Jump to content

City Source

CBO Reports: High Unemployment Longest since Great Depression

21 replies to this topic

#1 TenFree


    Trusted Member

  • Hostess
  • 4606 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:00 PM

CBO: Longest Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression

CBO: U.S. enduring the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression

By Alex M. Parker

February 16, 2012

After three years with unemployment topping 8 percent, the U.S. has seen the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, the Congressional Budget Office noted in a report issued today.

And, despite some recent good news on the economic front, the CBO is still predicting that unemployment will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The report also notes that, including those who haven't sought work in the past four weeks and those who are working part-time but seeking full-time employment, the unemployment rate would be 15 percent.

The CBO made its comments in a report examining the long-term effects of joblessness, and possible policy options to boost employment, including unemployment insurance reforms and job training programs. The report came at the request of Democratic Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, but Republicans quickly jumped on the chance to bash President Obama's stimulus program, which is also reaching its three-year anniversary today.

"The stimulus is a stark reminder of how the president got the policies he wanted, and how those policies have failed the American people and are making things worse," said Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling.

  • 0

#2 Puck



  • Gents
  • 5260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chiang Mai, Thailand

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:27 PM


  • 0

#3 Guest_the truth_*

Guest_the truth_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2012 - 02:32 PM

The CBO is lying and manipulating its numbers, the Obama's Administration said the Unemployment is less than 9%, gotta believe the guy in charge.

#4 Guest_Joe the Plumber_*

Guest_Joe the Plumber_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:20 PM

Posted Image

#5 LXIXI812


    Trusted Member

  • Members
  • 5528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:50 PM

Posted Image


Keep repeating it often enough and everyone will believe it.

  • 0

#6 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:19 PM

Obama challenges Republicans to explain opposition to jobs bill http://www.washingto...eMQL_story.html

Senate Republicans Block Dem Jobs Bill For Teachers, Firefighters http://tpmdc.talking...irefighters.php

Again – Are you going to vote to save American jobs from outsourcing and vote Democrat?

Senate Republicans Block Bill to Prevent Outsourcing American Jobs
September 28th, 2010

Edited by Gayle Meyers, 18 February 2012 - 06:20 PM.

  • 0

#7 Guest_Tattoo_*

  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:47 AM

Friday, Feb 17, 2012 9:30 PM UTC
The factory jobs aren’t coming back

Romney, Santorum and Obama all vow to fight for U.S. manufacturing. It's not just a lost cause; it's the wrong one

This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog.

Suddenly, manufacturing is back – at least on the election trail. But don’t be fooled. The real issue isn’t how to get manufacturing back. It’s how to get good jobs and good wages back. They aren’t at all the same thing.

Republicans have become born-again champions of American manufacturing. This may have something to do with crucial primaries occurring next week in Michigan and the following week in Ohio, both of them former arsenals of American manufacturing.

Mitt Romney says he’ll “work to bring manufacturing back” to America by being tough on China, which he describes as “stealing jobs” by keeping value of its currency artificially low and thereby making its exports cheaper.

Rick Santorum promises to “fight for American manufacturing” by eliminating corporate income taxes on manufacturers and allowing corporations to bring their foreign profits back to American tax free as long as they use the money to build new factories.

President Obama has also been pushing a manufacturing agenda. Last month the president unveiled a six-point plan to eliminate tax incentives for companies to move offshore and create new lures for them to bring jobs home. “Our goal,” he says, is to “create opportunities for hard-working Americans to start making stuff again.”

Meanwhile, American consumers’ pent-up demand for appliances, cars and trucks have created a small boomlet in American manufacturing – setting off a wave of hope, mixed with nostalgic patriotism, that American manufacturing could be coming back. Clint Eastwood’s Super Bowl “Halftime in America” hit the mood exactly.

But American manufacturing won’t be coming back. Although 404,000 manufacturing jobs have been added since January 2010, that still leaves us with 5.5 million fewer factory jobs today than in July 2000 – and 12 million fewer than in 1990. The long-term trend is fewer and fewer factory jobs.

Even if we didn’t have to compete with lower-wage workers overseas, we’d still have fewer factory jobs because the old assembly line has been replaced by numerically-controlled machine tools and robotics. Manufacturing is going high-tech.

