PDA

View Full Version : Should we continue unemployment?



sack316
12-02-2010, 12:12 PM
OK, I do understand the tragedy and sadness of benefits running out for many... especially at this time of the year. I won't argue with that point at all, as it is a shame.

But c'mon... there are jobs out there. 99 weeks of unemployment... how much more do people need???

I'm a somewhat educated person, with over a decade of management experience. I lost my job at the end of '08, and I struggled to find another job for some time. I will agree with everyone else that it is indeed tough out there. Until I bucked up and took work under my experience level. I've been cutting grass for $8-9/hour this year. Not my ideal job. Not the type of pay I know I'm worth, but enough to pay bills, eat, and keep a roof over my head on my own. I haven't been able to buy up computers and other electronics as soon as they come out as I was once accustomed to. I live in my cheap apartment. I fix meals at home or hit up a dollar menu instead of eating at nice restaurants every day as I once would have. I don't get to buy every video game that comes out when I want to. I wear the same clothes that I've had the last several years. Basically, I've done what I need to do... even if I feel it's "beneath me" (for lack of a better term... in truth no job is beneath anybody). I've done it on my own, it's a struggle, but it's doable.

I've got another very capable friend, she just took a job at a pizza place. Another friend of mine has a wealth of quality job experience, 2 bachelors degrees and a masters.... she works at Wal-Mart. Another once owned his own business, now he works for an extermination company. Another was a general Manager at a steakhouse that closed down, made good money as I'm sure you know... right now he's working as a shift manager at a fast food joint.

Then of course, I have other friends, some of whom I have offered to come help me at work part time. The answer tends to be something like "why come work part-time with you when I'm making (dollar amount) every week for doing nothing". On some level, I don't blame them. One said they are more of an office type worker than an outside worker.

The hard truth is there are jobs out there. Plenty of them, really. They may not be what people <u>want</u> to do. It may be for far less money than they are accustomed to. It may be something they feel is "beneath them". But people can flip burgers, stock shelves, change oil, cut grass or rake leaves, mop floors, etc. etc. etc. if they really <u>wanted</u> to work. They may have to swallow some pride, they may have to move to a smaller home, or sell a car, or cancel their premium cable for basic, or pack a lunch, or do any number of things not suitable to their "regular" lifestyle... but it's all doable, without help. If someone really wants to.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 12:47 PM
You might be interested in this Sack.

If you click through the top ten cities, for employment, at the bottom of the pictures, it shows available jobs, per persons out of work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/best-cities-to-find-a-job_n_790776.html#s193632

You'll see there is a wide range of differences according to one's location, which I'm sure you already knew, but these are the best cities for finding a job, Baltimore, Maryland, north of where I live, has among the lowest unemployment rate, contrary to a lot that has been written here, about that general area, lol.

Most folks, don't live in an area where outdoor work, such as what you've managed to do over the slump, is even available, over the winter, and then we should also remember, how many of these people who are still unemployed, are single mothers, with children to feed. Their options are far more limited, as they have to often seek particular work hours, different from the usual hours, or end up handing over what they make to child care costs.

Then, what about those who are out of work, and can't look for a job, because they have become ill, been dumped by their insurance, and lost their homes, in the process? there are man of those, trust me.

When we look at other bad economic times in our history, trends show that when there are jobs out there, the American people go to work.

I do not believe that Americans, are lazy people, who would prefer to sit on their asses, and collect unemployment, and in fact, we are the most productive people in the world.

If Republicans can justify increasing the deficit in the 800 billion dollar range, in order to provide tax cuts for millionaires, and billionaores, who are doing just fine, how can they take a stand off cutting of unemployment, for people who are ut of work, who have paid into unemployment insurance, in the 30 billion dollar cost range????

Beyond that, the charts show, tax cuts for the top two to three percent, do not stimulate spending, but unemployment payments, do, that is a simple fact.

There is no way to justify insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, who don't need them, and dont spend them, while pushing to cut off unemployment checks for our unemployed, in the dead of winter, right at christmas time, when the wealthiest among us are many of the same ones who stole from the country in the first place, and outsourced our jobs to slave labor, on the other side of the world...as they collected subsidies, from taxes paid by the Middle Class, while doing it!

