Thread: Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy

So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.

Go back and read what you said, but you would be wrong about this new claim as well. 9/11 was under Bush. You have to add those. You also have to add those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention any Americans in the attacks around the world. Any way you add it, Bush lost more lives period.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Go back and read what you said, but you would be wrong about this new claim as well. 9/11 was under Bush. You have to add those. You also have to add those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention any Americans in the attacks around the world. Any way you add it, Bush lost more lives period.

The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

You can't include deaths in a war as terrorist deaths. Clinton didn't go to war, he didn't have the balls (Monica was still busy with them).

Let's get this thread back on topic. The title has nothing to do with Monica sucking Bills dick or anything else of the like.

Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy

The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

It was?

Are you talking just American deaths? Because there were 138 Americans killed in a single month while Bush was president.

Or are you talking all deaths? Because there were some months in which thousands were killed.

Well I'm in good company ... Paul Krugman is just as confused as me.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts « Parker County Blog

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs

GAO Audit: Fed’s $16 Trillion in Aid | The Big Picture

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said “We now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

On pages 131-133 of their report, the GAO provided two tables listing the largest borrowing institutions under the emergency programs. They are ranked in the first table by the total borrowed amount irrespective of maturity length, and in the second table adjusting for the term of the borrowing. Some loans were for relatively brief intervals, even overnight, and others for longer time frames. Both perspectives are valuable, but the amounts adjusted for borrowing terms tend to do a better job of capturing a comparable read on the simple magnitude of lending. Total borrowing on this basis totaled $1.1 trillion, according to the GAO’s “Table 9,” while two-thirds of the 15 largest institutions listed were from outside the United States.


The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Who got what from Fed bailout | Loren Steffy | a Chron.com blog

As the culmination of almost two years of legal wrangling, which included a U.S. Supreme Court decision and a special provision of the Dodd-Frank reform law, Bloomberg News is sifting through the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented lending program from 2007 to 2010. The Fed has been forced to reveal the banks and other institutions that got money and the amounts they received, and Bloomberg has compiled this handy interactive chart for tracking the flow of money. It’s a shame that Bloomberg’s Mark Pittman didn’t live to the see the results of his efforts, but the stories now being written about the Fed’s $1.2 trillion bailout effort stand as a tribute to his work.

The Fed’s loan program aimed to ease cash shortfalls at the banks and prevent credit markets from freezing as the financial crisis worsened. Most interesting is the big banks on the list have have insisted they never needed government help: Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, for example.

Texas banks on the list include Comerica, Zions Bancorporation, parent of Houston-based Amegy Bank, and Texas Capital Bancshares. Among the more curious recipients of the Fed’s largesse: Harley-Davidson and McDonald’s. Just think how much worse the crisis would have been if the market for Big Macs had shut down.

Federal Reserve Emergency Loans: Liquidity for Banks - Bloomberg
The Fed’s Secret Liquidity Lifelines

Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti

It was?

Are you talking just American deaths? Because there were 138 Americans killed in a single month while Bush was president.

Or are you talking all deaths? Because there were some months in which thousands were killed.

Americans man, Americans.

August brought worst death toll of Afghan war, lightest of Iraq war - KansasCity.com

April was the deadliest month in two years Iraq war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0wnYyhPExo

Both wars have their deadliest months under a president who vowed to get them out. Good job, Mr. President.

Poll: Obama Five Times Worse Than Carter on Economy

Two new polls today find that just one third of the public feels President Obama deserves re-election while five times more Americans think Obama has done a worse job fixing the economy than Jimmy Carter, the modern era's Herbert Hoover.

Poll: Obama Five Times Worse Than Carter on Economy - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy

The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

You can't include deaths in a war as terrorist deaths. Clinton didn't go to war, he didn't have the balls (Monica was still busy with them).

Let's get this thread back on topic. The title has nothing to do with Monica sucking Bills dick or anything else of the like.

Which has nothing to do with your claim.

And yes, you can admit you were wrong and we can let it be. I have no problem with that.


(BTW, a war of choice does count towards total deaths.)

Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy

Americans man, Americans.

August brought worst death toll of Afghan war, lightest of Iraq war - KansasCity.com

Umm, you said, "the deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama."

Thanks for posting the evidence that you were wrong.

Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?

Originally Posted by winston53660

Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?

Oh, yes. I keep trying to point that out to them, but they just can't seem to see it. It's somewhat funny, . . and sad.