Bringing back American manufacturing isn’t the real challenge, anyway. It’s creating good jobs for the majority of Americans who lack four-year college degrees.

Manufacturing used to supply lots of these kind of jobs, but that was only because factory workers were represented by unions powerful enough to get high wages.

That’s no longer the case. Even the once-mighty United Auto Workers has been forced to accept pay packages for new hires at the Big Three that provide half what new hires got a decade ago. At $14 an hour, new auto workers earn about the same as most of America’s service-sector workers.

GM just announced record profits but its new workers won’t be getting much of a share.

In the 1950s, more than a third of American workers were represented by a union. Now, fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers have a union behind them. If there’s a single reason why the median wage has dropped dramatically for non-college workers over the past three and a half decades, it’s the decline of unions.

How do the candidates stand on unions? Mitt Romney has done nothing but bash them. He vows to pass so-called “right to work” legislation barring job requirements of union membership and payment of union dues. “I’ve taken on union bosses before, ” he says,” and I’m happy to take them on again.” When Romney’s not blaming China for American manufacturers’ competitive problems he blames high union wages. Romney accuses the president of “stacking” the National Labor Relations Board with “union stooges.”

Rick Santorum says he’s supportive of private-sector unions. While in the Senate he voted against a national right to work law (Romney is now attacking him on this) but Santorum isn’t interested in strengthening unions, and he doesn’t like them in the public sector.

President Obama praises “unionized plants” – such as Master Lock, the Milwaukee maker of padlocks he visited last week, which brought back one hundred jobs from China. But the president has not promised that if reelected he’d push for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to organize a union. He had supported it in the 2008 election but never moved the legislation once elected.

The president has also been noticeably silent on the labor struggles that have been roiling the Midwest – from Wisconsin’s assault on the bargaining rights of public employees, through Indiana’s recently-enacted right to work law – the first in the Rust Belt.

The fact is, American corporations – both manufacturing and services – are doing wonderfully well. Their third quarter profits totaled $2 trillion. That’s 19 percent higher than the pre-recession peak five years ago.

But American workers aren’t sharing in this bounty. Although jobs are slowly returning, wages continue to drop, adjusted for inflation.

The fundamental problem isn’t the decline of American manufacturing, and reviving manufacturing won’t solve it. The problem is the declining power of American workers to share in the gains of the American economy.

#8 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:58 AM

Oh, please! Someone's been drinking the We-Can't-Afford-To-Pay-A-Living-Wage Kool Aid...

The New York Times notices labor arbitrage

Submitted by Robert Oak on Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:29
Wow. The New York Times, through personal stories notices America is creating the new poor:

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.
Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.
Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.

Wow, way to go main stream press. You're just noticing something that has been going on for 30 years? The article mentions a few realities. Firstly, people, especially women over 40 are getting thrown out of the labor force. Secondly they finally mention that workers are being labor arbitraged. Labor arbitrage is displacement of workers by age discrimination, cheaper wages to foreign guest workers, offshore outsourcing, younger workers (it is perceived they are cheaper), to plain forcing others to work themselves into the ground to make up for the lost personnel

Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors(Private Equity Firms!!) who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.

Every time I see a stock price soar because some company announced layoffs, I would like to scream. It doesn't even pay out in the long run, yet Wall Street rewards those who are most shitty to their employees (ex-employees).
The Times goes onto to describe the poverty levels are so low, many cannot qualify for food stamps, even though they are dirt broke.
But I will note while the Times claims only 75% of those unemployed are able to collect unemployment insurance, that number is much higher, due to so many who do not even count as employed by the BLS. It is estimated that only 48% of all those working even qualify for unemployment insurance.
We also have the claim that businesses are supposed to maximize profits for the shareholder, our favorite catch-all excuse for bad behavior that often does not translate into maximizing profits for the shareholder. Do executive bonuses maximize profits? Do leveraged buy outs? Bottom line this is not how corporations used to operate and had a responsibility not just to shareholders, but to their employees and the nation itself.
The article also wrongly assumes that education and skills will save the day. This is simply not so, with the obvious example being those with technical skills and degrees. Jobs have been offshore outsourced in droves, along with foreign guest workers displacing U.S. workers in these fields.