G.

sack316
12-02-2010, 01:00 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the map you mentioned.

I'm not saying most people are lazy or anything like that, though plenty of them are. But a lot are also simply not looking for work, but rather looking for work that they WANT to do instead of taking any jobs that they can. I mean, yeah it sucks to have to settle... believe me I know! I'm one of the "underemployed" people right now as it is the off season for my job. I chose to tough it out right now instead of being "laid off" during the off season and drawing a check. And I look for extra work on the side. For instance, we had some bad storms the other day. I went out with a chainsaw and cut up fallen trees for people in the pouring rain to make some extra money. Was it what I want to do? Hell no. But I did it.

There's plenty of outside work in any area, mind you. Even if it's a place where there isn't grass or trees, there'd be parking lots that can be cleaned up, painting, and general maintenance. Always something to do out there if someone is willing to put forth the effort.

I'm all for helping those that need it, I really am. Regardless of the cost, those that need help should get it. But, IMHO, if someone can't find even the crappiest of jobs in 99 weeks then they aren't trying.

Your single mother example is a good one, though. But I also know plenty of single mothers who have even had to move back in with their parents so they could work and get back on their feet. There's always a way, if one is willing to suck it up and sacrifice to do it. I know it isn't always pleasant to do, but as I said it's doable.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be interested in seeing the map you mentioned.

I'm not saying most people are lazy or anything like that, though plenty of them are. But a lot are also simply not looking for work, but rather looking for work that they WANT to do instead of taking any jobs that they can. I mean, yeah it sucks to have to settle... believe me I know! I'm one of the "underemployed" people right now as it is the off season for my job. I chose to tough it out right now instead of being "laid off" during the off season and drawing a check. And I look for extra work on the side. For instance, we had some bad storms the other day. I went out with a chainsaw and cut up fallen trees for people in the pouring rain to make some extra money. Was it what I want to do? Hell no. But I did it.

There's plenty of outside work in any area, mind you. Even if it's a place where there isn't grass or trees, there'd be parking lots that can be cleaned up, painting, and general maintenance. Always something to do out there if someone is willing to put forth the effort.

I'm all for helping those that need it, I really am. Regardless of the cost, those that need help should get it. But, IMHO, if someone can't find even the crappiest of jobs in 99 weeks then they aren't trying.

Your single mother example is a good one, though. But I also know plenty of single mothers who have even had to move back in with their parents so they could work and get back on their feet. There's always a way, if one is willing to suck it up and sacrifice to do it. I know it isn't always pleasant to do, but as I said it's doable.

Sack </div></div>

It's not a chart, it's the slide show, at the link...scroll down a bit, and you can click through it.

Oh, and single mothers don't all have parents to go to in the midst of disaster.

You have a point of view, but I have a different point of view, and also, I believe there are a million stories in the naked city, lol to use a cliche'...

I don't think we can make judgements about all of the peoploe and various circumstances, and in all regions of the country, baed on what we see around us, in our own small little microcosm, our limited view of a such broad set of conditions.

I tend to think of Americans as hard working people, who have enough honor about them, that by and large, they would rather have a job, any job, than to be on the dole...and that's pretty much what I see around me in my area.

But, IMO, even if a third of them, were on the dole, which I don't think they are, far from it, in fact, they still wouldn't have stolen as much, or cost us as much, as the Millionaires, and Billionaires in the top two percent, have, for decades....

Making us sick from their polluting poisons
Outsourcing our jobs
Hiding their multi trillions offshore
Bribing our representatives
Paying off Scientists to lie, in the interest of filling up their Pockets, and polluting the environment.
Cheating on their income taxes....

Where is the outrage over those issues? Surely, you don't think it doesn't exist?

Our own government was sayng over twelve trillion, was hidden in the Caribbean, just a few years ago....and saying that two thirds of American corporations weren't paying taxes...

No, I don't think tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, are the "Christian" values, at all, compared to money for the disadvantaged...and those who can't find work.

And Republicans, crippling and obstructing, all other efforts by our Government, to get important things done, like the START Nuclear Treaty, for example, and unemployment benefits, by holding the congress hostage to more money for the same greedy wealthy crooks who have been bilking us for decades, shows me exactly what kind of scum they are....
They are Repulsive!
JM2C.


