"People don't want to come back to work"

[silcnlayc]

just play: In 1997 USA wasn't in the position we are in now.

Sure we were. In 1997, they turned away most "over qualified" workers. It also would not have taken me 2 months to find a job if they were so plentiful back then.

Keep in mind that these were the days where you actually had to prove every week that you were looking for work by "inquiring" about work to at least 3 businesses, and provide that information to the unemployment office.

Yes, and stand in line all day....

She refused to even look for a job until the time came when her unemployment was close to running out.

Many are doing that because as they continue saying "It is owed me" why should I go to work until I get my due.. I hear that all over the place..

Go to one of the stores on the first thru the 5th of the month..you will be surprised how many feel it is their "due" by watching who pays with what and what they say at the cashiers...

greasemonkey: No it is NOT. A person doesnt NEED to own a home or drive a middle class car - a person can rent and drive an older car.

Exactly..my husband and I worked all our lives to get where we were and it was EASY giving up the things I had to, knowing we were still strong together..I guess that came from having nothing as a child growing up...If you remember, I came from Hungary..a refugee from the wars there...and knew the only way to get something was hard work..but to keep items vs the need to be productive..naw..It was easy giving it up..

We have rebuilt ourselves and are now in a better place because of this..our kids are gone, both educated in careers ..and yes, we own 2 cars free and clear..so, making a fresh start works..because things to own will always be there to be bought...

Jetset: Kudos, silcnlayc - in my personal view this is the sort of approach to life that really deserves respect

Thank you...

.

 

[just play]

No it is NOT. A person doesnt NEED to own a home or drive a middle class car - a person can rent and drive an older car. Both situations are the identical. It is YOUR perspective of what somebody needs or deserves. As was mentioned earlier you only NEED food and some shelter.
And if someone works their butts off their whole lives then has lost their job can you please, logically explain to everyone how you think it is appropriate to have the govt. steal it from me and give it to the guy who lost his job? That means that MY family now has to do with less and I have to work longer because you don't think that the person who actually lost their job should have to do without. You somehow think that I should though?

That is the absurd thinking of a person who believes that somehow their govt. should be a parent to them and give them everything throughout life. That isnt how it works nor should it. It is actually disgusting to think that anyone should have their personal property that they worked for taken and given to somebody else. That is just irrational.

I honestly hope you don't have to go through what I see some of these people go through.

I think we are talking about 2 different types of people here. I am not talking about slakers/lazy bums/etc. I'm talking about the people who DO want to work, but cannot find a job because there are..what is it up to now? 80 kazillion people out of work?

You thinking of "stealing" is strange...these people who are unemployed now, but worked their whole lives got "stolen" from too ya know?

Also, the big CEO you talk about could sell one car, still have 4 more, and live for a year on that sell.

Sure we were. In 1997, they turned away most "over qualified" workers. It also would not have taken me 2 months to find a job if they were so plentiful back then.

I'm no history buff...but I'm assuming it was quite easy to get a job in 1997 compaired to 2010. Anyone can jump in and correct me, and show me the percentage of people unemployed then and now...I assume it's quite different.

Well, what would she do? She'd sit on her ass and go through the phone book and pick out 3 places each week that she knew either weren't hiring, or somewhere where she knew they wouldn't hire her because she didn't have the experience or whatever. She refused to even look for a job until the time came when her unemployment was close to running out.

Those are the type of people I was referring to....

Yes, I think that's the type of people everyone thinks is on umemployment. It's not true. Like I said earlier, I talk to the people on my street, they are no way doing anything like that. They want to work.

Does my family feel "stolen" from because the other families on our street are out of work right now? HELL NO! Do we feel "stolen" from because of the non-workers? I don't think stolen is a good word, but again I would say no. If someone doesn't like the way the government does something, then go do something about it.

There really is a difference of people on umemployment, the non-workers and workers. I am referring to the workers.

 

[swampwitch]

Fair enough. We all have different opinions on things.

