Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
I got more man in my dirty socks than you have in your whole family tree, dipshit.
If ya don't mind, we'd rather not know what's in your socks.
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
If ya don't mind, we'd rather not know what's in your socks.
U
unregistered
Guest
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Probably his dignity. Blends in good with the odor, I reckon.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
I got more man in my dirty socks than you have in your whole family tree, dipshit.
It's a good bet that you've had more man in lots of places than my entire family tree gramps. This explains your anal fixation and your confusion distinguishing women from men.
Last edited:
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Maybe the COLORED TONED ARMZ will take one less vacation, maybe!
CBO: White House Delaying Obamacare’s Employer Mandate To Cost Government $12 Billion…
The train wreck continues.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s decision to delay implementation of part of his healthcare reform law will cost $12 billion and leave a million fewer Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance in 2014, congressional researchers said Tuesday.
The report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is the first authoritative estimate of the human and fiscal cost from the administration’s unexpected one-year delay announced July 2 of the employer mandate – a requirement for larger businesses to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.
The analysts said the delay will add to the cost of “Obamacare’s” insurance-coverage provisions over the next 10 years. Penalties paid by employers would be lower and more individuals who otherwise might have had employer coverage will need federal insurance subsidies
CBO: White House Delaying Obamacare’s Employer Mandate To Cost Government $12 Billion…
The train wreck continues.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s decision to delay implementation of part of his healthcare reform law will cost $12 billion and leave a million fewer Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance in 2014, congressional researchers said Tuesday.
The report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is the first authoritative estimate of the human and fiscal cost from the administration’s unexpected one-year delay announced July 2 of the employer mandate – a requirement for larger businesses to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.
The analysts said the delay will add to the cost of “Obamacare’s” insurance-coverage provisions over the next 10 years. Penalties paid by employers would be lower and more individuals who otherwise might have had employer coverage will need federal insurance subsidies
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
The part of your article you didn't want to paste:
What a shithead Obama is for letting people graduate college at the end of the school year!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
100% of cities have high schools and/or universities where a glut of people graduated in May or June, yes. Did you think graduations were in November?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
The Labor Department said Tuesday that unemployment rates rose in 347 large metro areas in June compared with the previous month. They fell in 12 and were unchanged in 13. In May, rates fell in 109 cities and rose in 243.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
That's just a re-paste of the sameseasonally unadjusted figures, right?
I guess as long as you keep using unadjusted figures every month that's fine. But I suspect you'll forget to update us on the steep drop in unemployment in September when school starts and again around the holidays when there's a surge in seasonal hiring.
Then you'll be back in January to tell us all about how Obama is making the economy shed jobs with no mention of Christmas temp jobs concluding.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
No Probem, TONED ARMZ. Mangina and the PROZZIES are on vacatio, its awesome
NEXT TIME VOTE FOR THE WHITE GUY WHO HAS ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS
Lakshman Achuthan: The US Entered Recession Last Year And "Is Worse Than Japan In the 90s"
Despite Tom Keene's best efforts to appear fair-and-balanced, this brief interview on Bloomberg TV places ECRI's Lakshman Achuthan in the uncomfortable position of destroying every propagandized 'fact' that the mainstream media is entrusted with disseminating to the Pavlovian investing community. From recessions with job growth ("we believe a US recession began in 2012") to the wealth divide and from GDP revisions to job quality differentials, Achuthan warns the US is becoming Japan, "U.S. growth over the last five years is weaker than Japan during the Lost Decades." Keene's insistence that things are on-the-up (though admitting that Achuthan's call on the decline in growth was correct) is met with the rhetorical question, "you wouldn't have four years of zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing if everything was okay."
At 1:05, Achuthan stuns the Bloomberg anchors - "We believe that a recession began last year. Time will tell if that call is correct."
To which they retort...
"The jobs situation is great"
[LA] ...the job market is not doing well, all headlines aside. When you – I think the core thing here, and something that concerns us quite a bit, is the types of jobs that make money. So if you happen to be between the age of 35 and 54, since this so-called jobs recovery began three-and-a-half years ago, you’ve actually seen job losses, not gains, okay?
Job losses for 35 to 54 year-olds approaching a million jobs lost. Now that happens to be, that 20-year span of your life, happens to be where you make the most money, and where you spend the most money. And so I think that is at the core of why, when you say, “Hey, jobs are great,” people say, “Eh, you know, it doesn't feel that way.” And they're right.
"Who is doing well?"
