Advertisement

Archive for Friday, November 6, 2009

Nation’s unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent for the first time in 26 years

It’s expected to get higher

November 6, 2009

Advertisement

— The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher.

Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.

But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists' estimates. It's the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

The jobless rate rose to 10.2 percent from 9.8 percent in September. Economists say it could climb as high as 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.

Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring, raising the specter of a jobless recovery.

"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co.

Greenhaus said the economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of various government stimulus programs fades.

Many economists also worry that persistently high unemployment could undermine the recovery by restraining consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy.

One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They comprise 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the legislation.

The employment report showed that job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs, the most in four months. Construction shed 62,000 jobs, down slightly from the previous month.

Retailers, the financial sector and leisure and hospitality companies all continued to reduce payrolls. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.

There were some bright spots in the report. Professional and business services companies added 18,000 jobs. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, after losing positions for months. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

Still, economists expect jobs likely will remain scarce even as the economy improves. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said that small businesses, a primary engine of job creation, still face tight credit and don't have the cash reserves to support extra workers.

And many companies are squeezing more production from their existing work forces. Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.

That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.

Comments

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

You think this is bad? Wait & see what will happen if crap & raid gets passed!

jmadison 5 years, 1 month ago

The same people (President Obama and the Dems in Congress) who designed an expensive "stimulus" package to prevent double digit unemployment, can not be trusted to implement an expensive "health care reform" bill that will most likely lead to double digit increases in the cost of health care. The only thing these incompetents in power will stimulate is runaway inflation.

Silly_me 5 years, 1 month ago

I don't think it is completely fair to blame this on Obama..he did inherit a big mess.  What I do think where he has faltered is misreading his victory into a mandate for aggressive program change.  I voted for him but given the economy I was really hoping he would take a measured, careful approach and make sure steps could be taken to stabilize the economy and job situation before aggresively pushing new programs.  Instead, he immediately dives into a new energy policy via Cap and Trade and now a massive expansion of health care programs.  I'm not saying these shouldn't be addressed..I beleve they should, but the timing was bad.  Another bit of bad news on the job front was the productivity numbers shot up as reported yesterday..companies are getting by with less employees and have no real incentive to hire at the moment..especially with the unknowns of how much health care is going to cost them.

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

If we scrapped the idea of a divided system and went to single payer, there wouldn't be any cost to employers. There would be a spike in unemployment among health insurance company bureaucrats, though.

Double-digit inflation, interest rates, and unempoyment were all expected (at least by me), based on the total mess BushCo made of things in eight years. We have one of the three so far. We'll see if the other two show up.

It's funny that, according to the Republican apologists, everything that happened during Bush's term was Clinton's fault, then when Obama was elected, everything became Obama's fault.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. All they do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

this is all wrong. impossible i say. Obama said that the government created 400 billion new jobs last week. and that we had only needed to use $150 billion of the job creation stimulus money. so everything is perfect. all you naysayers who don't have jobs are just faking it.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

Silly_me (Anonymous) says… I don't think it is completely fair to blame this on Obama..he did inherit a big mess.


Stop right there. He did not "inherit" a big mess. He ran for the position. He begged this country to give him this job. He had a better plan. Remember? I don't completely blame Obama for the mess, because I blame every administration and every congress going back about 100 years. Each one has dug us a little deeper into a problem because of failed social experiments.

KS 5 years, 1 month ago

What started out as maybe a Bush problem is no more. It is now an Obama problem and will be until it is fixed. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone in Washington that knows how to fix it.

newmedia 5 years, 1 month ago

Another 190,000 jobs lost last month. 10.2 % unemployment. Why not go ahead and add another 1.2 trillion to the debt with a health care bill that a majority of Americans don't want.

How's that Hope and Change working out for you?

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

who in the world could have imagined...... lol

Mike Hoffmann 5 years, 1 month ago

I wish McCain was president. Surely we'd all be driving Audi's to our new six-figure jobs saying "Recession? I don't recall a recession." all while the announcer on the radio takes calls on how the country should spend the huge budget surplus.