I did, however, give you an exact point in history where tax cuts stimulated the economy. I also showed how tax increases hurt the economy. Can you (since you have a different opinion) show me a time when tax increases helped the economy? In ANY country at ANY time?

Your point in history, your Reagan examples, didn't actually help anyone in the middle and lower income brackets. In fact, Reagan raised the taxes on those people, while lowering taxes on the rich by 42%. He just didn't call them taxes...he called them "user fees".

Here's an interesting article about David Stockman's assessment of the Reagan policies. He was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget who helped put those policies into place...but at a certain point came to his senses....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[greasemonkey]

Again, we keep talking about "theories" and we keep saying "if" and "maybe". Lets stop that and talk about what ACTUALLY happened. Let's talk about ACTUAL facts, figures and history.

The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. It happened from 1983 to 2000 under Reagan's 2 terms and the First Bush's Term. With a slight 8 month blip of a down turn in 1990-91.



Back in the 80's even with a growing economy and rising surplus a group in Congress opposed any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts. These politicians were/are against ANY policy that would shift power from the government to the people. The current attempt to rewrite history is laughable. The facts are the facts and supply side economics DID work. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will lead to future administrations further freeing the American taxpayer of the burdens of socialism, which lowers their ability to have power and control over YOUR money. However, this revisionist history is easily countered by the evidence of facts.

History confirms the soundness of the Reagan approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.(You can find this in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget records as fact)
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
During that time period Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8% So the Liberal Congress kept increasing spending and his tax cuts kept ahead of that curve even though they were trying to hurt it.



Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
The American economy grew by about one-third!! This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich and hurt the poor and that the rich no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real dollar amounts taxed.
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.

 

[anniemac]

When I was younger and worked for a living from time to time, I collected unemployment. Most times I lost a job because the company I worked for went belly up (oil field work in Texas is either feast or famine).

I would trot down to the employment office, stand in line for hours, fill out all sorts of papers and then go home and wait for the decision. And back then you had to go back each week with three places you had visited. Was a giant pain in the butt.

But the money I collected was money I had had taken out of my check each and every week I worked, matched in kind by my employer. When it ran out, you better have gotten a job cause there wouldn't be any extensions. I am a degreed accountant but I have waited tables, worked at a sale barn with a Vet but to help feed my family until I could find an accounting job.

However, what is happening now is nothing new. I have seen people work for however long it took to qualify, 6 weeks or so, and then quit a perfectly good job to sit on the butts.

Personal opinion, our gov. has made it way to easy to run this kind of scam. When I see a perfectly healthy individual, male or female, standing on the side of the road begging money or in line at the unemployment office for their weekly check, the thought runs thru my mind "Get a Damn Job". McDonald's usually hires, or Walmart etc.

Another thing that just chaps my behind is the welfare fraud that goes on in Texas. My guy has a broken vertebrae in his back and it took 2 years for him to get disability. Every month we had to go to the Welfare office to fill out more papers and see if there was anything available for assistance. Wasn't of course, he had made too much money working since he was 13 yrs old. However, every stripper from the local strip clubs showed up with kids in tow, old man in the car, to get their welfare check, food stamps etc. Tim couldn't even get Medicaid because he had made too much money. We had to pay out of pocket for every Dr. visit and test he had for 2 yrs. What is wrong with this picture?

Man, I better hush before I really get wound up. If this is a derail, sorry.

 

[silcnlayc]

anniemac: I am a degreed accountant but I have waited tables, worked at a sale barn with a Vet but to help feed my family until I could find an accounting job.

I agree...I also took any job that paid pittance until I got a permenant one ...I just checked the help wanted pages in my area and there are HUNDREDS of jobs from day laborers, landscaping, office etc asking for workers...I mean..c'mon..check your newspapers help wanted section 3 pages deep then come back here and tell me there are no jopbs to be had..

.