Edited by Gayle Meyers, 19 February 2012 - 11:00 AM.

  • 0

#9 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 19 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

Hold Tight To Your Anger

Posted Image
Bruce Springsteen has unveiled his new album, "Wrecking Ball," a sorrowful and furious roar, born of the financial crisis, about "an enormous fault-line...a basic theft (that) struck to the heart of the American idea,” with no one held accountable. His 17th studio and reportedly his most overtly political, he says it's about "the distance between American reality and the American Dream” - a distance greater than he's ever seen. It also includes, on 'Land of Hope and Dreams,' the last sax solo from the late Clarence Clemons. Out March 5.
"The banker man grows fat / The working man grows thin / It's all happened before and it will happen again." - from 'Jack of All Trades'
  • 0

#10 TenFree


    Trusted Member

  • Hostess
  • 4606 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:06 PM

The CBO is lying and manipulating its numbers, the Obama's Administration said the Unemployment is less than 9%, gotta believe the guy in charge.

I assume that was supposed to be sarcasm. But if not, they're not the only ones manipulating numbers.


DAVID STOCKMAN: It's True, The BLS Data Is Made Up

Gus Lubin | Feb. 7, 2012, 9:26 AM

After countless attempts to discredit or defend Friday's jobs report, we can all agree on one thing: The data is complicated. So complicated that the BLS could make the economy look better than it was and no one would be sure.

Former Reagan budget director David Stockman said as much in an email to Bruce Krasting, in response to Krasting's criticism of the jobs report.

Stockman writes: "If you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up."

Here's the email (via Wall Street Examiner):

Bruce– Great job on the Summers catch, but I’m wondering if this goes much deeper. I don’t particularly believe in tin foil hats, but all of these mainstream economists treat the BLS and BEA data like it’s holy writ—when it’s evident that the reports are so massaged, estimated, deemed, revised, re-bench marked and seasonally adjusted that any month-to-month change has a decent chance of being noise. What deep secret might they be hiding?

So on the labor force participation rate they say, “No it didn’t go down in January because the 2012 numbers are re-bench marked for the 2010 census,” but for some reason the BLS didn’t bother to update the 2011 civilian population numbers, including December. Thus, the BLS published apples-to-oranges numbers on this particular variable and the footnote says the December participation rate would have been the same as January, if they had revised it!

Yet on another variable— the establishment survey jobs count—they were also busy re-benchmarking–but here they did update the originally reported numbers for every month of 2011. Even then, it is hard to say what got updated because the originally reported numbers each month are then revised during the next two reporting months—with any excess or shortfall reallocated to earlier months outside the three month window, which are not published on a revised basis, even though they have been revised! This reflects a wacko thing called the concurrent seasonal adjustment method.

Anyway, like Summers did in his TV riff, you can always pick and choose a half dozen noise points in every monthly report to support your favored trend. But obviously, your point is that the longer-term trend of the labor force participation rate is really bad, and this truth is absolutely validated by the January report. Except it would have been equally bad in December had it been reported with the new census data. As Gartman says, the trend is from the “upper left to the lower right”, and it’s heading off the page.

But the mainstream narrative never gets to the trend. In this case, the plain fact is that we are warehousing a larger and larger population of adults who are one way or another living off transfer payments, relatives, sub-prime credit, and the black market. My suspicion is that this negative trend and many others like it get buried by the monthly change chatter from mainstream economists and on bubble vision, and that these monthly deltas are so heavily manipulated as to be almost a made-up reality. Call it the economists’ Truman Show.

The attached series for the “raw” or unadjusted establishment survey employment change for January goes back to the 1980s and makes me wonder. Since 2000, the January job loss against a December payroll of between 130 and 135 million has varied within a tiny range of about 150,000. Other than January 2009 when the economy was being smacked by the post-Lehman melt-down in the financial markets, this means that the unadjusted January payroll count declined within a super-tight range of 2.00% to 2.20% of the December payroll.