[LA] Madison Avenue is not the country. It's not the world we live in, actually. It's kind of a little bit of a bubble, and as is some of the luxury items, to tell you the truth, right? If you are doing well, financially generally, then in the recent economy, you’ve been doing very well because you’ve seen real estate prices recover sharply, and you’ve seen the stock market recover sharply. To switch gears here, it's good – If you're around Wall Street, you're probably close to the helicopters which are spewing out cash. And that's a pretty good thing.
"But most people are not near Wall Street"
[LA] Most people are near Main Street. And that is why there is all this kind of disconnect. The President is doing what he’s doing. The policymakers are saying – The conservatives are saying, “Hey, there’s too much regulation and too much taxing.” The liberals are saying, “Let’s do some more Keynesian stimulus and other things.”
And I think everybody’s missing what’s going on, which is that growth is not there. Growth has been downshifting since before the Great Recession. And it's not only happening in the U.S.
And that's ailing the aggregate economy.
"but again, jobs are improving?"
[LA] First off, all you have now are preliminary numbers... All that gets revised massively, that defines where the economy is. And secondarily, you cannot get away from the fact that 35 to 54 year olds have lost almost a million jobs since this jobs recovery began. That's where you make your money. You don’t make your money as a kid. And you don’t make your money when you're about to retire.
"but The Fed sees growth..."
[LA] Of course. They would like you to believe that everything’s okay, and things are relatively under control, except their actions suggest otherwise, right?
I’ve never heard a Fed Chairman call a recession. They’ve always said there isn’t one. And then they’ve said, “if you don’t do” – or, “If I didn't do what I was doing, there would be one,” when there is, in fact, one going on, if you look at the history.
But I just want to say plainly that you wouldn't have four years of zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing and Q-ternity if everything was okay.
"Short-term GDP growth might be weak but growth is around the corner"
[LA] ...tomorrow, you're going to get a revision, and a preliminary number for the latest quarter and then a revision to the history. And when you do that, and when you see that, I want you to understand that GDP, following recessions, gets revised. It gets revised much more than you think...
It gets revised – On the last few recessions - Two to four percentage point revision, almost always downward, following the last few recessions. And you're sitting here applauding about a 1% growth
In the first six months you get about 10% of the revision. There are subsequent revisions to come. So tomorrow is not [the end]
"but how can we be in recession if we are creating jobs?"
[LA] ...you have had recessions where you’ve had positive job growth for eight or so months...
In the ’73 – ’75 recession, which was a severe global recession, you had positive jobs growth. Now, to your point, there are also revisions to the jobs data. Geoffrey Moore was Commissioner of BLS at one time, and knows that the information that is used to define recession: output, employment, income and sales – Those things all get revised massively.
Before Lehman, if you look back, those jobs data, on average, are revised down 140,000 per month. And you're sitting here, rightly reporting that we’re hoping for 150,000 to 180,000. I'm suggesting that that is well within the range of the revisions that you need to go negative. And on top of that, now, anyone who’s in the moment of their life when they're supposed to make money, is not making money. They’ve lost almost a million jobs, 35 to 54.
I think Main Street agrees with us.
[LA] ...This is an inconvenient thing I'm saying here, that there is no growth, and it's going the other way. Now if you're the Fed, and you're the only game in town, you're at zero interest rates, and you're trying the wealth effect, you have to say it's working, and you have to say, “Now I can taper.” If you're a politician maker, you say, “You should use my policy.”
But what’s happening is growth has been declining since before the last recession. And it's not only happening here.
On The US Becoming Japan,
Five years ago, the summer before the Lehman collapse, ECRI’s research found that U.S. economic growth had been stair-stepping down in successive economic expansions, going back to the 1970s. So, even before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and deleveraging concerns came to the fore, we predicted a feeble economic expansion to follow the then-ongoing recession.
We extended our research to other major developed economies, most of which exhibited similar patterns of slowing trend growth. Driven by deep structural changes, these patterns were likely to result in low trend growth for many years to come – with or without the deleveraging that followed the GFC.
In the chart, the rear row of green bars depicts average GDP growth in each economy from 1980 to the beginning of the 21st century (for Japan the green bar shows average GDP growth from 1980 to 1992, which saw the first recession of its “lost decades”).
Japan’s entry into its lost decades (1992 to present, red bar), and the other developed economies’ entry into the 21st century (yellow bars), saw major downshifts in growth.
Notably, the U.S. and other major developed economies have experience slower growth in the last five years (blue bars, front row) than Japan experienced in its lost decades (red bar). Chinese GDP growth has also declined.
The bottom line: around the world, long-term trends in growth have downshifted, already resulting in weaker recoveries and more frequent recessions than most had expected when the 21st century began. The response, following Japan’s example, has been more and more quantitative easing, which has been unable to break this pattern of long-term declines in trend growth.