 

[just play]

I agree...I also took any job that paid pittance until I got a permenant one ...I just checked the help wanted pages in my area and there are HUNDREDS of jobs from day laborers, landscaping, office etc asking for workers...I mean..c'mon..check your newspapers help wanted section 3 pages deep then come back here and tell me there are no jopbs to be had..

.

Silc...I thought you were the one saying you were overqualified for jobs back in 1997?

The man up the street won't get hired for those jobs, because they know as soon as he gets a "better" job he's gone. He went to an interview and the person came right out and told him that. They need someone who will stay, not a person just looking to "make a little money right now".

Those want ads are in YOUR area....It also depends where you live. I live in a very small town, and even in the "big" city that is 15-20 minutes away, it is hard there too.

I also wanted to point out, don't think these people aren't working, that same mans wife even started testing products at home, don't know how she got that job, i would love to do that. She has a masters degree. The reason I know this is because her son and my daughter got in trouble for playing with something she was testing out, and she lost money.

But the money I collected was money I had had taken out of my check each and every week I worked, matched in kind by my employer

I also thought that but wasn't too sure, myself or my husband have never been on unemployment.

So then why was Greasemonkey saying the government is stealing from him to pay for you, or whomever is on unemployment?

 

[slotplayer]

Your point in history, your Reagan examples, didn't actually help anyone in the middle and lower income brackets. In fact, Reagan raised the taxes on those people, while lowering taxes on the rich by 42%. He just didn't call them taxes...he called them "user fees".

Here's an interesting article about David Stockman's assessment of the Reagan policies. He was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget who helped put those policies into place...but at a certain point came to his senses....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I've always said the economic policies (supply side) of Reagan ruined this country.

 

[anniemac]

I am not up on the current umemployment laws now but back when, 12 yrs ago or so, you could only draw as much unemployment as you had paid in and saved up. You worked, you paid, employer matched. You lost your job for valid reasons, you got unemployment. When it ran out, you went back to work, if not sooner. Or if you found a job before you used it all, then it was put back in the kitty for later use if needed.

Pretty simple back then.

 

[silcnlayc]

just play

Silc...I thought you were the one saying you were overqualified for jobs back in 1997? I was, and my boss knew this when I applied....that is why I negotiated with my boss for such a severe paycut when he refused to hire me the first few times I talked with him...

The man up the street won't get hired for those jobs, because they know as soon as he gets a "better" job he's gone. That is not true if one really wants to work , they will figure a way to get the job at their terms...it is based on offering something much more than the other would get and I believe many employers would jump at the chance of negotiating for a better person for less pay for a limited time ...He went to an interview and the person came right out and told him that. They need someone who will stay, not a person just looking to "make a little money right now". I stayed for 7 1/2 years.

 

[just play]

Silc...I thought you were the one saying you were overqualified for jobs back in 1997? I was, and my boss knew this when I applied....that is why I negotiated with my boss for such a severe paycut when he refused to hire me the first few times I talked with him...

The man up the street won't get hired for those jobs, because they know as soon as he gets a "better" job he's gone. That is not true if one really wants to work , they will figure a way to get the job at their terms...it is based on offering something much more than the other would get and I believe many employers would jump at the chance of negotiating for a better person for less pay for a limited time ...He went to an interview and the person came right out and told him that. They need someone who will stay, not a person just looking to "make a little money right now". I stayed for 7 1/2 years.

I don't know what you do for a living, but you should seriously look into helping people get jobs. I'm not kidding. I think you have a knack for it. Maybe even start an online site or something offering advice to help people get back to work. Just part time, or whatever free time you have. I would certainly show the people I know.

 

[swampwitch]

Again, we keep talking about "theories" and we keep saying "if" and "maybe". Lets stop that and talk about what ACTUALLY happened. Let's talk about ACTUAL facts, figures and history.

The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. It happened from 1983 to 2000 under Reagan's 2 terms and the First Bush's Term. With a slight 8 month blip of a down turn in 1990-91.



