Hello:

Well, it's NOT who you've been told...

Jobs aren't created because of tax policy, or because of "uncertainty", or because of the deficit.. Jobs are created when corporations can't meet the demands of their market. They only HAVE demand when people are BUYING. People only BUY when they have money in their pocket...

Ergo, CONSUMERS are the job creators... Put more money in THEIR pocket, and jobs will happen. I call it a trickle UP plan. That means we need to do the OPPOSITE of what the wingers are saying.. We need to extend unemployment benefits. We need to start a WPA type work project to repair our infrastructure. We need to invest in green technology. We need to add to our safety net - not take away from it.

To those of you who say we CAN'T add to the deficit now, I remind you that MASSIVE deficit spending, in the midst of the worst depression known to man, not only allowed us to WIN WWII, but it brought us OUT of that depression, and set us off on the greatest economic expansion known to man..

We should DO what we KNOW works, and stop listening to the voo doo economics of the right wing.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

People only BUY when they have money in their pocket...

---

So you are in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, yes? Low taxes are the best way to keep the money in people's pockets.

That's funny because there is a strong case that government intervention in the economy in the form of tarriffs was the real reason why a small economic downturn turned into a depression in the 1st place.

I'd say that the destruction of the rest of the world economy during and after WWII had a lot to do with our economic rebound .We were kind of the only game in town. It certainly wasn't Roosevelt's spending policies... they extended the Depression at least 4 years. Of course if you listen to Keynsian economists they agree that Roosevelt's policies failed... but only because he didn't go far enough... lol. The recipe to failure is to double down on what has failed in the past.

If your formula worked so well then why didn't almost a Trillion dollars in stimulus spending dent the unemployment figures over the last 2+ years ? Why not just a complete takeover of the economy ? After all ;government command and control has worked so well in the past. Just ask Mao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If your formula worked so well then why didn't almost a Trillion dollars in stimulus spending dent the unemployment figures over the last 2+ years ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebaines

So you are in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, yes? Low taxes are the best way to keep the money in people's pockets.

---

Hello again, tom and e:

I'm for DIRECT stimulus... The last stimulus DID work, in the short run, but wasn't large enough. When you inherit a broken down car on the road, and you've managed to get it started and going again, and nearing a garage, you've got to have the money to get the rest of the way, or the car is going to break down again...

In terms of Keynesian economics or not, I don't know. I'm a businessman, not an economist. I can tell the difference between idle spending and investment. Investments PAY off - kind of like our investment in the interstate freeway has.

You SAY you want a businessman to run the country.. Nahhh, you don't.

excon

I still have a job--and I'm working my butt off to keep it, now that I do the work of the 2 other people in my department who were laid off.

I still have a house, because I was careful when I bought and because I made sure my credit rating was good enough to get a decent mortgage---and because I bought a house within my means.

I still have a car, because I carefully saved half the cost of the car before I bought one.

I also paid off all of my debt and held off on having children until I could afford them.

Where's MY freaking reward for being a good citizen? It won't be in extending unemployment for the schmucks that won't take a lower paying job than the one they were laid off from. For example, my company has been looking for 2 managers for over a YEAR. The positions require a master's degree, either in business or in IT. The people qualified for it are used to making 6 digits--and we don't pay even CLOSE to that. But because they THINK they are worth $250k a year, they won't take a $75k a year job instead of sitting on their butts collecting unemployment. [sarcasm]Yeah, I REALLY believe that most people are looking for a job rather than sitting on their butts collecting unemployment.[/sarcasm].

My reward isn't going to trickle down from big companies getting even MORE tax breaks, either.

How about giving money to the people who have actually shown that they can be responsible with it---the middle class worker who is paying their bills and not running up debt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I still have a job--and I'm working my butt off to keep it, now that I do the work of the 2 other people in my department who were laid off.

---

What would happen if you got laid off?

I've been headhunted for the last 4 months pretty consistently. While I have no degree, I have experience in a field where there aren't a lot of specialists.

HOWEVER--I'm 5 months pregnant. If I got laid off, I'd probably collect unemployment until the baby was born because regardless that there are laws to prevent it, people just do not hire women who are showing in their pregnancy because they'll be taking 6-12 weeks of leave in their first year of employment. If someone has a need of an employee, they likely don't want them to go on leave for 3 months only a couple months after they are hired.