Jimo 5 years, 1 month ago

It's hard to imagine that just yesterday Republicans in Congress were arguing against extending unemployment benefits, saying that it would just encourage shiftlessness and prompt people to hold out for the perfect job (instead of settling on a job).

Shane Garrett 5 years, 1 month ago

Change? Any Change? Brother can you spare a dime?

scott3460 5 years, 1 month ago

So the wingers hate stimulus spending to stem the unemployment tide. What, pray tell, would they have done differently to change the numbers? Cut more taxes for the rich? Cut government services further? Started another war?

Stuart Evans 5 years, 1 month ago

scott3460. I don't hate stimulus that actually creates jobs. what I hate is that we rushed into a $780 billion dollar stimulus package as a reactionary move, with little thought or intelligence. reminds me of the health care bill. What I really hate about the stimulus is that they haven't even spent $200 billion of it. Why did they need that $780 B to begin with? did they have a plan for it, or did someone just reach in a hat and that's the number they pulled out? What if they had allowed the free market to correct itself instead? Most historians now say that the New Deal actually elongated the great depression. And Japan went through a decade of stagnation because of government intervention in the economy.
and yes, cutting government services further is exactly what I'm proposing. it's wasteful, pocket lining, programs that are not helping America, but in fact hurting America.

rabb 5 years, 1 month ago

Last time unemployment was this high, Ronald Reagan was in office. Discuss amongst yourselves. Here's a time line to get you started...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_4.html

Here are more details for you econ majors...

http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/EconRev/EconRevArchive/1983/4q83mill.pdf

jmadison 5 years, 1 month ago

What would 2 Trillion dollars in the hands of the taxpayers have done for the economy versus the 2 Trillion dollars in the hands of our political class? We may as well throw the 2 Trillion dollars down a giant rat hole with the politicians running the show.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?

Who has history with financial institutions going south such as the savings and loan scandal? Republicans! http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate ... http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1

"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went

=========== It’s been exactly one year since the onset of the financial crisis and the passage of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. But what were the factors in deciding who received bailout funds? And what happened to all the money? The answer to those two simple questions is: We don’t know. In a new article in Vanity Fair, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele try to find an answer. The problem is, they write, “once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

=============== 2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  1. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  2. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

slaboribs 5 years, 1 month ago

Initially, this whole financial mess was the fault of the upper level staff at real estate companies, banks, and home builders. Greed, irresponsibility and looking the other way was the popular tone.

Now, it's the politicians lack of earnest and candor that's building another bubble and a new house of cards.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

"Bubbles involve actual investments in real or financial assets—housing in the years since 2000, high-tech stocks in the 1990s, and Dutch tulips in the 17th century. People invest believing that the price of the assets will continue to rise; as long as people keep investing, the price does rise. Once prices start to fall, panic sets in and the later investors lose.

A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme. But there need be no fraudulent operator at the center of a bubble. Also, while a Ponzi scheme depends on people giving their money to someone else to invest (e.g., Madoff), people made their own housing investments—though mortgage companies and banks made large fees for handling these investments.

Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments. Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person). Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

So, no, a bubble and a Ponzi scheme are not the same. But they have elements in common. Usually, however, the losers in a Ponzi scheme are simply the direct investors, the schemer’s marks. A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us. "

slaboribs 5 years, 1 month ago

Merrill, Your're right. Credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities executed by financial firms a.k.a. (Wall street) a.k.a. ("now" bank holding companies) brought the financial system to a grinding halt. They couldn't have done it without the irresponsibility of the banks, real estate companies, and builders finding financing for people who had no business entering into the home purchase agreements in the first place.

The government did indeed turn a blind eye to that becuase they didn't want to anger the hands that feed them.

monkeyhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

"As head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], Brooksley Born became alarmed by the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar over-the-counter derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives ran into fierce resistance from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who prevailed upon Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation.

So let's start with September 2008 as we all sat there and watched the economy melting down and heard about things called credit default swaps [CDS]. It wasn't the first time you'd heard of these sophisticated financial instruments. What did you think when you were watching it happen?