Back in the 80's even with a growing economy and rising surplus a group in Congress opposed any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts. These politicians were/are against ANY policy that would shift power from the government to the people. The current attempt to rewrite history is laughable. The facts are the facts and supply side economics DID work. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will lead to future administrations further freeing the American taxpayer of the burdens of socialism, which lowers their ability to have power and control over YOUR money. However, this revisionist history is easily countered by the evidence of facts.

History confirms the soundness of the Reagan approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.(You can find this in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget records as fact)
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
During that time period Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8% So the Liberal Congress kept increasing spending and his tax cuts kept ahead of that curve even though they were trying to hurt it.



Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
The American economy grew by about one-third!! This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich and hurt the poor and that the rich no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real dollar amounts taxed.
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.

No offense, but why not show the source of the info, like I did? I could have copied and pasted info without showing where I got it, letting people here believe that I wrote the piece. Posters and bloggers are being sued right and left these days for posting verbatim pieces not written by themselves and not bothering to give credit to original source. Hell, some people are being sued even for just posting a partial piece AND giving a link to original source.

Greasemonkey's source is Peter Sperry, part of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Here is the original piece in full...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Now, just because something is written by an ultra-right wing economist with a history of Reagan worship, doesn't mean it's wrong or has no value. So, let's have a gander at what right winger Bruce Bartlett has to say about the "Reagan cut taxes" myth in a piece for National Review Online. Remember, this is a guy who also worked for Reagan as a domestic policy adviser...

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
I'm not going to copy the piece here as I don't have permission from NRO or Bartlett.

 

[Mavin1]

Okay, I have to also add that there is a lot of behind the scenes prejudice going on with employers and potential employees.

My sister was laid off work a year or so ago and has been diligently looking for another job any job ever since. Now I can't vouch for what she may not be looking at for work, but she has yet to land a job.

Here's the problem, she is 58? years of age, morbidly obese and has some other medical issues. This although not spoken is one reason why places of employment lay people like this off. To them she is an albatross, due to her age, weight and declining health.

She has gone from losing her husband many years ago, to losing her home, her car, her little habits we all have grown attached to such as tv, phone and so on. She had scaled down to a one room apartment and now can't even make her rent.

The unemplpoyment, does not cover her cost of living, food and medical all together. So she has told me she has stopped going to the doctor, stopped taking vital medications and I don't know what else.
So although there is many people on unemployment, there is always another side to every story and it's not the lazy cuckwagon the media would have us believe.

And what the hell, we can have people come to this country and get all the benefits under the sun, but let a long time hard working US citizen, get shut out by the working mainstream and you are lumped together with the few as with anything, that ruins the idea, the impression, the meaning of it, for everyone that finds themselves one day in need of just a little bit to sustain their life, to just get them over the rough spot. But what if the rough spot never ends?

Several years ago, my husband was laid off from his maintanence job at our local nursing home. The reason was because they were cutting back on maintanence workers. Well they laid off my hubby, he had a serious back condition, but was hired with the employer fully knowing this, but that employer moved on and the new one did not honor the arrangement. The other man that was laid off was burned on the job by a hot water tank.
So the employer looked at these two as liabilities to their bottom line. Just a few days later, my husband and the other man were replaced by two younger men. So the cutting back excuse was a flat out lie.

Now we bring to mind the talk of having your medical info computed in with your drivers license, just wait and see how much the unemployed of this country will soar then.

Unemployment insurance is being likened to welfare and this is wrong as all those or most that utitlize it have paid for it in the first place. It belongs to the people, just like your retirement, 401k and so on.

So God bless those that can make it through unemployment, as it is no longer looked on as insurance, but as welfare.

 

[voltage1]

why I have to explain myself to some of you is beyond me...