G.

pooltchr
12-02-2010, 03:16 PM
Sack.
I know you will find this hard to believe (I'm finding it difficult myself), but I have to agree with Gayle on this one, although for very different reasons from hers.

With all the homes in the country in forclosure right now, I would hate to see what happens if that many people lose whatever income they have at the moment.

People on unemployment are usually living week to week, which means that money doesn't go into savings...it gets spent at the grocery store and the gas station, and helps keep the economy running.

And I believe that congress has had a hand in the unemployment rates, so there is some culpability on their part to do what they can to help those who were hit by the economic results of their actions.

You know I am far from a big supporter of government programs, but under the "conditions prevailing" as Gayle loves to say, I think it will hurt the economy even more if they allow the benefits to expire.

Steve

sack316
12-02-2010, 03:32 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think more could be done at the individual level that would benefit the country as a whole.

Even if say it shed 2 or 3% off of our unemployment figures (I don't feel it a stretch to say up to one out of three unemployed people could find some type of work over the course of 99 weeks) it would make a world of difference.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think we can make judgements about all of the peoploe and various circumstances, and in all regions of the country, baed on what we see around us, in our own small little microcosm, our limited view of a such broad set of conditions. </div></div>

I seriously doubt there is an area where there are zero jobs or opportunities available. I'm racking my brain trying to think of somewhere, really I am! Can you give me such an example? Cuz I'm struggling with this one...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and single mothers don't all have parents to go to in the midst of disaster. </div></div>

Very true. But many of them do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a chart, it's the slide show, at the link...scroll down a bit, and you can click through it. </div></div>

Sorry, I must have not seen the link the first time. But is says pretty much what I am saying in the first place. The data is based on "Unemployed Individuals Per Advertised Job". So for example Boston (I'll round figures for simplicities sake) has 1.97 (2) persons unemployed per each advertised job. Their unemployment rate is 8.1% (8%). So what that says is that half of those unemployed (4%) have a job advertised and readily available for them! Boston could cut its unemployment rate in half if only people would seek out and accept the jobs available. (http://www.job-search-engine.com/press/Juju-Releases-Job-Search-Difficulty-Index-for-Major-Cities-November-2010)

Also of note, this data compiles only jobs posted online. Which wouldn't include local want ads that do not also post online, or ma and pa with a sign in their window. So there are actually MORE jobs available than would be used in the data!

Now granted, Boston is one of the good examples out there as far as job availability. But even taking the worst, Las Vegas, we find that their unemployment rate is around 15%. There are 8.86 (9) unemployed persons per online advertised job. So one in nine unemployed persons (roughly 11% of unemployed) has a job out there somewhere for the taking. If they did, their unemployment would drop nearly 2%... in the worst town as far as job availability!

Sack

sack316
12-02-2010, 03:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack.
I know you will find this hard to believe (I'm finding it difficult myself), but I have to agree with Gayle on this one, although for very different reasons from hers.

With all the homes in the country in forclosure right now, I would hate to see what happens if that many people lose whatever income they have at the moment.

People on unemployment are usually living week to week, which means that money doesn't go into savings...it gets spent at the grocery store and the gas station, and helps keep the economy running.

And I believe that congress has had a hand in the unemployment rates, so there is some culpability on their part to do what they can to help those who were hit by the economic results of their actions.

You know I am far from a big supporter of government programs, but under the "conditions prevailing" as Gayle loves to say, I think it will hurt the economy even more if they allow the benefits to expire.

Steve </div></div>

Yeah Steve, I may have phrased my thoughts poorly. I'm not saying it is "good" or anything to let the benefits expire. As much as it pains me, I actually do think we should extend the benefits because I don't think those that really do need them should have to suffer because of others that may not. Sort of like the "it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man" quote, I think it's better to let ten people abuse the system than to take the system away from one needy person.

I suppose my thoughts and commentary were more meant for the individual level, though... as I now realize my thread title obviously doesn't necessarily reflect that.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do think more could be done at the individual level that would benefit the country as a whole.

