual example that he doesn't need all that moolah. You gotta do that. I think that bench warmer for a NBA team that loses 90% of the time shouldn't be able to have five rarely driven Mercedes Benz' of different colors sitting out in the sun of his backyard mini-estate, but hey.... just like a fatcat corporation CEO who does a seemingly equal amount of nothing and loves his three-martini lunches at a Boulud restaurant, I can't tell people what they're worth or what they should be doing with the money that they earn or receive legally.

 

[unregistered]