I have worked as a Union Electrician since 1978.. I have made an above average income for my whole working career.I have also paid taxes just like the rest of you, including paying into the unemployment insurance fund.
My Job consist of building things. When I do my Job ,along with all the other trades, inevitably the job gets completed. so in other words I work myself out of a job .Most of the time ,over the past 32 years,I just move to the next Job and work on it . However from time to time there is a gap in the time to the next job.... THIS IS WHAT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS FOR.... for the most part the longest I have ever been "laid off due to lack of work" is 1 or 2 months .. then I go back to work for several years more on the next project or two ...

Due to the Failing of the Economy ..and its still failing in my opinion , in 2007 work across the United States started to dwindle too a halt ...how do I know this ..well the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ) has what is called a "tramp" Guide . It is merely a listing of ALL the union work going on in the entire country. This Book then (2007) and now shows that there is very little Work taking place in the country, ANYWHERE !! If there are a few local jobs going on they cant even sustain the local union hands . Never Before In my career Have I Ever seen that !!!
Usually I can look in the tramp guide and find a Hot spot to go work until things pick up in my Home local. for example , In the early and mid 90's I went to Las Vegas and worked on many of the hotels and casinos that many of you play at from time to time. In the late 90's I went to San Jose and worked in silicone valley on some of the internet boom businesses . Now there is nothing going on ,so that option is out of the question ..

So back to my point... I was laid off due to lack of work in February of 2009.. I drew all 99 of my unemployment weeks that were available to me. now you say that I shouldn't do that ?? well believe me ....you cant live on $300 a week without dipping into some savings ...You say I shouldn't live so High on the hog ?? LOL All the vehicles I own are paid for so I have no car payments.
My daughters are all raised and married so I have no kids to raise ...You say I should sell my house in my middle class neighborhood , the one My wife and I have lived in for 30 years and raised our kids and are raising our grand kids in??? You say I should go get a job ....any ole job will do.... just pick one ....well I did I posted my resume for anything within 200 miles of my home and I applied for every job in the paper that I remotely thought I could perform.. for 1 1/2 years I did this ...I was either too qualified .... to old ... or whatever they wanted to tell me .....I didn't get hired at one of these jobs ... even tried Walmart greeter ...wasn't old enough

NOW I come here and I post a reply about a politician that I see accusing me and other unemployed of being lazy, unwilling to work ...freeloaders ??? "abusing the system" I think he said.... and I am appalled that a lowly politician would have the audacity to say such things ...

Then I find that many of you have sounded off with the same OR worse opinions of Me and my unemployed "freeloaders ".. well to all of you that are so stuck on your ideological beliefs that you think everything is just hunky dory in the good ole U.S. of A. WAKE up and Smell the Roses . Get the silver spoon outta your mouth and God forbid someone scratched your SAB while you were at Starbucks getting coffee.
Its my money...I paid it in and I needed to draw it out ...along with millions of other unemployed Hard working Americans. WHO are YOU to say I cant have MY money when I needed it???? I hope the Next time you call an electrician (you know when your wife Buffy is getting cold because the heat is off ) you tell him he is a lazy good for nothing freeloader and you don't appreciate having to pay his way when he was laid off recently.
SEE IF BUFFY gets her tootsies warm that night....
sheeesh!!
The audacity of some people




I have recently been called back to work through the union hall . seeing as the TVA nuclear plants have been ordered to be finished by 2020. Jee now lemme guess your scared of nuclear power too?? so now I should be able to finish my working career at the nukes ...

Volt

 

[just play]

So back to my point... I was laid off due to lack of work in February of 2009.. I drew all 99 of my unemployment weeks that were available to me. now you say that I shouldn't do that ?? well believe me ....you cant live on $300 a week without dipping into some savings ...You say I shouldn't live so High on the hog ?? LOL All the vehicles I own are paid for so I have no car payments.
My daughters are all raised and married so I have no kids to raise ...You say I should sell my house in my middle class neighborhood , the one My wife and I have lived in for 30 years and raised our kids and are raising our grand kids in??? You say I should go get a job ....any ole job will do.... just pick one ....well I did I posted my resume for anything within 200 miles of my home and I applied for every job in the paper that I remotely thought I could perform.. for 1 1/2 years I did this ...I was either too qualified .... to old ... or whatever they wanted to tell me .....I didn't get hired at one of these jobs ... even tried Walmart greeter ...wasn't old enough

:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

Of course I 100% agree with you.