Really? Granted the U.S. economy is a regular fellow, but how could there be such astounding uniformity every January, year after year in the raw numbers, as in the following sequence for January 2001 thru January 2012, respectively: 2.16%, 2.19%, 2.05%, 2.03%, 2,03%, 1.96%, 2.03% 2.19%, 2.73% (2009 outlier), 2.20%, 2.18% and 2.02%.

After all, you have weather aberrations, huge fluctuations in year to year economic conditions, the weak, random nature of the establishment survey, the constant fiddling with the birth-death adjustment which is carried in the raw numbers, the Christmas shopping season variation from red hot-to-punk across the years, the timing of the survey week and much more. And the dice always lands on almost exactly a 2.03% change from December. Right.

This is meant to be a long-winded encouragement to you to apply your patented numbers forensic skills to the monthly BLS reports or any of the other market movers. In the last 7 years, for example, the Christmas shopping season has been all over the lot and presumably, retail hiring, too. But the unadjusted retail jobs reduction in January vs. December has not varied by much more than 150,000 from a base count of 15 million. That’s a 1% variation, notwithstanding the huge shopping season differences they report on bubble vision.

In short, if you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up. Funny thing that I remember during the depths of the 1982 recession Reagan read in Human Events one night that the seasonally adjusted numbers were being manipulated and one should look at the unadjusted numbers, instead. The next morning during an economic update briefing Reagan said, he wanted to talk about the ”unadjusted” unemployment rate. Marty Feldstein turned white as a ghost, and then talked him out of it. Hmmm!

  • 0

#11 Guest_harbinger_*

  • Guests

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:40 PM

If given the guest poster acted facetiously, then he or she knows something no one here knows or are willing to admit. The economy is still mired in a recession with glowing reports eschewing the gnawing problem of massive unemployment / underemployment and the ones who have given up on ever finding a job and have fallen off of the radar because their government benefits have ran out.

#12 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:49 AM

David Stockman, anyone...?

David Stockman: Blame The Fed!

David Stockman, former US Representative and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan, does not mince words. He sees the monetary systems of the world coming apart.
How did we get here? He identifies the root cause as the intentional over-leveraging of world economies by central planners in a misguided effort to enjoy growth without consequence.

I blame it on the Fed. I blame it on the 1971 decision by Nixon to close the gold window and let the dollar float. Because out of that has evolved -- or morphed -- a central banking policy in the world that absorbs unlimited amounts of government debt. And so we went on what I call the "T-bill standard" or the "federal debt standard." And the other central banks of the emerging mercantilist Asian economies -- Japan, Korea, and now, especially, the People’s Printing Press of China -- have absorbed this massive emission of debt that otherwise would’ve created powerful negative consequences that would’ve forced politicians to act long ago. In other words, higher interest rates, pressure for inflationary monetary policy, and the actual appearance of price inflation. But because all the bonds on the margin were being absorbed by the central banks, we got away for twenty or twenty-five years with “deficits without tears.”

And he's just getting started. The only thing more impressive than Stockman's CV of insider roles in public economics and private finance is his talent for colorful metaphor.
On The Fed

As far as I’m concerned, Bernanke is the monetary Darth Vader. He has destroyed the bond market. Because fundamentally, in a healthy capitalist system, the interest rate in the money market and in the longer-term capital market is the price of money and the price of capital. And if the pricing system isn’t working, if it’s been totally crushed, disabled, manipulated, rigged, medicated, everything that the Fed has done with QE1, QE2, zero interest rates, Operation Twist - all the rest of this insanity - then we’ve destroyed the ability of the capital market to function and we’re giving false signals in every direction.

On The Economy

We effectively had, over the last thirty years, a national LBO - a leveraged buyout of the whole economy. And this is important because if you look at the difference between our historic leverage ratio [1.6 times debt-to-GDP], which seemed to be compatible with a stable and usually growing economy, not withstanding periods, obviously, of boom and bust. But at 1.6 times, we would have about $22 trillion of debt -- public and private -- on the US economy today. We actually have $52 at 3.6 times. So the extra two turns have put on the economy -- households, business, government, we can go through the different sectors -- roughly $30 trillion in debt that’s being lugged around by the US economy as it struggles to stay even, to say nothing of recovery today. And until that massive over-leveraging is worked down and reduced and liquidated, which will take years and years in a painful process, we’re not going to get back on track as an economy.