Even if say it shed 2 or 3% off of our unemployment figures (I don't feel it a stretch to say up to one out of three unemployed people could find some type of work over the course of 99 weeks) it would make a world of difference.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think we can make judgements about all of the peoploe and various circumstances, and in all regions of the country, baed on what we see around us, in our own small little microcosm, our limited view of a such broad set of conditions. </div></div>

I seriously doubt there is an area where there are zero jobs or opportunities available. I'm racking my brain trying to think of somewhere, really I am! Can you give me such an example? Cuz I'm struggling with this one...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and single mothers don't all have parents to go to in the midst of disaster. </div></div>

Very true. But many of them do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a chart, it's the slide show, at the link...scroll down a bit, and you can click through it. </div></div>

Sorry, I must have not seen the link the first time. But is says pretty much what I am saying in the first place. The data is based on "Unemployed Individuals Per Advertised Job". So for example Boston (I'll round figures for simplicities sake) has 1.97 (2) persons unemployed per each advertised job. Their unemployment rate is 8.1% (8%). So what that says is that half of those unemployed (4%) have a job advertised and readily available for them! Boston could cut its unemployment rate in half if only people would seek out and accept the jobs available. (http://www.job-search-engine.com/press/Juju-Releases-Job-Search-Difficulty-Index-for-Major-Cities-November-2010)

Also of note, this data compiles only jobs posted online. Which wouldn't include local want ads that do not also post online, or ma and pa with a sign in their window. So there are actually MORE jobs available than would be used in the data!

Now granted, Boston is one of the good examples out there as far as job availability. But even taking the worst, Las Vegas, we find that their unemployment rate is around 15%. There are 8.86 (9) unemployed persons per online advertised job. So one in nine unemployed persons (roughly 11% of unemployed) has a job out there somewhere for the taking. If they did, their unemployment would drop nearly 2%... in the worst town as far as job availability!

Sack


</div></div>

Regardless, there are not enough jobs to go around?

We had around four to five percent unemployed over the years, right? During decent job market times?

How many of those are people who are illiterate?

Hhow many have disailities?

How many have a house full of children, single mothers?

How many are currently ill?

I am not sure how it all breaks down, myself, being honest as I can be, but when I hear the satistics on the jobs that are outsourced, and look at the unemployment figures, those outsourced jobs have played a huge roll in ljob losses, just as the illegal aline population has played a huge roll in lower pay, for Middle Class and the kinds of neighborhood jobs you're talking about, jobs that used to help poorer kids work their way through college.

hey, let me say this much.

I have no admiration for loosers, who won't work.

I've know a few like that in my time, they're disgusting!

We should crack down on those kinds, like Clinton Did, years ago...but that usually requires some sord of educational investment, too.

Nothing is perfect, but my blood boils, when I hear righties, compare unemployed Americans, to stray cats.

Is that what you call a Christian Attitude?



Just as it boils when they deny that the Fat Cats on Wall Street, didn't bilk us all!

Or that a total neglect of regulatory oversight, and Bush's Ownership Society, policy, didn't play the biggest roll in the whole crash that these pigs on Wall Street, took advantage of, and created!

I think that when it is clear that wages have dropped, for the Middloe Cloass wrorking population, while CEO's have gotten wealthier and wealthier, corporations breaking world profit records, and all other Americans, losing ground, it's not that hard to figure out who is bilking whom, and who took the whole loaf of bread.

Thieves and crooks! NO, Don't give those SOB;s a damn tax cut! No Way!

G.

eg8r
12-02-2010, 03:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not sure how it all breaks down, myself, being honest as I can be, but when I hear the satistics on the jobs that are outsourced, and look at the unemployment figures, those outsourced jobs have played a huge roll in ljob losses, just as the illegal aline population has played a huge roll in lower pay, for Middle Class and the kinds of neighborhood jobs you're talking about, jobs that used to help poorer kids work their way through college.

</div></div>Don't you think it would make more sense to fill the current open positions before worrying about the outsourced ones. Lets say all those outsourced jobs came back to the US. What would all these people do about it...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of those are people who are illiterate?

Hhow many have disailities?

How many have a house full of children, single mothers?

How many are currently ill?

