Check out some similar questions!

Synnen · Mar 4, 2011, 11:20 AM

Nearly all of those jobs listed are unskilled labor, or low skilled white collar. Health Care was the only area I saw that required a degree--and most of the areas in health care that are hiring are the 1-2 year degrees, NOT the 4-12 year degrees.

I see nothing there about IT or engineering. I don't see anything about art and design areas (architecture, photography, advertising, etc) at all.

Great--the low skilled people can go back to work. A little.

Those with higher degrees who used to make 6 figures (and who are collecting the highest "salaries" on unemployment---those people are still stuck looking for a job that isn't the equivalent of a Walmart greeter compared to their old job.

Woohoo... great job politicians! You've managed to convince ME that you want us all to be drones grateful for our hotel lobby desk clerk jobs!

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2011, 11:28 AM

Do they not deserve jobs too ? Manufacturing jobs and construction both made big gains . I think I'll take them over art and photography if you don't mind .

Synnen · Mar 4, 2011, 11:36 AM

Sure they deserve jobs too! And they probably NEED the jobs more.

Now someone get me the numbers on how many people were laid off over the last several years in those areas.

I'm just saying that it's all well and good that those areas got jobs. But there are a LOT of areas that are still struggling, and many of those areas are the upper middle class jobs, rather than the lower middle to upper lower class jobs.

talaniman · Mar 4, 2011, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no room for negotiation. For the states this is an existential issue. Walker has given fair warning.Pink slips go out today.

The first thing he did was give tax cuts for the rich and holler broke, when they had a looming surplus coming, while many of his fair minded colleagues balanced their budgets in other states by raising taxes on the rich, AND making less drastic cuts to the private unions AND the cities, AND without cutting rights, giving away utilities to campaign contributors, AND paying for private schools for the rich kids.

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2011, 04:20 PM

Come on talan why so glum ? Look at the unemployment numbers today... it's Friday night... lets party!!

YouTube - "Happy Days are Here Again!" (Ben Selvin and the Crooners, 1930)

smoothy · Mar 5, 2011, 02:58 PM

Right... lets triple the taxes for the rich and businesses in Michigan and drive out ALL the wealthy people and business then who will be there to pay for all the welfare bums and entitlement programs then. Because they will ALL leave and go someplace less socialistic.

They are rich after all and can afford to... or do you just recommend jailing them and just seizing their assets for redistribution to people who can't tie their own shoes before they can take what they earned and move?

talaniman · Mar 5, 2011, 03:48 PM

We don't have to triple the taxes of the rich, just bring them into a better alignment that is conducive to better circulation.

smoothy · Mar 5, 2011, 06:04 PM

Hmmm the "RICH" already pay MOST of the collected taxes now... you want a better alignment... make the 38% that's not paying any pay their share... or even better... FLAT TAX where everyone pays an equal percentage of their income. THAT is as perfectly aligned as you can get.

talaniman · Mar 5, 2011, 06:59 PM

Conducive to circulation where everyone gets a benefit, and passes it on, is better for all, and would end the hoarding that causes the imbalance in the economy.

And poor people can't BUY a politician to make laws for them or can they? And by your line of thinking they have all the money so they should pay for deficits, and shortfalls, especially since they caused them.

What they can't be expected to fix their own mess? Why do I have to bail out a rich cat who screwed everything up?

smoothy · Mar 5, 2011, 07:49 PM

So its rape the people who worked hard to be a success to give it to those that didn't make the effort or sacrifices needed? Typical Socialism.

WHy make ANY effort if its going to be taken from you. I suppose everyone should be paid the same regardless of what their job is too? Doctor or janitor.

talaniman · Mar 5, 2011, 09:22 PM

Its not rape to expect the rich to do their part, nor is it rape for them to fix their messes. How is it socialism to expect someone to act responsibly?

As far as doctors and janitors, the are equal under the law. Two humans who work hard at what they do, at honest labor. But should the janitor pay for the doctors mistakes? Why does one have more value as a human than the other? Oh that's right, a Swiss bank account makes the doctor a better human than a paycheck to paycheck janitor.

We are not talking socialism, just being fair and put the blame where it lays, at the hands of those that profit on the backs of others and whose greed, or disregard, has caused all this screw up that a dwindling middle class is paying for. Look who cares how rich someone is, but when I screw up there are consequences, but when a rich guy screws up he is rewarded with more, and I pay for it. How is that fair?

The janitor didn't screw the economy up, why should he pay to fix it??

Synnen · Mar 6, 2011, 01:59 PM

Okay, I'm more "Who is John Galt" than most people I meet. I'm ABSOLUTELY against socialism.

But I hate the fact that the rich can get richer using off-shore labor instead of being forced to use their tax cuts to hire here in the U.S.

Fine, give companies tax cuts. But make those tax cuts CONTINGENT upon hiring x% of U.S. workers, and x% of their suppliers MUST come from a U.S. company, operating on U.S. soil. And those cuts are ALSO contingent upon the company operating in the state they take those cuts in for X number of years---and I'm thinking more like 20 years than like 2 years.

