Re: UNEMPLOYMENT rate in US tops Great Depression in new report ...

From: Synthetic Telepath (synthetictelepath_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/08/04 

Date: 8 Jun 2004 13:39:59 -0700

It seems Mark Neglay is a DoD or DoL programmed android who can only
repeat and spout propoganda statistics like a speaking mainframe with
two legs.

Poor fool. Even the Manchurian Candidate had more independence and
less conformity to a pack of lies.

Is there a doctor out there that can help or cure or give him a real
heart instead of a tin one???

Please please help this idiot.

negloid@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message

 The Unemployment Rate is LOWER than what it averaged during the 90's,
so the
> > > Democrats are looking REALLY stupid with their bull*** rhetoric about
> > > "worst since the Great Depression".
> > >
> > > Americans are laughing at the increasingly-hysterical Democrats.
> >
> > Its a different story when 29 million working age adults are "not in
> > the labor pool", thus not
> > counted.
>
> A greater percentage of these same people were out of the labor pool
> during past times. The labor force has grown every year for the past
> three years and is now up over 2 million people since the beginning of
> the recession.
>
> > Also, an average of 700,000 layoffs during CHRISTMAS week in 2001,
> > 2002 , 2003, re.
> > doleta.gov
>
> Ok now you're just making *** up. Layoffs? Did you mean new
> unemployment insurance claims, al la www.dol.gov? If so, protraying
> them as layoffs is highly deceptive. Additionally, the only way the
> figures approach the line of BS you are dropping here, is if you
> consider non-seasonally adjusted numbers. New claims always go up in
> the last week of the year, as temporary holiday employees lose their
> temporary holiday jobs wrapping gifts, running registers, etc..
>
> Finally, even if we assume that all people who filed for new
> unemployment insurance in the last week of 2001, 2002, and 2003 were
> laid off; and if we disregard the seasonal function and foolishly
> examine unadjusted numbers during the one week in the year when new
> claims are almost always exceptionally high; if we make all of these
> *stupid* assumptions, new claims were higher in the last week of 2000
> (568,973 NSA) than they were in the last week of 2003 (516,493 NSA).
> They also were not that much lower than they were in the last week of
> 2002, (620,929 NSA).
>

Quantcast