But to those betting on a return to much stronger trend growth, either after the end of deleveraging or after policy changes, it is simply not convenient to recognize that the downshifts in growth are global in nature, and predated both the GFC and supposed policy mistakes.
NEXT TIME VOTE FOR THE WHITE GUY WHO HAS ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS
Lakshman Achuthan: The US Entered Recession Last Year And "Is Worse Than Japan In the 90s"
Despite Tom Keene's best efforts to appear fair-and-balanced, this brief interview on Bloomberg TV places ECRI's Lakshman Achuthan in the uncomfortable position of destroying every propagandized 'fact' that the mainstream media is entrusted with disseminating to the Pavlovian investing community. From recessions with job growth ("we believe a US recession began in 2012") to the wealth divide and from GDP revisions to job quality differentials, Achuthan warns the US is becoming Japan, "U.S. growth over the last five years is weaker than Japan during the Lost Decades." Keene's insistence that things are on-the-up (though admitting that Achuthan's call on the decline in growth was correct) is met with the rhetorical question, "you wouldn't have four years of zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing if everything was okay."
At 1:05, Achuthan stuns the Bloomberg anchors - "We believe that a recession began last year. Time will tell if that call is correct."
To which they retort...
"The jobs situation is great"
[LA] ...the job market is not doing well, all headlines aside. When you – I think the core thing here, and something that concerns us quite a bit, is the types of jobs that make money. So if you happen to be between the age of 35 and 54, since this so-called jobs recovery began three-and-a-half years ago, you’ve actually seen job losses, not gains, okay?
Job losses for 35 to 54 year-olds approaching a million jobs lost. Now that happens to be, that 20-year span of your life, happens to be where you make the most money, and where you spend the most money. And so I think that is at the core of why, when you say, “Hey, jobs are great,” people say, “Eh, you know, it doesn't feel that way.” And they're right.
"Who is doing well?"
[LA] Madison Avenue is not the country. It's not the world we live in, actually. It's kind of a little bit of a bubble, and as is some of the luxury items, to tell you the truth, right? If you are doing well, financially generally, then in the recent economy, you’ve been doing very well because you’ve seen real estate prices recover sharply, and you’ve seen the stock market recover sharply. To switch gears here, it's good – If you're around Wall Street, you're probably close to the helicopters which are spewing out cash. And that's a pretty good thing.
"But most people are not near Wall Street"
[LA] Most people are near Main Street. And that is why there is all this kind of disconnect. The President is doing what he’s doing. The policymakers are saying – The conservatives are saying, “Hey, there’s too much regulation and too much taxing.” The liberals are saying, “Let’s do some more Keynesian stimulus and other things.”
And I think everybody’s missing what’s going on, which is that growth is not there. Growth has been downshifting since before the Great Recession. And it's not only happening in the U.S.
And that's ailing the aggregate economy.
"but again, jobs are improving?"
[LA] First off, all you have now are preliminary numbers... All that gets revised massively, that defines where the economy is. And secondarily, you cannot get away from the fact that 35 to 54 year olds have lost almost a million jobs since this jobs recovery began. That's where you make your money. You don’t make your money as a kid. And you don’t make your money when you're about to retire.
"but The Fed sees growth..."
[LA] Of course. They would like you to believe that everything’s okay, and things are relatively under control, except their actions suggest otherwise, right?
I’ve never heard a Fed Chairman call a recession. They’ve always said there isn’t one. And then they’ve said, “if you don’t do” – or, “If I didn't do what I was doing, there would be one,” when there is, in fact, one going on, if you look at the history.
But I just want to say plainly that you wouldn't have four years of zero-interest rate policy and quantitative easing and Q-ternity if everything was okay.
"Short-term GDP growth might be weak but growth is around the corner"
[LA] ...tomorrow, you're going to get a revision, and a preliminary number for the latest quarter and then a revision to the history. And when you do that, and when you see that, I want you to understand that GDP, following recessions, gets revised. It gets revised much more than you think...
It gets revised – On the last few recessions - Two to four percentage point revision, almost always downward, following the last few recessions. And you're sitting here applauding about a 1% growth
In the first six months you get about 10% of the revision. There are subsequent revisions to come. So tomorrow is not [the end]
"but how can we be in recession if we are creating jobs?"
[LA] ...you have had recessions where you’ve had positive job growth for eight or so months...