The fact is that the rich keep getting richer because they can pay 3rd world country labor costs and sell at United States prices.

cdad · Mar 6, 2011, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

Okay, I'm more "Who is John Galt" than most people I meet. I'm ABSOLUTELY against socialism.

But I hate the fact that the rich can get richer using off-shore labor instead of being forced to use their tax cuts to hire here in the U.S.

Fine, give companies tax cuts. But make those tax cuts CONTINGENT upon hiring x% of U.S. workers, and x% of their suppliers MUST come from a U.S. company, operating on U.S. soil. And those cuts are ALSO contingent upon the company operating in the state they take those cuts in for X number of years---and I'm thinking more like 20 years than like 2 years.

The fact is that the rich keep getting richer because they can pay 3rd world country labor costs and sell at United States prices.

Im sure your not talking about these people are you ?

The Poster Child For Worker Exploitation, Walmart Considering Offshore Outsourcing Jobs | The Economic Populist

Synnen · Mar 6, 2011, 02:07 PM

I don't shop at Walmart, partly for that reason.

cdad · Mar 6, 2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Synnen

I don't shop at Walmart, partly for that reason.

The only thing I buy at Wallyworld is ammo. Other then that I try to buy and support my local people as best as I can.

smoothy · Mar 6, 2011, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Its not rape to expect the rich to do their part, nor is it rape for them to fix their messes. How is it socialism to expect someone to act responsibly?

As far as doctors and janitors, the are equal under the law. Two humans who work hard at what they do, at honest labor. But should the janitor pay for the doctors mistakes? Why does one have more value as a human than the other? Oh thats right, a Swiss bank account makes the doctor a better human than a paycheck to paycheck janitor.

We are not talking socialism, just being fair and put the blame where it lays, at the hands of those that profit on the backs of others and whose greed, or disregard, has caused all this screw up that a dwindling middle class is paying for. Look who cares how rich someone is, but when I screw up their are consequences, but when a rich guy screws up he is rewarded with more, and I pay for it. How is that fair?

The janitor didn't screw the economy up, why should he pay to fix it??

So... make the 38% who pay nothing now pay their share... they consume an inordinate amount... let them pay their fair share. Something they haven't been doing.

THe typical liberal is always generous with SOMEONE Else's MONEY.

THis is a novel concept for the left... but how about people paying their own way for once, instead of expecting someone else to be forced to pick up the tab.

Welfare bums who have done nothing their entire lives but collect a check and breed like rabbits AREN'T entitled to the money of those who have worked their butts off their entire life.

talaniman · Mar 6, 2011, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by smoothy

So...make the 38% who pay nothing now pay their share....they consume an inordinate ammount...let them pay their fair share. Something they haven't been doing.

Show me a rich guy who actually pays 38% of his income taxes, and I will show you a guy who is to dumb or cheap to have an accountant to take advantage of loopholes, and tax breaks.

Warren Buffett pays less taxes than his secretary.

smoothy · Mar 7, 2011, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Show me a rich guy who actually pays 38% of his income taxes, and I will show you a guy who is to dumb or cheap to have an accountant to take advantage of loopholes, and tax breaks.

Warren Buffett pays less taxes than his secretary.

I can show you a lot of them... but then... do YOU define rich like Obama does... or the rest of us do.

Besides that 38% number are peole who pay NO income tax... and worse get money handed to them they never paid in the first place.

People who pay no tax shouldn't be getting thousands Back from it too.

Let them pay the same percentage they demand those of us who work hard pay. And No... I'm not rich even by Obamas rather lax standards.

talaniman · Mar 7, 2011, 01:17 PM

You got something against the working poor? Try raising a family off a McDonald's and Walmart salary, with two kids. They work as hard as you do I'm sure.

Synnen · Mar 7, 2011, 01:40 PM

If they're going to McDonald's, they're NOT that poor.

A family of 4 takes $20 to feed at McD's, and if you can afford THAT, you aren't poor enough to get Welfare.

*I* can't afford McDonald's except on a special occasion, and I make considerably more than the poverty level.

People do not DESERVE new things and meals out. People do not have the RIGHT to have nice things or spacious living quarters or McDonald's fries or whatever.

Welfare is meant to put food in bellies (not necessarily TASTY food--but healthy food) and a roof over your head. So what if your kids have to share a room and you have to shop at Goodwill? If you're living off the taxpayer dollars, you SHOULD be wearing hand-me-downs and eating Kix cereal and macaroni and cheese instead of Banquet meals and steak dinners.

And frankly, some of those people living on that Walmart salary need to learn to use their birth control correctly (or just USE it to begin with) or keep their zippers up. If you can't afford to FEED your children, you shouldn't HAVE children--and if circumstances mean you take a step down, you shouldn't have MORE children.