On Our Political Leadership

It’s hard enough for politicians to face the music, to dispense bad news, to make hard choices, allocate pain to constituencies, whether it’s spending cut or tax increase. But when the Fed destroys the bond market, which is the benchmark for the whole capital market, and tells the Congress that you can borrow money for two years at eighteen basis points, which is -- as far as Washington’s concerned -- that’s a rounding error. It’s the same as free.
When you’re giving that kind of signal, then there is no incentive, there’s no motivation for people to walk the plank and face down this monster of a fiscal deficit and imbalance that we have.
Washington thinks you can kick the can down the road, the debt is more or less free, and we’ll get around to solving the problem. But today, let’s not make any tough choices. That’s where we are.

On the Banks

The banking system has been saved on the back of the savers of the United States. We have totally destroyed any incentive for thrift, for deferred gratification. The Fed has become more Keynesian than Keynes.
Now, the fact is, if you were going to bail out the banking system with this kind of transfer -- I calculate it at $300 or $400 billion a year -- the suppression of interest rates on depositors, on the $7 trillion or so of deposit base that we have, is at least $300 or $400 billion a year. And that’s the same thing as taxing the public by $300 or $400 billion and redistributing it to banks based on the distribution of their deposit base. That wouldn’t get one vote. Okay, in other words, what I’m saying is if it were done in a proper way as a fiscal transfer put before the democracy to review and vote up or down, it would be voted down overwhelmingly. It would be shouted down. It would not even see the light of day out of committee, to say nothing of the floor of the House or Senate.

On Peak Oil

I think that is being totally ignored. It is another one of the headwinds or constraints that we’re facing along with the demographic time bomb of this huge generation retiring. And if you look at all of these, there’s no reason to expect much economic growth for the next ten or twenty years, even if you had a healthy monetary and fiscal situation. But given the situation that we’ve described and given the massive excess private leverage that was built up in the thirty-year debt spree, we have sort of added insult to injury. We have maybe an inevitable question of the rising real cost of the BTU being added to the demographic question being added to the totally distorted world labor market that the central banks have produced, which is another whole topic. But when you put all those together, the headwinds are truly frightening.

On Gold

Gold is becoming the de facto money. We’re going to be back to a gold standard, one way or another, through the back door in only a matter of time, simply because the central banks are dominated by the ritual incantation of dying Keynesian theory. And therefore, I would say that’s what someone needs to do to protect themselves.

The above are small samples from this wide-ranging and deeply penetrating interview between Chris and David. Among other territory, the two get into David's view of the stock, bond, and commodity markets, and what action concerned individuals should be considering at this time.
  • 0

