For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
. . but don't worry about it.
Abbott and Costello explain Obama's Accounting System.
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who
look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
Seriously, once you're out of unemployment benefits and still don't have a
job, the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore!!!! 16% is
more like it!
And I thought I was just laid off
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> And I thought I was just "laid off"
>
> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
laid off you can collect UI, fired ya can't.
So yes, there is a difference, but either way you still ain't got a job
On 7/15/2012 11:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
>> . . but don't worry about it.
>>
>> Abbott and Costello explain Obama's Accounting System.
>>
>> COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>>
>> ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>>
>> COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>>
>> COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>>
>> ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>>
>> COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>>
>> COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>>
>> COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>>
>> ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>>
>> COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
>> to look for work to be unemployed.
>>
>> COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>>
>> COSTELLO: What point?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who
>> look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>>
>> COSTELLO: To whom?
>>
>> ABBOTT: The unemployed.
>>
>> COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>>
>> ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
>> out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
>> longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>>
>> COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
>> less unemployment?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>>
>> COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
>> would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya?
>>
>> COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>>
>> ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>>
>> COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
>> bring down the unemployment number?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>>
>> COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Correct.
>>
>> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>>
>> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>>
>> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
>> of the two is to just stop looking for work.
>>
>> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>>
>> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>>
>> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
>>
>> Seriously, once you're out of unemployment benefits and still don't have a
>> job, the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore!!!! 16% is
>> more like it!
>
> Everything above is absolutely correct (it's actually worse than that) but
> unemployment benefits have no bearing on the unemployment rate (either U3 or
> U6). True, you can't be on unemployment insurance if you're not actively
> looking for work but you can certainly be looking for work (unemployed) and
> not be on UI. The fact that UI runs out, or that you never got it, has nothing
> to do with the unemployment rate.
>
>> And I thought I was just laid off
>
> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>
Absolutely! I believe fired with justification helps to prevent
unemployment taxes from increasing.
On 7/15/2012 6:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Sure. It's expensive to hire/fire people. Good people will tend to find other
> opportunities, fairly quickly.
>
Not always, this market is tough. There aren't many opportunities, and
even less that are commutable.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:14:29 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 7/15/2012 6:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Sure. It's expensive to hire/fire people. Good people will tend to find other
>> opportunities, fairly quickly.
>>
>Not always, this market is tough. There aren't many opportunities, and
>even less that are commutable.
That's why I said "tend to". It's better to stay put, out of work, than to
move? I've moved for jobs several times. I'm in the process, now, for the
third time in five years (before that, twice in 32). OTOH, I'm hoping that
this is the last move. ;-)
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:07:20 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:18:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
>>office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your panties in
>>a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned fools.
>
>Not a lot of choice these days with *any* politician. They're all
>practiced professional liars as far as I'm concerned. If they don't
>promise, correct or lie they're making their way into power, they
>don't get there in the first place.
I believe it was here in Washington state but memory is fading but I
believe the state court found it legal for politicians to lie. I
apoligize if it was federal, but that is my memory.
Mike M
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:24:46 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 7/15/2012 12:54 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I thought I was just "laid off"
>>>
>>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>>
>> laid off you can collect UI, fired ya can't.
>> So yes, there is a difference, but either way you still ain't got a job
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Actually you can be paid if you are fired. If fired for something that
>was not your fault you collect, at least in Texas.
I believe that's generally the case. "Your fault" is a wide category, too.
Even incompetence is not the employee's "fault". On the other extreme,
stealing is.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:00:08 -0400, "[email protected]"
>Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
Only that it qualifies you for getting unemployment insurance a few
weeks earlier.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
> . . but don't worry about it.
>
>Abbott and Costello explain Obama's Accounting System.
>
>COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
>ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>
>COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>
>ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
>COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>
>ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>
>COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
>
>ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
>COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
>ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>
>COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
>ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
>COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
>ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
>to look for work to be unemployed.
>
>COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>
>ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>
>COSTELLO: What point?
>
>ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who
>look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
>COSTELLO: To whom?
>
>ABBOTT: The unemployed.