HOWEVER--I would be looking for a job. I would TAKE a job that was half my current salary if I had to. Any lower than half my current salary, and you're looking at about minimum wage--and I frankly can't survive on minimum wage with a newborn.

I've already updated my resume on the off chance that I am laid off. I've made sure that I am networking with people in my field on a regular basis--because I know I'm not immune to being laid off

But I'm also not sympathetic to those (and I don't know anyone that doesn't know one of these people) who haven't overspent, have terrible debt, and would rather collect unemployment than take a job that isn't as "good" as the one they were laid off from.

The whole point is that NO jobs out there are as good as the ones that people were laid off from. People with high salaries are replaced with people who are willing to take lower salaries.

And frankly, I was laid off during the first part of the economic crash and recession. I had a temp job within 2 weeks, and a permanent job within 6 months. The REASON I had those jobs is because I was willing to WORK for my money. And a lot of people won't take temp jobs (you lose your unemployment when you take them) because they pay no benefits and have half the salary a lot of the time. However, a LOT of companies hire through temp agencies now. My salary is twice what I was making as a temp, because I showed the company I work for that I was willing to work BEFORE they offered me a permanent position.

I think a lot of the people on unemployment have lost sight of the fact that nearly ANY job is better than NO job.

PS--the reason companies keep outsourcing to foreign companies is because they can PAY people less and they WORK more. Americans are pretty snobby about their jobs sometimes.

Synn is 100% correct. The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks. That means there is zero incentive for someone on the benefits to look for work that would likely pay less than they can collect from the government in idle time.Unfortunately ,that is the case in this economy. The jobs available often pay less than the available unemployment check.

Synn instead has to take up the slack . This is a situation that is duplicated all over the country . Synn is in fact having to take on the additional work load .

I guess your unemployment insurance works different than ours. Here you can only get your unemployment insurance if you've worked the minimum amount of weeks, after that it's welfare and that doesn't pay a lot to stay on. Being in techie positions I've been laid off a couple of times and was thankful for the bi-weekly checks as I found something else and played stay-at-home dad (that was the best part). I too have taken on a bigger workload as budgets are reduced but we didn't suffer nearly as badly as you guys did during the meltdown.

You should move to Alberta. Your nation will be the future Saudi Arabia of oil sands.

The sad part is that instead of having a willing customer South ;you'll likely end up selling it to the Chinese. Obama has stalled a potential pipeline to the refineries his whole term.

Nah, I like it where I am. Pipelines have their own issues as do the operations in Alta.

Your unemployment benefits here are based on how long you've worked in the state of MN--how long you've paid in, in other words. It's also based on your salary at the time you were laid off.

So a couple of people I know that had jobs paying over $500k a year were laid off, and are now collecting unemployment, and refuse to look that hard for a job (they'll take one if it falls in their laps, basically) because they make more money in unemployment benefits than they would if they took a job paying half their previous wages.

Which, by the way, is still more than I make in 3 years.

Don't worry America, there will be jobs available soon as their employee (republicans), finish doing the job they were paid to do, destroy any consumer advocates, drive wages and benefits down to third world levels, end all regulations, increase tax breaks and loopholes, get rid of all unions, get a president that they have bought and paid for, to go along with the congress they have bought and paid for, then they will start investing in America again.

That's why we get the same right wing rhetoric about creating jobs, cut taxes for the rich, some MORE, and cut benefits, and wages, for everyone else.

You're dead on EX, lets try some trickle UP economics for a change, and bail out the middle class. Heck everybody else got theirs, and doing just fine thank you. That's what this recession was all about, MO' money for the ones that got all of it any way.

And by the way, conservatism is nothing but slavery with money as the whip. That's why they (corporations) keep you dumb and mad, because truth is, if you thought for yourself, and counted your own money, then you would be a lot more progressive about change, and you wouldn't be screwed by your own ideology.

Dude, if you give more money to the irresponsible they'll spend it all right. If you give it to the responsible like, Synnen and me, we're going to save it or pay down a bill. I'm not going to spend it. People aren't spending because they have no faith in the economy, and the regime in charge has accomplished nothing to change our minds. Lying about the GM and Chrysler bailouts ain't going to cut it.

Update: CNN Poll: Obama approval rating drops as fears of depression rise

Hello Synn:

You mistake my plan for sympathy for the unemployed. It's NOT. It's simply the fastest and most efficient way to stimulate the economy so that it improves.. When it improves, it improves for ALL of us.