</div></div>Would they make much of a dent in the outsourced jobs if they are not already taking the ones that are available?

eg8r

sack316
12-02-2010, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Regardless, there are not enough jobs to go around?

We had around four to five percent unemployed over the years, right? During decent job market times?</div></div>

No, there never are and there never will be. But there are plenty of jobs out there to make a significant dent in the nearly 10% unemployment figure.

A state of "full employment" varies according to your favorite term, conditions prevailing /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Depending on growth, full employment will generally be in the range of 3-4.5% unemployment rate. It's been as high as 7% when baby boomers and more females entered the workforce post WWII (but that's another topic entirely).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of those are people who are illiterate?</div></div>

I'm not sure. How many are literate?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hhow many have disailities?</div></div>

That's what disability is for

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many have a house full of children, single mothers?</div></div>

Quite a few I'm sure. And as I've said, those that NEED help by all means should have it

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many are currently ill?</div></div>

That's what short term disability is for. And if they became ill while working, they cannot lose their job based on that alone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not sure how it all breaks down, myself, being honest as I can be, but when I hear the satistics on the jobs that are outsourced, and look at the unemployment figures, those outsourced jobs have played a huge roll in ljob losses, just as the illegal aline population has played a huge roll in lower pay, for Middle Class and the kinds of neighborhood jobs you're talking about, jobs that used to help poorer kids work their way through college.</div></div>

I'm sure that does play a significant role. There are still jobs out there that nobody is taking, regardless of whatever that figure may be, though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hey, let me say this much.

I have no admiration for loosers, who won't work.

I've know a few like that in my time, they're disgusting!

</div></div>

That I'm sure we all agree on

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not sure how it all breaks down, myself, being honest as I can be, but when I hear the satistics on the jobs that are outsourced, and look at the unemployment figures, those outsourced jobs have played a huge roll in ljob losses, just as the illegal aline population has played a huge roll in lower pay, for Middle Class and the kinds of neighborhood jobs you're talking about, jobs that used to help poorer kids work their way through college.

</div></div>Don't you think it would make more sense to fill the current open positions before worrying about the outsourced ones. Lets say all those outsourced jobs came back to the US. What would all these people do about it...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many of those are people who are illiterate?

Hhow many have disailities?

How many have a house full of children, single mothers?

How many are currently ill?

</div></div>Would they make much of a dent in the outsourced jobs if they are not already taking the ones that are available?

eg8r

</div></div>

Well, the way I see it, Ed, is that many people who used to be able to get decent work, have lost opportunities for that kind of factory work. Not all Americans are smart enough for college, nor can afford it.


Then we had Reagan's attack on Unions of American workers, these were the sort of people who didn't have the means for a good education, nor the inate intellect,, but could work their way through loife, with what usd to be called, a good paying job, industry, utilities, etc....

After the unions were destroyed, corporation spend a decade, selling out, to other corps, to get out of what they had singed off on for Union Employees, and basically dumping workers, before they got their promised retirement...or just bilking the entire corporation, which their employees owned stock in...Enron?

And given the influx of the illegal alien population, American factories, farms, and packing corporations, etc., could get cheaper workers, who would take anything, because it was still better than where they came from.

then, we have to realize that we also had rising energy and health and insurance costs...along with all of that.

So naturally, losing ground, for decades, the Middle Class, hard working people, when they became ill, and got dropped by health care insurance, or when they dipped into their home equity, as Americans have done for generations, to subsidized college, for their kids, and then the banks and R.E. companies, were pushing low doc, and no doc, and no interest with ballon paymets, mortgage papers so involed, and confusing, Greenapsn said he had a hard time with them, just as he said about the "Creative" BS going on on Wall Street...there were a huge range of reasons, but I do recall, that early on, the statistics indicated that 62% lost their homes due to illness and health care insurance, dropping them when they became ill.



That's why this all makes me so mad.

The same CEO's who created all of the toxins in the environment, that made people sick, and the toxic predatory loans, and the Wall Street Ponzi Schemes, the charts prove, have gotten richer, faster, than at any other time in history...EVER!