It was like my worst nightmare coming true. I had had enormous concerns about the over-the-counter derivatives [OTC] market, including credit default swaps, for a number of years. The market was totally opaque; we now call it the dark market. So nobody really knew what was going on in the market.

And then it became obvious as Lehman Brothers failed, as AIG [American International Group] suddenly appeared to be on the brink of tremendous defaults and turned out had been a major credit default swap dealer and needed hundreds of billions of dollars to keep it alive, the contagion in the marketplace from those failures brought many, many of our biggest financial services companies to the brink of collapse. And it was very frightening.

... How did it happen?

I think it happened because there was no oversight of a very, very big, dynamic, growing market. Market participants don't look out for the public interest. Traditionally, government has had to protect the public interest by overseeing the marketplace and keeping the extreme behavior under some check.

We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players in the marketplace were participants and counterparties to one another's contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notional value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was the peak. And that is an enormous market. That's more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries in the world." ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html

preebo 5 years, 1 month ago

Unsavoryagent,

The real humor in your comments comes from the fact that you honestly think President Obama, could even remotely say something as vapid and unintelligible as Fmr. President Bush, Aka The Decider. Let's be honest, their not running out to print shirts with Obama-isms. However, they did create a term for your favorite President's winning phrases.

In the interest of actual addressing the topic of this article... It's clear that the stimulus missed the mark on keeping unemployment out of the double digits, but imagine what it would be like without it. Secondly, anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who knows ANYTHING about economics knows that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator of economic activity. So this was a long time coming... Not excusing Obama's White House, but lets be realistic. Was it Reagan's fault in '83 or Carter's? I'm willing to bet you give Reagan the pass on that one. hmmm. Interesting...

preebo 5 years, 1 month ago

Where did you get your numbers? As a matter of fact, they, being Reagan, raised taxes (particularly on the highest tax bracket to 51%) Go ahead, I'll wait while you look it up...

As for the 8% unemployment? Where on Earth did you get that number?

preebo 5 years, 1 month ago

Interest rates are already at record lows, so... Next? If you look at the average tax rate in 1979 it was actually lower than in 1983, hmmm.

Still waiting on your 8% figures for unemployment in 2009...

scott3460 5 years, 1 month ago

"Gee, we're out of power, why do you care what we think? We can criticize, that's our job."

That's your job if your an advocate of two party gridlock. Many Americans wish, in the words of our President, that those in your party would pick up a mop, instead of carping from the sidelines.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Low Road to High Finance:

McClatchy Expose Reveals How Goldman Sachs Sold Off Billions in Mortgage Securities After Anticipating Housing Collapse

A five-month investigation by McClatchy Newspapers has revealed that Goldman Sachs made secret bets against the housing market while simultaneously selling off billions in soon-to-be worthless securities.

In 2006 and 2007, the bank reportedly peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in US housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

We speak to McClatchy reporter Greg Gordon.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/4/sachs

scott3460 5 years, 1 month ago

You bring your own mop and the quality is dependent upon your skills. I guess many in your party prefer carping to working. Telling.

scott3460 5 years, 1 month ago

"My mop is get government out of the way. That mop is currently illegal."

Sounds familiar. Oh yeah, the philosphy of george w. bush and the republicans for the last 8 years. That sure worked well. What is it, exactly that you think the government is standing in the way of? And what do you claim is illegal?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Clinton and democrats in no way implemented the housing bubble. Their idea was to create more opportunities for home owners. They had no idea that Bush/Cheney/Paulson would create this fraudulent scheme......although they should have considering history. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

"Then Bush-Cheney-Paulson came along with their criminal minds. They decided to not give a damn what mortgage lenders did so long as Wall Street banks were doing well even if FRAUD was part of the deal.

A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme: early participants can do well while later ones incur losses; it is based on false expectations; and it ultimately falls apart. But there need be no fraudulent operator at the center of a bubble. Also, while a Ponzi scheme depends on people giving their money to someone else to invest (e.g., Madoff), people made their own housing investments—though mortgage companies and banks made large fees for handling these investments.

The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments. Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person). Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us."