It's like the investment we made in Chrysler and GM... It worked. Now, I know the right wing is invested in saying that it didn't... But, they're kookoo. Look. I know what a bankrupt company looks like. So do you... That AIN'T them. They've paid back their debt/bailout/investment, and they're making PROFIT. Yes, that investment saved 100's of 1,000's of jobs. We need to do that with the GREEN industry...

excon

Excon--

I'm responsible AND I'm having a baby.

Give me free money, and I'll spend it like mad, because I've already PAID my bills--with the money I've earned. Give me fun money, and I'll have a BLAST spending it.

I'll spend it buying STUFF. I'll spend it investing in funds for my child's future. I'll spend it DOING stuff. I'm the IDEAL person if you want someone to SPEND money.

Me and every other middle class person who already has their sh*t together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

It's like the investment we made in Chrysler and GM.... It worked. Now, I know the right wing is invested in saying that it didn't... But, they're kookoo.

---

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout

"What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan."

Maybe it kept them going, but why is the president lying about it? Oh, and GM' CEO would love nothing more than another lovely jolt to the consumer's already overly strained pocketbook, a dollar hike in the federal gas tax. What else would you expect from Government Motors, the company which sold the feds 101 Volts so the feds could save on gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Give me free money, and I'll spend it like mad, because I've already PAID my bills--with the money I've earned. Give me fun money, and I'll have a BLAST spending it.

---

Hello again, Synn:

It's not free. People PAID insurance premiums for unemployment coverage... And, it's not fun money. It's a LIFELINE.

But, be that as it may... I've heard you. You talk in the abstract.. And, in the abstract, you're right.. But, where the abstract hits the ground, I want to HEAR you say SCREW the children of the unemployed. Yeah, they're hungry and are going to be homeless. So what? I worked. Their parents didn't. SCREW 'em!

Are you THAT heartless, little miss expectant mother? Me? I have sympathy for hungry children.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

It's not free. People PAID insurance premiums for unemployment coverage... And, it's not fun money. It's a LIFELINE.

But, be that as it may.... I've heard you. You talk in the abstract.. And, in the abstract, you're right.. But, where the abstract hits the ground, I wanna HEAR you say SCREW the children of the unemployed. Yeah, they're hungry and are going to be homeless. So what? I worked. Their parents didn't. SCREW 'em!

Are you THAT heartless, little miss expectant mother? Me?? I have sympathy for hungry children.

excon

---

They paid for insurance that covered them for a SPECIFIC amount of time. To extend it is to spend taxpayer money, because their insurance policy wasn't paid into calculating the extra YEAR or more that they're getting now.

I'd like to see those people moving into smaller houses that they can actually AFFORD. I'd like to see them stop having cable television and a cell phone for every member of the family. I'd like to see them stop paying for video games, potato chips, and soda. If you don't have a job anymore, how about LIVING like you're poor?

I have plenty of sympathy for hungry children. I give locally to several organizations--in time, money, and items--to make sure that the kids around me have someone who cares about whether they're eating. People who go to CHURCH have resources through their faith to get food for their hungry children. People who make an effort to know their NEIGHBORS get help for their hungry children. People who make an effort to get along with family that they may not like have a resource for feeding their hungry children.

Besides, you weren't really talking about unemployment insurance. That's paid for by employers and employees. You're talking about taxpayer money being given to people to jumpstart the economy.

Give that money to people who have proven they can be RESPONSIBLE for money. That is most DEFINITELY not the people in major debt, in foreclosure, or businesses who needed to be bailed out because they couldn't balance their own stupid budgets.

Am I somewhat heartless? Yup---I admit it, I am. But until we start getting a little heartless with people and FORCE them to take responsibility for their actions, they never WILL make responsible decisions.

Some job creators have a couple of words for the "patriotic millionaires" asking to be taxed more.

"Don't Tax Me... Shut Up!"

No one is preventing these morons from sending their money to the feds, it's time for them to put up AND shut up.

Hello, again, Steve:

It's impossible for right wingers to believe that anybody would vote for the nations interest over their own.

That's a fault that needs fixing...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No one is preventing these morons from sending their money to the feds, it's time for them to put up AND shut up.

---

You don't think they should be allowed to voice their opinions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

It's impossible for right wingers to believe that anybody would vote for the nations interest over their own.

---

Let me ask, do you suppose there are more liberals than conservatives in the military? I didn't think so, you don't really want to go into putting country before self do you?