#13 Gayle Meyers

Gayle Meyers

    Trusted Member

  • Banned
  • 8862 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:24 AM

Pain Without Gain


Published: February 19, 2012

Last week the European Commission confirmed what everyone suspected: the economies it surveys are shrinking, not growing. It’s not an official recession yet, but the only real question is how deep the downturn will be.
And this downturn is hitting nations that have never recovered from the last recession. For all America’s troubles, its gross domestic product has finally surpassed its pre-crisis peak; Europe’s has not. And some nations are suffering Great Depression-level pain: Greece and Ireland have had double-digit declines in output, Spain has 23 percent unemployment, Britain’s slump has now gone on longer than its slump in the 1930s.
Worse yet, European leaders — and quite a few influential players here — are still wedded to the economic doctrine responsible for this disaster.
For things didn’t have to be this bad. Greece would have been in deep trouble no matter what policy decisions were taken, and the same is true, to a lesser extent, of other nations around Europe’s periphery. But matters were made far worse than necessary by the way Europe’s leaders, and more broadly its policy elite, substituted moralizing for analysis, fantasies for the lessons of history.
Specifically, in early 2010 austerity economics — the insistence that governments should slash spending even in the face of high unemployment — became all the rage in European capitals. The doctrine asserted that the direct negative effects of spending cuts on employment would be offset by changes in “confidence,” that savage spending cuts would lead to a surge in consumer and business spending, while nations failing to make such cuts would see capital flight and soaring interest rates. If this sounds to you like something Herbert Hoover might have said, you’re right: It does and he did.
Now the results are in — and they’re exactly what three generations’ worth of economic analysis and all the lessons of history should have told you would happen. The confidence fairy has failed to show up: none of the countries slashing spending have seen the predicted private-sector surge. Instead, the depressing effects of fiscal austerity have been reinforced by falling private spending.
Furthermore, bond markets keep refusing to cooperate. Even austerity’s star pupils, countries that, like Portugal and Ireland, have done everything that was demanded of them, still face sky-high borrowing costs. Why? Because spending cuts have deeply depressed their economies, undermining their tax bases to such an extent that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard indicator of fiscal progress, is getting worse rather than better.
Meanwhile, countries that didn’t jump on the austerity train — most notably, Japan and the United States — continue to have very low borrowing costs, defying the dire predictions of fiscal hawks.
Now, not everything has gone wrong. Late last year Spanish and Italian borrowing costs shot up, threatening a general financial meltdown. Those costs have now subsided, amid general sighs of relief. But this good news was actually a triumph of anti-austerity: Mario Draghi, the new president of the European Central Bank, brushed aside the inflation-worriers and engineered a large expansion of credit, which was just what the doctor ordered.
So what will it take to convince the Pain Caucus, the people on both sides of the Atlantic who insist that we can cut our way to prosperity, that they are wrong?
After all, the usual suspects were quick to pronounce the idea of fiscal stimulus dead for all time after President Obama’s efforts failed to produce a quick fall in unemployment — even though many economists warned in advance that the stimulus was too small. Yet as far as I can tell, austerity is still considered responsible and necessary despite its catastrophic failure in practice.
The point is that we could actually do a lot to help our economies simply by reversing the destructive austerity of the last two years. That’s true even in America, which has avoided full-fledged austerity at the federal level but has seen big spending and employment cuts at the state and local level. Remember all the fuss about whether there were enough “shovel ready” projects to make large-scale stimulus feasible? Well, never mind: all the federal government needs to do to give the economy a big boost is provide aid to lower-level governments, allowing these governments to rehire the hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers they have laid off and restart the building and maintenance projects they have canceled.
Look, I understand why influential people are reluctant to admit that policy ideas they thought reflected deep wisdom actually amounted to utter, destructive folly. But it’s time to put delusional beliefs about the virtues of austerity in a depressed economy behind us.
  • 0

#14 Guest_Pravda_*

  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:13 AM

It's nice to see ignorant people eating whatever the mainstream media is dishing out with humongous helpings. Foxnews, CNN, NYT, or wherever you get the news from.

#15 Guest_LA Kings Fan_*

Guest_LA Kings Fan_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:28 PM

Who are you calling ignorant? come on ... have some balls ...
too bad Des will delete this ... but it's really a shame people like YOU can come here and calls others ignorant hiding behind the safety of your little Guest Alias ...

#16 Guest_Union_*

  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:55 AM

It reads like the majority of the posters of this site supports the right to a Union! Great, c'mon down to Bonus Car Wash in Santa Monica and let our Union workers wash your cars for you!

#17 Guest_LA Kings Fan_*

Guest_LA Kings Fan_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:35 PM

Hey Des :-w ... I thought the only SPAM we let on TBP was for our favorite Ladies Services ... not local car washes ... maybe you should delete this tripe huh ! :-q

#18 Guest_leopold_*

  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:21 PM

Kings. So long as in this state we allow illegals to have jobs, own homes and drive uninsured cars, then by reflection, this board must admit and allow similar non-contributors.

Remember, there's the men's section where they cannot go. So be happy there's a boy's section.

#19 Guest_Union_*

  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:25 AM

Hey Des :-w ... I thought the only SPAM we let on TBP was for our favorite Ladies Services ... not local car washes ... maybe you should delete this tripe huh ! :-q

From your posts you sounded like a Democrat, what do you have against others for posting a helpful reference and one supporting our Union laborers?

#20 Guest_Jack_*

  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:37 PM

From your posts you sounded like a Democrat, what do you have against others for posting a helpful reference and one supporting our Union laborers?

Because Mr. Purple Font doesn't have a sense of humour.

Reply to this topic


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

City Source