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Mortgage Meltdown by Bush admin http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/15/goldman_sachs_posts_record_profits

( Jeb Bush and George Walker were on the payroll of Lehman Bros when it went down)

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

"I guess many in your party prefer carping to working." I seem to recall a remarkable amount of carping from the sinister side of the aisle between Jan 20, 2001 and Jan 20, 2009.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

How would Obama know exactly how any numbers would look. He had know idea Bush/Cheney/Paulson has rigged up a fraudulent Wall Street Banking scheme much less know he would be responsible for replacing 8 million jobs and that number is climbing.

Obama cannot be responsible for this mess that set the entire world economy tumbling.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

“Those Hit Hardest Get No Bailout”

Taxpayers’ bailout money for AIG bonuses has rightfully provoked a massive backlash against AIG, Wall Street, President Barack Obama and his economic advisers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. The U.S. public now owns 80 percent of AIG. The outrage is bipartisan: Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley even suggested that AIG executives “resign or go commit suicide.” New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just released details on the bonuses, exposing AIG’s ridiculous claim that they are “retention bonuses” aimed at keeping key employees, since 11 of those who received bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer employed by AIG.

These AIG millionaires may need to return their unearned millions (Congress may pass a tax law aimed just at them, taxing their bonuses at 100 percent). But will the outrage help those who have been hardest hit by the economic meltdown? Will the hundreds of millions of dollars in various stimulus packages and bailouts find its way to regular people who are trying to get by, or will it go only to corporations deemed “too big to fail,” leaving behind millions of people who are, apparently, small enough to fail?

The Center for Social Inclusion has just issued a report on the economic meltdown and how best to solve the problem. It links race to the lack of opportunity and to the prevalence of the notorious subprime mortgages that triggered the economic crisis.

CSI Executive Director Maya Wiley told me, “We have to stimulate equality in order to stimulate the economy.” Access to education, transportation, housing and a clean environment give people a firm footing to respond to crisis and to succeed. Noting that “shovel-ready” stimulus jobs in construction will disproportionately favor those who are already in that industry, predominantly white males, Wiley is pushing for “community benefits agreements for construction jobs [that] ensure when the government has construction contracts, low-income people, people of color, women, are going to have their fair share of those jobs.” Since people of color are more likely to live far from available jobs and are less likely to have cars, Wiley says, “we must ensure that the way transportation dollars get spent go to transit … to connect people who need jobs to the places where there are jobs.”

The group United for a Fair Economy also highlights the racial wealth divide, noting that “24 percent of blacks and 21 percent of Latinos are in poverty, versus 8 percent of whites. In the corporate world, we are seeing the highest executive pay and the biggest bailouts in history. CEO pay is 344 times that of the average worker.”

Obama has surrounded himself with financial advisers who are too cozy with Wall Street, like Summers and Geithner. It’s time to direct the stimulus to the people who need it, to those whose tax dollars are funding it.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

The inability of our government to work together and do what is best for the American people instead of fighting each other like pigs at the feed trough is a big part of what caused people to get so scared they all hunkered down and the economy skidded to a stop.

Isn't that about as obvious as the smell at a feedlot.

Sulla 5 years, 1 month ago

Build more fast food and pizza joints;get rid of the minimum wage and do away with child/safety labor laws then the unemployment rate will be about zero in no time .They didn't have any problems with unemployment in the 19th Century when gold was as good as gold, the youngins worked sun up to sun down, and most of all Gawd was in our public schools and they didn't teach kids that they were monkeys...

Susan Mangan 5 years, 1 month ago

Hey! Where'd Preebo go? I was really looking forward to his explanation about those tax rates he thought he knew so much about. C'mon...enlighten us about the 81 and 85 tax "increases".

Jimo 5 years, 1 month ago

"Let's extend unemployment benefits to everyone forever, and see if you're theory or the Republican theory makes more sense. I'm guessing widespread starvation year 2."

Stupidest, most irrelevant, non-reality comment so far this month.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

"CSI Executive Director Maya Wiley told me,..." Really? She said that to you, merrill? Or are you just back into doing copy/paste without revealing your sources again?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.