>
>COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>
>ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
>out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
>longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
>COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
>less unemployment?
>
>ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
>COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
>ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
>would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya?
>
>COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>
>ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>
>COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
>bring down the unemployment number?
>
>ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>
>COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
>ABBOTT: Correct.
>
>COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
>ABBOTT: Bingo.
>
>COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
>of the two is to just stop looking for work.
>
>ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
>COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>
>ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
>
>Seriously, once you're out of unemployment benefits and still don't have a
>job, the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore!!!! 16% is
>more like it!
Everything above is absolutely correct (it's actually worse than that) but
unemployment benefits have no bearing on the unemployment rate (either U3 or
U6). True, you can't be on unemployment insurance if you're not actively
looking for work but you can certainly be looking for work (unemployed) and
not be on UI. The fact that UI runs out, or that you never got it, has nothing
to do with the unemployment rate.
>And I thought I was just laid off
Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:30:20 -0400, Stuart Wheaton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 7/15/2012 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And I thought I was just laid off
>>
>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>>
>
>In our shop, Laid off means we'll take you back as soon as there is
>enough work...
>
>Fired means we never want to see you again.
That's not the general case. Many "layoffs" occur where there is no intention
of ever hiring the people back. BTDT-DEGU. ;-)
>We don't fire a lot of folks, though there are several who have found
>other work while laid off, which is why the top people are kept as long
>as possible.
Sure. It's expensive to hire/fire people. Good people will tend to find other
opportunities, fairly quickly.
On 7/15/2012 12:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> And I thought I was just laid off
>>>
>>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely! I believe fired with justification helps to prevent
>> unemployment taxes from increasing.
>
> That depends on what the justification is. If it's the (intentional) fault of
> the employee, sure. In general, not so much.
>
>
Yeah that is why I mentioned justification. If you take the appropriate
measures to fire some one your taxes do not go up although he may still
draw unemployment.
Bill wrote:
> For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
> . . but don't worry about it.
>
> Abbott and Costello explain Obama's Accounting System.
>
> COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
> ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>
> COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>
> ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>
> COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
> ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
> COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
> to look for work to be unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>
> ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>
> COSTELLO: What point?
>
> ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who
> look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
> COSTELLO: To whom?
>
> ABBOTT: The unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
> out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
> longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
> less unemployment?
>
> ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
> COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
> would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya?
>
> COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>
> COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
> bring down the unemployment number?
>
> ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>
> COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Correct.
>
> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>
> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
> of the two is to just stop looking for work.
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
>
> Seriously, once you're out of unemployment benefits and still don't have a
> job, the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore!!!! 16% is
> more like it!
>
> And I thought I was just laid off
I always knew that those two were smarter than they acted.
On 7/15/2012 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> And I thought I was just laid off
>
> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>
In our shop, Laid off means we'll take you back as soon as there is
enough work...
Fired means we never want to see you again.
We don't fire a lot of folks, though there are several who have found
other work while laid off, which is why the top people are kept as long
as possible.
Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:18:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
>> office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your panties in
>> a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned fools.
>
> Not a lot of choice these days with *any* politician. They're all
> practiced professional liars as far as I'm concerned. If they don't
> promise, correct or lie they're making their way into power, they
> don't get there in the first place.
>
By the way, I only copied and pasted the A&C item from another newsgroup
for your AMUSEMENT!
That said, there is something to what Dave said. One most-likely doesn't
get to a high political office (or high in management, or the military)
without being a "skilled communicator".
Mike M wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:07:20 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:18:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
>>> office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your
>>> panties in a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned
>>> fools.
>>
>> Not a lot of choice these days with *any* politician. They're all
>> practiced professional liars as far as I'm concerned. If they don't
>> promise, correct or lie they're making their way into power, they
>> don't get there in the first place.
>
> I believe it was here in Washington state but memory is fading but I
> believe the state court found it legal for politicians to lie. I
> apoligize if it was federal, but that is my memory.
>
Uh, that's but a small subset.
Interestingly, the government can lie to you, but if you lie to the
government you go to jail (i.e., Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby).