Hence, I'm in no mood to see that group of Millionaires, and billionaires, get tax cuts, when in realty, they never pay what they owe, in taxes, in the first place, and never have, annd even if you took their level back up to the highest it ever was, they STILL wouldn't be paying what they actually owe.

If that top two percent, ever actually paid what they actually owe, our problems would be over!

These same corporations, make us sick! {au Capital Hill to destroy workers unions, and remove employee paid health care, Then HC Insurance drop us when we get sick, and bilk our investment portfolio, pn Wall Street, as they buy our representative on Capital Hill!

Jeesus!
They get us coming and going, and the right, defends them?

Give me a break!


"Only the little people, pay taxes"




Why do you think she said that?


PIGS!

LWW
12-02-2010, 04:54 PM
Since there are people who believe in stupidonomics, that unemployment drives economic growth, why don't we outlaw employment?

LWW

eg8r
12-02-2010, 05:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the way I see it, Ed, is that many people who used to be able to get decent work, have lost opportunities for that kind of factory work. Not all Americans are smart enough for college, nor can afford it.

</div></div>But based on the chart that you provided there are still many jobs available. Why aren't those being filled before worrying about the jobs that are no longer around? Once we fill up what we have then let's look at what jobs have been legislated away?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 12:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the way I see it, Ed, is that many people who used to be able to get decent work, have lost opportunities for that kind of factory work. Not all Americans are smart enough for college, nor can afford it.

</div></div>But based on the chart that you provided there are still many jobs available. Why aren't those being filled before worrying about the jobs that are no longer around? Once we fill up what we have then let's look at what jobs have been legislated away?

eg8r </div></div>

I wouold think one would have to take account of the turnover on those jobs beng advertised.

For example, if there were fifty jobs showing in a given area, you'd have to track the turnover, and consider the unemployment numbers, in order to calculate how fast jobs were being filled, compared to the unem. numbers, over a period of at least a month, to really figure out whats actually happening.

In a recession, more dollars beng spent, equals more demand, and more inventoryhiring. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Demand, creates jobs.
The unemployment paid out, to middle class and poor, keeps dollars flowing, from a wider base of people, which in turn, leads to buying more inventory, selling more, and selling more leads to hiring more workers.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, do not pay for themselves. A very low percentage among the top two percent, actually create jobs, particularly in a recession.

None of these figures touch the subject of decency, humanity, honor. A country which fails it's old, it's ill, it's elderly, will itelf, fail. There is value in national moral fiber, and it brings with it the best that can be, including inspiration for the lazy, and the free loaders, to try harder to contribute.

Where would one prefer to live? In a country of medics, or in a country of warriors? Which scenario builds a nation, and which, tears it down.

G.

eg8r
12-03-2010, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a recession, more dollars beng spent, equals more demand, and more inventoryhiring. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Demand, creates jobs.
</div></div>Tax cuts give people more money to spend. Also, if the people are unemployed the majority of the money they are getting is going towards necessities like shelter, food and utilities. Those don't create jobs.

You always talk about people paying their fair share, yet you have never given a definition of what is fair. To me fair is when you offer everyone the same thing. If the country cannot afford a tax cut then don't give it to anyone. If you are going to give one then everyone gets it. That is fair. Poor people don't pay taxes so a tax cut for the rich does not hurt them. This tax cut for those over 250k is going to hit the small businesses which are the people that employ and help these poor people.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 08:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a recession, more dollars beng spent, equals more demand, and more inventoryhiring. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Demand, creates jobs.
</div></div>Tax cuts give people more money to spend. Also, if the people are unemployed the majority of the money they are getting is going towards necessities like shelter, food and utilities. Those don't create jobs.

You always talk about people paying their fair share, yet you have never given a definition of what is fair. To me fair is when you offer everyone the same thing. If the country cannot afford a tax cut then don't give it to anyone. If you are going to give one then everyone gets it. That is fair. Poor people don't pay taxes so a tax cut for the rich does not hurt them. This tax cut for those over 250k is going to hit the small businesses which are the people that employ and help these poor people.

eg8r </div></div>


Given the more than 60 percent disapproval rates for both parties, it's clear that this election was a mandate for helping solve the problems of the millions of Americans who are out of work and the two-thirds of American workers who are now living month to month. It was not a mandate for more gridlock, ideological battles or a continued transfer of wealth from the ordinary Americans who voted for members of Congress on November 3 to the special interests who paid for their campaigns.