 

[Mavin1]

One thing that gets me also is to go to our local friggin Walmart and see a
65+ year old woman having to stand all day, with a smile on her face, greeting shoppers for minimum wage. They don't even give them a chair or a stool.
To me this is just sadistic.

 

[smittytime]

You could not find a job for 99 weeks within 200 miles of your home? Not any job at all? Midnight stock clerk? Gas station attendant? Waiter? That is just amazing and nobody should say a word to you if that is the case. I just find it hard to fathom that there is none of these jobs available in your area at all. just amazing. So, you are also saying that you have paid in more or at least equal value to what you withdrew for 99 weeks also?

Even if that were the case it is certainly not the case for most. What usually is the case is that this money is taken from some citizens and given to another. I am not sure why the recipient of this theft would become indignant. The person who has the job that gets their money confiscated and given to another should be the indignant ones.

Voltage1 , you asked the following:

"You say I should sell my house in my middle class neighborhood , the one My wife and I have lived in for 30 years and raised our kids and are raising our grand kids in???"

ummmm... YES! If you cannot make enough money to afford the house that you are currently living in then YES by all means please sell it. To NOT sell it is silly unless you CAN afford it. By taking others money to subsidize your own lifestyle then you are asking them and their famlies to do with less. They are not the one out of a job - you are. YOU should do with less, not them.
We should all be more self reliant and stop asking the government to support us when we cant.
Live within your means. If your means change then you should change your lifestyle (Yes, even if you have to sell the house or some of the cars that you paid off) you should not be asking to have the government take money from other tax payers and give it to you so that you don't have to live within your means.
Some of this sounds like I am being cold and unfeeling but that is not the case at all. In the end, if people are self sufficient (i.e. no govt. handouts) then they will be more productive and more happy in the end... and have more to show for their efforts to boot.

 

[smittytime]

No offense, but why not show the source of the info, like I did? I could have copied and pasted info without showing where I got it, letting people here believe that I wrote the piece. Posters and bloggers are being sued right and left these days for posting verbatim pieces not written by themselves and not bothering to give credit to original source. Hell, some people are being sued even for just posting a partial piece AND giving a link to original source.

Greasemonkey's source is Peter Sperry, part of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Here is the original piece in full...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Now, just because something is written by an ultra-right wing economist with a history of Reagan worship, doesn't mean it's wrong or has no value. So, let's have a gander at what right winger Bruce Bartlett has to say about the "Reagan cut taxes" myth in a piece for National Review Online. Remember, this is a guy who also worked for Reagan as a domestic policy adviser...

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
I'm not going to copy the piece here as I don't have permission from NRO or Bartlett.

The piece from the heritage foundation actually shows sources. It is hard to argue with that piece because it is showing facts and not delving into what they believe or theories as was said earlier. It is dealing with actual statistics.

The actual facts are that Reagan implemented huge tax cuts and the fed. income rose and the economy increased and we did have a huge economic boom. Using opinions to counter facts is not wise.

Also, whether or not a person states where they got information from is not as important as the facts themselves. It appears by harping on that part of it that you are actually trying to change the onus of the debate. I was alive and kicking back in the 80s. I was there and I remember it. It happened and anybody that wants to make a name for themselves or rewrite history can come up with any theory or idea that they want. But the facts are facts and disputing them is senseless.

Please show a time in history when tax increases or massive redistribution of wealth stimulated an economy? Thank you.

 

[smittytime]

I've always said the economic policies (supply side) of Reagan ruined this country.