In the ’73 – ’75 recession, which was a severe global recession, you had positive jobs growth. Now, to your point, there are also revisions to the jobs data. Geoffrey Moore was Commissioner of BLS at one time, and knows that the information that is used to define recession: output, employment, income and sales – Those things all get revised massively.
Before Lehman, if you look back, those jobs data, on average, are revised down 140,000 per month. And you're sitting here, rightly reporting that we’re hoping for 150,000 to 180,000. I'm suggesting that that is well within the range of the revisions that you need to go negative. And on top of that, now, anyone who’s in the moment of their life when they're supposed to make money, is not making money. They’ve lost almost a million jobs, 35 to 54.
I think Main Street agrees with us.
[LA] ...This is an inconvenient thing I'm saying here, that there is no growth, and it's going the other way. Now if you're the Fed, and you're the only game in town, you're at zero interest rates, and you're trying the wealth effect, you have to say it's working, and you have to say, “Now I can taper.” If you're a politician maker, you say, “You should use my policy.”
But what’s happening is growth has been declining since before the last recession. And it's not only happening here.
On The US Becoming Japan,
Five years ago, the summer before the Lehman collapse, ECRI’s research found that U.S. economic growth had been stair-stepping down in successive economic expansions, going back to the 1970s. So, even before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and deleveraging concerns came to the fore, we predicted a feeble economic expansion to follow the then-ongoing recession.
We extended our research to other major developed economies, most of which exhibited similar patterns of slowing trend growth. Driven by deep structural changes, these patterns were likely to result in low trend growth for many years to come – with or without the deleveraging that followed the GFC.
In the chart, the rear row of green bars depicts average GDP growth in each economy from 1980 to the beginning of the 21st century (for Japan the green bar shows average GDP growth from 1980 to 1992, which saw the first recession of its “lost decades”).
Japan’s entry into its lost decades (1992 to present, red bar), and the other developed economies’ entry into the 21st century (yellow bars), saw major downshifts in growth.
Notably, the U.S. and other major developed economies have experience slower growth in the last five years (blue bars, front row) than Japan experienced in its lost decades (red bar). Chinese GDP growth has also declined.
The bottom line: around the world, long-term trends in growth have downshifted, already resulting in weaker recoveries and more frequent recessions than most had expected when the 21st century began. The response, following Japan’s example, has been more and more quantitative easing, which has been unable to break this pattern of long-term declines in trend growth.
But to those betting on a return to much stronger trend growth, either after the end of deleveraging or after policy changes, it is simply not convenient to recognize that the downshifts in growth are global in nature, and predated both the GFC and supposed policy mistakes.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
STFU and stop eating ObamGINA pussy
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UPSET THAT OBAMACARE APPLIES TO THEM. Plus, the price of a win-at-any-costs mentality:
The article also provides a useful reminder that what became the PPACA was a draft bill that its supporters never intended to become law. The Senate-passed health care reform bill was intended to serve as the Senate’s contribution to a House-Senate conference that would iron out all the final details. Yet after Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority and had to use the Senate bill as the basis for the final law. . . . Because the Senate bill was used as the basis for the PPACA, and only subject to limited reconciliation amendments, there are quite a few provisions were enacted that were not what health care reform supporters wanted. (This likely explains the language at issue with the IRS tax credit rule too.) The problem is that intentions are not law, and if Congress passes an imperfect or ill-conceived statute, it’s still the law of the land.
Someone should be challenging all these waivers in court.
The article also provides a useful reminder that what became the PPACA was a draft bill that its supporters never intended to become law. The Senate-passed health care reform bill was intended to serve as the Senate’s contribution to a House-Senate conference that would iron out all the final details. Yet after Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority and had to use the Senate bill as the basis for the final law. . . . Because the Senate bill was used as the basis for the PPACA, and only subject to limited reconciliation amendments, there are quite a few provisions were enacted that were not what health care reform supporters wanted. (This likely explains the language at issue with the IRS tax credit rule too.) The problem is that intentions are not law, and if Congress passes an imperfect or ill-conceived statute, it’s still the law of the land.
Someone should be challenging all these waivers in court.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
BREAKING NEWS - Wisconsin Among Best in the Nation in Economic Outlook
Not even two months ago, the media, Democrats, and liberals everywhere spoke with glee about Wisconsin being ranked 49th in six month economic forecast from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve bank.
But in the matter of just two months, the economic forecast for Wisconsin has taken a stunning trajectory up.
First, the April numbers (released at the end of May) that were the topic of headlines and press releases were revised upward to rank Wisconsin at 40th.
Then, the May numbers (released in June) saw Wisconsin jump to 20th.