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:08:21 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:00:08 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>
>Only that it qualifies you for getting unemployment insurance a few
>weeks earlier.
Here's one for you to get my L&I claim closed I had to tell them that
I wasn't returning to work because of my injury. Now in the closing
papers it said I had turned down retraining to become an electronics
assember at $14.73/hr and they would charge me for the retraining.
I'm 62 my hands shake a little, I can't see smallstuff worth crap, and
my job restrictions would preclude anyone but an idiot from hiring me.
They told me the state doesn't care if I'm hirable or that I had been
working as a master electrician, just that jobs are available. Yet
they told me that though I'm likely to reinure my self If I get hired
as an electician I'm still covered. LOL no wonder they are going
broke.
Mike M
On 7/15/2012 12:54 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And I thought I was just "laid off"
>>
>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>
> laid off you can collect UI, fired ya can't.
> So yes, there is a difference, but either way you still ain't got a job
>
>
>
Actually you can be paid if you are fired. If fired for something that
was not your fault you collect, at least in Texas.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:58:55 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 7/15/2012 11:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
>>> . . but don't worry about it.
>>>
>>> Abbott and Costello explain Obama's Accounting System.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
>>> to look for work to be unemployed.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: What point?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who
>>> look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: To whom?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: The unemployed.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
>>> out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
>>> longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
>>> less unemployment?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
>>> would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment, do ya?
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
>>> bring down the unemployment number?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Correct.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
>>> of the two is to just stop looking for work.
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>>>
>>> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>>>
>>> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
>>>
>>> Seriously, once you're out of unemployment benefits and still don't have a
>>> job, the government doesn't count you as unemployed anymore!!!! 16% is
>>> more like it!
>>
>> Everything above is absolutely correct (it's actually worse than that) but
>> unemployment benefits have no bearing on the unemployment rate (either U3 or
>> U6). True, you can't be on unemployment insurance if you're not actively
>> looking for work but you can certainly be looking for work (unemployed) and
>> not be on UI. The fact that UI runs out, or that you never got it, has nothing
>> to do with the unemployment rate.
>>
>>> And I thought I was just laid off
>>
>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>>
>
>
>Absolutely! I believe fired with justification helps to prevent
>unemployment taxes from increasing.
That depends on what the justification is. If it's the (intentional) fault of
the employee, sure. In general, not so much.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:18:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
>office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your panties in
>a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned fools.
Not a lot of choice these days with *any* politician. They're all
practiced professional liars as far as I'm concerned. If they don't
promise, correct or lie they're making their way into power, they
don't get there in the first place.
On 7/15/2012 9:07 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:18:57 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
>> office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your panties in
>> a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned fools.
>
> Not a lot of choice these days with *any* politician. They're all
> practiced professional liars as far as I'm concerned. If they don't
> promise, correct or lie they're making their way into power, they
> don't get there in the first place.
Han shared this on FB this morning:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5765758547063152706
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 7/15/2012 4:47 AM, Bill wrote:
> For those of you who don't know who Abbott and Costello were, too bad . .
> . . but don't worry about it.
> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>
> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
> of the two is to just stop looking for work.
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a politician.
Food and fuel are not indexed in core inflation; a white student in a
school district where less than 12% of the students are white is not a
"minority student; "transparency" is anything but; an outright lie by a
politician is excused by uttering "I misspoke"; and "change" is just
more of the same ... to name but a few.
Sad thing is, those of you who continue to vote the miscreants into
office, from either wing of the Business Party, and get your panties in
a twist about that "other" party, are nothing but damned fools.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 7/15/2012 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:24:46 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2012 12:54 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 05:47:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And I thought I was just "laid off"
>>>>
>>>> Is there a real difference between "laid off" and "fired"?
>>>
>>> laid off you can collect UI, fired ya can't.
>>> So yes, there is a difference, but either way you still ain't got a job
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually you can be paid if you are fired. If fired for something that
>> was not your fault you collect, at least in Texas.
>
> I believe that's generally the case. "Your fault" is a wide category, too.
> Even incompetence is not the employee's "fault". On the other extreme,
> stealing is.
>
Exactly.