For the Republicans, this is a test of whether they are serious about governing. They ran this year, as they have for 30 years, against deficits. Yet under George W. Bush they doubled the national debt -- by handing over tax breaks to the rich without offsetting them with either tax hikes on somebody else or spending cuts, by funding a war in Iraq without asking anyone to sacrifice to pay for it (other than our kids and grandkids, who will pay trillions for it), and by adding more than half a trillion in new unfunded provisions to Medicare that are now impossible to repeal without losing the votes of senior citizens.

Now Republican leaders say they have come back to their senses and accepted the gospel of fiscal restraint. This is a test of whether that is true. They are demanding the same unfunded tax cuts to the rich, for the same three-quarters of a trillion dollars in debt charged to our children's credit cards, and advancing the weak rationalization that the rich are "job creators."

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Given that the Bush tax cuts coincided with the most sustained period of private-sector job loss in this country since the Great Depression, and that there is no credible challenge to the view showing that tax cuts to the rich are far more likely to wind up in hedge funds than in the pockets of newly hired workers, Republicans need to decide whether paying off their wealthy campaign contributors trumps doing the right thing.</span>
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012030006

It is a myth, that people in the top two percent, stimulate the economy, with tax cuts, or create jobs....

It's also a myth that the top two percent put more dollars back into the economy, than the middle Class. They don't. Nor do they creat jobs. They invest their tax savings, which does nothing to create more demand, or keep more dollars in the economy...hence, Bush's horrible job losses...

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Gayle,
When will you accept the fact that Obama has already added more to the deficit in two years than Bush did in eight??????


Steve

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given the more than 60 percent disapproval rates for both parties, it's clear that this election was a mandate for helping solve the problems of the millions of Americans who are out of work and the two-thirds of American workers who are now living month to month.
</div></div>Which means, the Dems were in control and not getting it done so the American people want to give the new Reps a shot at changing things. Right now the congressmen that have been voted out still have a few days left so it is up to the Reps to do what the country has voted for an stall those Dems till they leave office.

Why would we want the people whom we voted out to make decisions on our taxable future. I would prefer to let the ones I voted for make those decisions.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given the more than 60 percent disapproval rates for both parties, it's clear that this election was a mandate for helping solve the problems of the millions of Americans who are out of work and the two-thirds of American workers who are now living month to month.
</div></div>Which means, the Dems were in control and not getting it done so the American people want to give the new Reps a shot at changing things. Right now the congressmen that have been voted out still have a few days left so it is up to the Reps to do what the country has voted for an stall those Dems till they leave office.

Why would we want the people whom we voted out to make decisions on our taxable future. I would prefer to let the ones I voted for make those decisions.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL, the ones who oversaw all of the deficit spending, borrowing, deregulation, and subsidies for corporations who outsourced the jobs, bilked the country, and the world, with their crooked Wall Street Deals, predatory business operations, thievery and greed, which led to the crash?

That's what Republicans created, Ed. The election was typical of uneducated Americans, grabbing at straws, those too ignorant to grasp the long term strides, which are still going to come, through Democratic legislation.

People were believing Rw BS when it was coming from the very people whose policies failed miserably, and nearly brought the whole world, into a global depresion.

It was a critical situaion, Done deal, as I have read, over and over again, BEFORE Democratics took the majority in Jan. 07!.

How many times do I have to write this, when it has been addressed, and proven, in every single book and documentary written about the crash!

It is about as absurd to say that the economy's continued struggle to recover from Bush/Republican majoprity policies, and slow job recovery, is the fault of Obama, and the Dems, as it is to State that George Bush kept the country safe for eight years!

Anyone who compares Obama's emergency spending, under the threat of a deperssion, caused by republican failed policies, that lost jobs for eight years, and brought about the worst recession since the Great Depression, to what the Republicans did to this country, isn't dealing with reality. Knows nothing beyond the usual RW lies, and talking points...is not only unrealstic, but stunningly uninformed.

G.