How so? it saved the country!! it stimulated the economy like never before and it brought us out of the deep recession that the socialist/liberal congress and former administrations tax and spend policy had placed us. Every time Tax and spend policies have been implemented they lead to fiscal failure. Everytime. The idea of higher taxes and redistribution is to punish success and reward failure.
You always say it ruined the economy? Wow. The statistics all bear out that it was a huge boost to the economy. Ruin? Too much liberal rewriting of history going on here. Just look at the statistics and stop listening to peoples theories on things.

 

[swampwitch]

The piece from the heritage foundation actually shows sources. It is hard to argue with that piece because it is showing facts and not delving into what they believe or theories as was said earlier. It is dealing with actual statistics.

The actual facts are that Reagan implemented huge tax cuts and the fed. income rose and the economy increased and we did have a huge economic boom. Using opinions to counter facts is not wise.

Also, whether or not a person states where they got information from is not as important as the facts themselves. It appears by harping on that part of it that you are actually trying to change the onus of the debate. I was alive and kicking back in the 80s. I was there and I remember it. It happened and anybody that wants to make a name for themselves or rewrite history can come up with any theory or idea that they want. But the facts are facts and disputing them is senseless.

Please show a time in history when tax increases or massive redistribution of wealth stimulated an economy? Thank you.

It is important to give credit to sources, whatever the source. It's also important to understand that posters and bloggers are being sued for posting content without permission and/or a link back to the source.
It's not senseless to point out that Reagan raised taxes every year of his presidency except the first year and 1988. And he lowered taxes for the rich. It happened.

 

[slotplayer]

How so? it saved the country!! it stimulated the economy like never before and it brought us out of the deep recession that the socialist/liberal congress and former administrations tax and spend policy had placed us. Every time Tax and spend policies have been implemented they lead to fiscal failure. Everytime. The idea of higher taxes and redistribution is to punish success and reward failure.
You always say it ruined the economy? Wow. The statistics all bear out that it was a huge boost to the economy. Ruin? Too much liberal rewriting of history going on here. Just look at the statistics and stop listening to peoples theories on things.

its my theory and nobody else says it that I know of.

It did stimulate the economy but way too fast, freeing up too much money too quickly causes inflation, nobody can keep up with inflation not even corporations and thus were forced to outsource. Out sourcing destroyed our manufacturing and thus the middle class. We're a nation of consumers and builders of nothing.

High oil prices also cause inflation suchas the 1979 oil embargos and in 1980 with the Iraq/Iran war which caused the Carter demise.

 

[silcnlayc]

I too, have paid into the fund for 40 years, does this mean I should have collected until I feel up to working? In 40 years I have never collected unemployment. I was unemplyed..but not long enough to make it worth the time to file for it.

I drew all 99 of my unemployment weeks that were available to me. now you say that I shouldn't do that ??

That brings back a very bad memory when I went back to school in my 40's during the evenings (there is a thread somewhere around here about this).

When I went to my classes, I sat next to two 20 yr something females...and the chatter they did was very eye opening...They were on the governments dime both on education and living expenses.and proud of it.. when they learned I had 4 back surgeries..and looking to get into another field of work , they actually said I was "stupid" didn't I know I could get disability...I mean they really did think that...Maybe I was "stupid" in their eyes...I guess everyone has a different take on how one should live their lives and what is important to them..

So, yea...I know I could have collected disability..but why should I?? I mean..geezes..I am still healthy, and can get around and I felt life is too short and you have one chance to get it right and I sure wasn't going to waste it sitting home collecting peanuts!

Now you know, This could go on tit for tat....Being a licensed electrician...I am amazed that you could not have made some decent money until you found another job...and chose to collect the peanuts..

Life is strange and people see it in many ways...through the struggles they have come through and the daily grind...no one can choose your path..except you and that will be who has to live and die with the choices one has made throught life...Me..I am going to keel over happily knowing I spent my last dime and my kids inheritance in a casino....I figure they will be rich enough off my life insurance so I am going to blow the rest..because I WORKED for it!!! And still working.....

.

