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.