I'll help the Patriotic Millionaires out :

Quote:

---

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

•You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
•You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

---

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

There is also there a line item on the income tax forms that allow people to contribute more tax $$ if they'd like to.

It's nice that they'd give the shirt of my back to solve the nations fiscal and employment problems.

If YOU want to pay MORE--great!

I already feel like I pay too much to contribute to the welfare of those that contribute little or nothing.

Screw them. I'm not that altruistic.

I still think it would be great if they put it to a PUBLIC vote as to where to spend tax dollars. Make a list of all the areas that money goes to, and let the public choose what percentage of their own contributions goes toward it.

Bet the military, the bloated benefits of the government, things like NASA, and pet projects would lose a LOT of money VERY fast.

I also bet that teachers and schools would get more than they have been.

I ALSO bet that things like "bailouts" would be non-existant.

Got a great way to deal with taxes. Stop the automatic employer withdrawal from the pay check . We should be required to cut a check to the government for taxes due.

I also got a great idea for these so called Patriotic Millionaires. Stop hiring expensive accountants who's only job is to make sure their tax obligation is as small as it can be. File an 1040EZ form yourselves and don't take the allowable deductions .

Here's another useful address for them :

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

What a novel concept; voluntary payment of taxes and even paying what you do not owe as if the government were a charity. I guess that's what happens in basket case economies

What is novel is millionaires who have their wealth sheltered in investments ,sanctimoniously proclaiming their income is undertaxed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

what is novel is millionaires who have their wealth sheltered in investments ,sanctimoniously proclaiming their income is undertaxed .

---

Give me a break, Tom, we all know taxation is theft. If some dulluded folk feel remorse for lying about their status to the government that is one thing, but taking with one hand and giving back with the other?

Obama, who is not a partisan by the way, has told us why there are no jobs. It's those darn ATMs and ticket kiosks.

Quote:

---

In his eventful Today show interview this morning, President Obama advanced this penetrating insight to explain why unemployment has been hovering between 9% and 10% throughout his presidency:

“There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller… or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes.”

As Rush Limbaugh observed, we had lots of ATMs during the Bush years, and his unemployment rate was half of Obama’s. Did the number of automated tellers and airline ticket machines double since 2008?

---

Personally, I rarely use an ATM any more and I bet there are a lot like me who basically quit using them when debit card use exploded and stores began offering cash back. Who needs an ATM?

Quote:

---

Besides groping for any possible excuse to evade responsibility for skyrocketing unemployment, Obama’s comments represent the convergence of two lines of populist liberal thought. One is the Left’s curious conviction that people absolutely hate ATM machines, based on the occasional round of complaints that fees for using the machines are too high. I suspect most people would be far more upset if automated tellers were not readily available – a distinct possibility, given legislative attempts to cap the amount of money banks can charge for debit card transactions. Price controls always come with a reduction in quality.

The other, much older, criticism Obama raises is the fear of productivity, which is part of the Left’s overall critique of capitalism. Machines are cheaper than people; businessmen want to reduce cost, and do not care about people; therefore, they can’t wait to automate and fire everyone in sight.

This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the power of productivity. Machines don’t really “replace” human employees. They make humans more productive. ATM machines allow banks to service their customers with many more convenient locations – a machine built into the wall of a grocery store, or located in a small booth, can provide easy access to funds for customers.

---

Hmm, that's twice I've read that sort of thing today. Jonah Goldberg wrote about the "steady-state economy" movement holds that "We will have to get beyond growth as a society in order to realize a sustainable future."

That sounds like a typical progressive idea, kill progress.

Quote:

---

Is every 20 or 30 ATMs roughly equivalent to one bank office that doesn’t need to be built, and staffed with human tellers? It doesn’t really work that way. ATMs increase the productivity of the existing bank staff. If they didn’t exist, the banks wouldn’t be making a lot of big investments in bricks, mortar, and tellers. Instead, people would drive further to get their money, spend more time standing in line, and arrange their affairs so they didn’t have to go to the bank as often. If you’re not old enough to remember what that was like, watch movies from the 60s and 70s, and look for scenes set in banks.

---

I don't know about where you live, but we seem to be having a competition between 3 area banks to see who can build the most branches. And that doesn't include the many new banks that have popped up the last few years. It's certainly helped me keep my job with all that new construction.

Yep, if it weren't for those darn ATMs America could get back to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yep, if it weren't for those darn ATMs America could get back to work.