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 10:51 AM
the Dems have had control of congress, and therefore, of all spending bills, since January of 2007. The economy was doing pretty good prior to that. Things went downhill when they got their hands on the check book.

Steve

eg8r
12-03-2010, 11:14 AM
If you are a voter and you vote someone out, why would you want that person to have a say in any more issues brought before Congress?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are a voter and you vote someone out, why would you want that person to have a say in any more issues brought before Congress?

<span style="color: #990000">Not all Democratics were voted out, for ne thing.

Secondly, Republicans approval rates are as low as Democratics.

Third, the crash was brought on by failed Republican policies which grew entirely under a Republican Majority, Republican policies, and a Republican president, Republican Fed Chairman, Republican SEC Chairman.

Half the people in this country don't even know that Republicans took back the Congress.


They don't start running the show until January. Currently, there is a Democratic majority in both houses, and,even after january, This will continue to be a Democratic majority, in the Senate.

To suggest, that because Republicans took the majority in the house, only, means that they have the sole right to dictate everything, is to prove you know nothing about Government, or a mandate for anything.

IOW, Republicns can come up with all their same old failed policies in the Congress, as brought the country to it's knees, as early on as 06, and they can go on with their lies and bravado, till hell freezes over, but without a majority in the Senate, which was NOT awarded to them by Americans, it's all going to go no where, thankfully.

Republicans do not hold the veto pen.

Republicans did not get a mandate for their failed policies, they got votes from the same propagandized, fearful, flyover nincompoops and saps who have been voting against their own best interests, for decades.</span>
eg8r </div></div>

sack316
12-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Bottom line there is over the next few years both sides will be watched with much more scrutiny from the public, IMO. And if neither side gets the job done we may well see a lot of familiar faces gone, and a lot of new ones in Washington... be they R or D or other...

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line there is over the next few years both sides will be watched with much more scrutiny from the public, IMO. And if neither side gets the job done we may well see a lot of familiar faces gone, and a lot of new ones in Washington... be they R or D or other...

Sack </div></div>

Fair appraisal.

G.

eg8r
12-03-2010, 12:50 PM
You did not answer my question.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-04-2010, 11:39 AM
Here is some more info...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Critics say Obama's plan to raise taxes on the highest earners would hobble the businesses that generate most of the nation's new jobs. Yet fewer than 3 percent of small businesses produce enough income to face the higher rates, according to the Tax Policy Center.</span>
Some Republicans note that this tiny slice accounts for half of total small-business income. So the damage to the economy would be more than you'd think, they say. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But many of these businesses aren't what most people would consider small anyway.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>For example, some hedge funds and law firms pay their taxes through the personal returns of their individual partners. While these are lumped in as "small businesses" and would pay higher taxes, they are far different from the retail stores and small manufacturers that most people associate with the term and which would not pay higher taxes.</span>

The rich would pay 36 percent or more of their income in taxes under Obama's plan.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Wrong. A rich family would pay 36 percent and 39.6 percent only on taxable income above $232,000. The family would continue to benefit from the other four brackets established earlier this decade 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent on taxable income below $232,000.</span>A family with taxable income of $350,000 would pay a higher rate on $118,000. The family would pay $42,480 in taxes on that amount, or $3,540 more than it pays now.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Of course, for the really rich, the two higher brackets would take a bigger bite. A family making $2 million would pay about $100,000 more in taxes under Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center.</span>_

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The tax debate is all about income tax rates.

Wrong. For all the attention given to higher taxes on earned income if current rates expire, the big hit to some families will come from taxes on capital gains and dividends. The government now takes 15 percent of both. If the Bush cuts aren't renewed, the tax on long-term gains would rise to 20 percent.</span>

LWW
12-04-2010, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A family making $2 million would pay about $100,000 more in taxes under Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center.</div></div>

And on what basis do you feel the state is entitled to that $100K?

What argument can you make ... outside of Pelosi's stupidonomics which claims UE drives the economy ... that the state will make a more efficient use of the money?

How can you assume the economy is static ... the fatal flaw in the democrook's stupidonomics ... and that raising the tax rate won't stifle initiative, won't drive high earners outside the USA?

You have a total loser of an argument.

LWW