 

[smittytime]

I too, have paid into the fund for 40 years, does this mean I should have collected until I feel up to working? In 40 years I have never collected unemployment. I was unemplyed..but not long enough to make it worth the time to file for it.


That brings back a very bad memory when I went back to school in my 40's during the evenings (there is a thread somewhere around here about this).

When I went to my classes, I sat next to two 20 yr something females...and the chatter they did was very eye opening...They were on the governments dime both on education and living expenses.and proud of it.. when they learned I had 4 back surgeries..and looking to get into another field of work , they actually said I was "stupid" didn't I know I could get disability...I mean they really did think that...Maybe I was "stupid" in their eyes...I guess everyone has a different take on how one should live their lives and what is important to them..

So, yea...I know I could have collected disability..but why should I?? I mean..geezes..I am still healthy, and can get around and I felt life is too short and you have one chance to get it right and I sure wasn't going to waste it sitting home collecting peanuts!

Now you know, This could go on tit for tat....Being a licensed electrician...I am amazed that you could not have made some decent money until you found another job...and chose to collect the peanuts..

Life is strange and people see it in many ways...through the struggles they have come through and the daily grind...no one can choose your path..except you and that will be who has to live and die with the choices one has made throught life...Me..I am going to keel over happily knowing I spent my last dime and my kids inheritance in a casino....I figure they will be rich enough off my life insurance so I am going to blow the rest..because I WORKED for it!!! And still working.....

.

You are very much inspirational!

You are exactly the type of person that made America a superpower. Your self reliance and "can do" attitude is to be applauded.

I only hope that others draw inspiration from people like you and start doing for themselves and stop waiting for Govt. to do for them. Nobody is entitled to or gauranteed "things" in America nor should they be. Only promised the opportunity and the right to keep their fruits. That is very much being infringed upon by bigger govt. that takes more and more of peoples personal property.

Thank you for this post, thank you very much.

 

[smittytime]

its my theory and nobody else says it that I know of.

It did stimulate the economy but way too fast, freeing up too much money too quickly causes inflation, nobody can keep up with inflation not even corporations and thus were forced to outsource. Out sourcing destroyed our manufacturing and thus the middle class. We're a nation of consumers and builders of nothing.

High oil prices also cause inflation suchas the 1979 oil embargos and in 1980 with the Iraq/Iran war which caused the Carter demise.

That is interesting. I have never heard that theory before. It is very interesting.

Didn't NAFTA have a ton to do with outsourcing more in the 90's rather than anything that happened in the 80's though?
There is no doubt that you are correct that we build and manufacture next to nothing any longer.
My theory on that is if you own a business in America that the govt. has become so overbearing and burdensome that you cannot make a good profit margin any longer.
Examples of the govt.s policies forcing companies over seas:
1) Keep raising min. wage. This just creates inflation and hurts the very people that the politicians claim to want to help. The truth is it is just a vote buying scheme and they know it is bad because it messes with natural supply/demand of workers.
2) Keep demanding higher standards and codes that are often unneccesary and way too expensive that other countries would never dream of implementing and neither would we have 50 yrs ago.
3) This is the most important actually: Continued escalation of taxes. The govt. keeps confiscating the profit margin! Employee taxes, sales taxes, transfer taxes, income taxes, quarterly earning taxes, regulatory taxes... it is too much of a burden for a company to stay in America and most often people get angry at the "selfish and greedy" business owners... They should be VERY ANGRY at the stinking politicians that keep implementing these situations that make it a bad environment for businesses to survive. It is the politicians fault, not the business owner.

 

[slotplayer]

Didn't NAFTA have a ton to do with outsourcing more in the 90's rather than anything that happened in the 80's though?

yes Nafta was Reagan's idea actually, I heard that on foxnews by his son, michael and was kinda shocked as Clinton always takes the heat for it. Bush 41 didn't get it done, not sure why and then Clinton signed it in 1992. Actually I forgot about it, good point. Bush 43 wanted Cafta, not sure if it passed though. I think it did.