---

Well speech you didn't take the argument far enough, what about all those foreign call centres, do they make local employees more efficient? No, they replace them. There is no recovery because jobs have been exported at a massive rate, those entry level jobs just aren't there any more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well speech you didn't take the argument far enough, what about all those foriegn call centres, do they make local employees more efficient? no, they replace them. There is no recovery because jobs have been exported at a massive rate, those entry level jobs just arn't there any more

---

I'm just commenting on the president's excuse. It's ridiculous.

No news there speech

I think you miss the point, there are jobs being created, are you qualified is the issue. Can you move to where they are? These are critical factors in shrinking unemployment, and sadly, many have not taken advantage of it. Sure technology will always account for less human input as far as numbers go, but that's been going on since Henry Ford came of with the mass assembly line, and that's not going to change any, nor will the need for more human to human services diminish any time soon.

Energy, and health care are the heart of a growing field of employment, I mean red hot, and if you look at where humans and technology are most needed now, you would be hard pressed to find any better. So the real question becomes, are you qualified, and can you go to the job, or are you stuck waiting for the job to come to YOU.

I think that the president was conveying the message of getting with the new technologies, that are creating new opportunities. His message has always been education to be qualified for YOUR own future, and that's where the country is headed. You live in Texas Steve, so I know you see the same things I do. I bet your local hospitals are not just hiring, but training, and educating too!

Even hospitals are paying less than they used to---and I work in a school that offers some of the new "unskilled" medical programs (not nursing or medical doctors) like medical assistants.

Believe me, you don't want some of these people taking your temperature, much less having a greater impact than that on your medical file. AND---it's a lower paying job because it takes less education than a nurse or doctor, so guess how many more MA's a hospital is going to hire than RNs?

So yeah... there are SOME jobs. Mostly there are jobs that require people either to get an entirely new 4-10 year degree or to take the same significant pay cut you'd take in any other field and still require at least a certification program.

I don't know about you, but without tuition reimbursement, there's no way I could afford to go back to school. School loans are harder to get because of the higher default rate, and grants and scholarships are extremely competitive and take almost as much work as going to school part time to research, apply for, and maintain. Well, unless you're not middle class. If you're lower class, you have way more opportunities for education and changing your career path than the middle class does.

Once again--if you're responsible, you get screwed.

That's what corporations want above all else, CHEAP labor, but when you have NO income, you have to get something. And changing a lifestyle isn't easy, nor is moving. A big difference between a 40 year olds, laid off a year, and a single 20's something first time job seeker, and a single mom/dad.

One thing this recession has brought out, I believe, is how fast we can lose things through no fault of your own, and how helpless we all are, even the smart ones who were prepared. They have been destroying the middle class for years, and now they want to dismantle the safety nets, and social programs that allow you to rebuild, instead of languishing in limbo with no hope at all.

I think that only informed voters can get jobs created, not those that are bound to the strict constraints of ideology. Why should there be only two classes of people? Working poor, or filthy rich?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Once again--if you're responsible, you get screwed.

---

Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you want to know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T OK! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you wanna know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T ok! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

---

Hey, I'm okay with everyone paying a flat tax and no one getting breaks.

NO ONE.

No breaks for kids, or houses, or donating to charity. You pay X% of your earnings or a minimum amount if you have no earnings as taxes to contribute to the upkeep of your country.

I'm all for paying 30-50% and giving specific benefits to EVERYONE (like... maternity and paternity leave, or paid FMLA time, or childcare and/or education subsidies ) to EVERYONE in this country, instead of only the poor getting it from taxpayer money and the rich getting it from tax shelters/exemptions/deductions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you wanna know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T ok! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

---

Ex, forget this glass half empty, half full, crap, What is needed is fair distribution of wealth and that means stopping exploitation whether it be in excessive pricing or low wages. Government incentives are often offered through the tax system and often left long after they have achieved their purpose. This is a wrong use of the tax system which should be simple, one rate, no deductions and subsidies given out where it is specifically targeted instead of the lazy system we have now and inadept attempts of social engineering through the tax system

It must be nice that you can afford a housekeeper that makes your glass half full in comparison to those who can't, but how well do you pay that person? Do you get a tax deduction for them? Some could say they are subsidising your life style

John Watson, CEO of Chevron, says oil companies can create jobs if congress would get out of the way a little. I think that would also allow us to use less foreign oil and see gas prices drop, but then this president wants to price us out of energy use as it is.