And with new numbers out today for June, Wisconsin is now ranked 5th in new rankings among states on their six month economic outlook. For those keeping track, that's 40th, to 20th, to 5th in just a couple months.
And in another leading economic indicator, the coincidence index, Wisconsin ranks 2nd.
"We know that employers want stability and while we can't control all the factors affecting job creation, this ranking is another sign that the work we are doing is improving the business climate in the state," said Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
The coincident indexes combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions including "nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average)."
Ranked 5th and 2nd in leading economic indicators?
Perhaps the Wisconsin economy is finally kicking into gear. And the only ones with long faces will be the liberals in this state who have actively cheered against job creation in a cynical political ploy to win back the governorship. It's never a good political position to be in when you are forced to root against job creation.
As the Cap Times noted late Tuesday:
Those banking on Wisconsin’s economy tanking in hopes it might cost Gov. Scott Walker his re-election are not going to like the latest numbers from the Philly Fed.
Walker's office says this news is just the latest in a series of positive economic developments, which they outlined Tuesday:
•Wisconsin’s seasonally adjusted total nonfarm job gain from May to June shows an initial increase of 17,500, which is the largest month-to-month gain since April 1992.
•Wisconsin’s seasonally adjusted private job gain from May to June shows an initial increase of 13,800, which is the largest month-to-month gain since September 2003.
•CNBC ranked Wisconsin 5th in "Top US States for New Manufacturing Jobs" (June 25, 2013).
• 94 percent of Wisconsin job creators believe the state is "going in the right direction," up from just 10 percent in 2010 (WMC Survey, June 2013).
•Wisconsin’s initial unemployment insurance claims are at prerecession levels
•Year-to-date housing permits are 9.1% higher than prior year levels
•Wisconsin’s percent change in average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2012 was 12th in the nation; behind only Minnesota in the Midwest.
Not even two months ago, the media, Democrats, and liberals everywhere spoke with glee about Wisconsin being ranked 49th in six month economic forecast from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve bank.
But in the matter of just two months, the economic forecast for Wisconsin has taken a stunning trajectory up.
First, the April numbers (released at the end of May) that were the topic of headlines and press releases were revised upward to rank Wisconsin at 40th.
Then, the May numbers (released in June) saw Wisconsin jump to 20th.
And with new numbers out today for June, Wisconsin is now ranked 5th in new rankings among states on their six month economic outlook. For those keeping track, that's 40th, to 20th, to 5th in just a couple months.
And in another leading economic indicator, the coincidence index, Wisconsin ranks 2nd.
"We know that employers want stability and while we can't control all the factors affecting job creation, this ranking is another sign that the work we are doing is improving the business climate in the state," said Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
The coincident indexes combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions including "nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average)."
Ranked 5th and 2nd in leading economic indicators?
Perhaps the Wisconsin economy is finally kicking into gear. And the only ones with long faces will be the liberals in this state who have actively cheered against job creation in a cynical political ploy to win back the governorship. It's never a good political position to be in when you are forced to root against job creation.
As the Cap Times noted late Tuesday:
Those banking on Wisconsin’s economy tanking in hopes it might cost Gov. Scott Walker his re-election are not going to like the latest numbers from the Philly Fed.
Walker's office says this news is just the latest in a series of positive economic developments, which they outlined Tuesday:
•Wisconsin’s seasonally adjusted total nonfarm job gain from May to June shows an initial increase of 17,500, which is the largest month-to-month gain since April 1992.
•Wisconsin’s seasonally adjusted private job gain from May to June shows an initial increase of 13,800, which is the largest month-to-month gain since September 2003.
•CNBC ranked Wisconsin 5th in "Top US States for New Manufacturing Jobs" (June 25, 2013).
• 94 percent of Wisconsin job creators believe the state is "going in the right direction," up from just 10 percent in 2010 (WMC Survey, June 2013).
•Wisconsin’s initial unemployment insurance claims are at prerecession levels
•Year-to-date housing permits are 9.1% higher than prior year levels
•Wisconsin’s percent change in average weekly wage in the fourth quarter of 2012 was 12th in the nation; behind only Minnesota in the Midwest.
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,436
Ah, the irony of an intellectual chucklehead like the Vettepussy (who routinely demands apples-to-oranges U3-U6 unemployment rate comparisons...in order to slam President Obama dontcha know)... bemoaning a change in an economic index.
It's totally escaped his rather limited intelligence that the government went back and restated the index all the way back to the Great Depression...but then apples-to-apples comparisons to a conservative are like garlic to a vampire.
The Vettepussy is truly one stupid son of a bitch.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
- Status
Similar threads
