Slashdot Mirror
Last Pre-Election Jobs Report Released
September's jobs report notes a gain of 96,000 jobs, and a downward revision for August from 144,000 to 128,000. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4% (about even to Nixon's and Clinton's when they were reelected), while another 236,000 jobs were added in a periodic revision to the total, leaving Bush at a deficit of 585,000 jobs from where he started. If he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term, he will net positive job growth. The effects of the recent hurricanes were not possible to determine at this point, the report said. This will surely be featured prominently in tonight's second Presidential debate (starting at 9 p.m. Eastern).
The rest of us with jobs will just decide our canidate based upon other issues.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
...all those unemployed folks are making up for it by selling beanie babies on eBay! Problem solved.
/hey, Cheney said it, not me
...they said that the difference in what was expected and what the numbers actually are, could be attributed to the hurricanes in florida.
though i expect construction jobs to really pick up there in the next few months.
always mosh clockwise
More informative context is available here.
Economists have predicted the economy will continue to get better despite who is elected.
The entire economy problem can be traced back to the Dot-Coms. There is no 'quick fix' after a bubble bursts. If you don't have an economics degree, don't start spouting crap.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
You can tell the policical slant of the editor by the way he posts the article. pudge paints the dissapointing news in the best possible light (read his journal for more of his slant) and the other editors go the other direction. Pudge's slant is much less inflammatory however.
While 585,000 / 4 = ~150,000 that isn't the entire story. The economy needs to have about 150K jobs created per month just to keep up with population growth and the number of new people entering the job market(s). If Bush only averages 150,000 / month for the rest of the year he'll still end his first (and hopefully only) term with a net loss of over 1/2 million jobs. That would (will) make him the first President in 70 years to end a term with less jobs than when he started.
To reduce his .5 million jobs deficit Bush needs to have closer to 300,000 jobs created in each of the next four months. That's a number he hasn't been able to achieve at any point of the last 3.66 years. I doubt he can do it now, as his plan for the economy was never anything that sitmulated job growth.
they want. http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040903_1differenceac tproj650.gif
Uh, no. Since you need about 150,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with a growing population, if he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term he will merely tread water. At this point, there is absolutely no chance that Bush can avoid being the first president since Hoover in the Great Depression to have had fewer jobs at the end of his term than when he began. With a growing population, that ain't easy to do. Just keep up with the population growth and you will wind up with more jobs at the end of four years. Which is why through recession after recession over the last seventy years no other president has managed to pull off such a shoddy record on job growth.
Naturally whatever the number is, it gets trumpeted by the incumbent. "96,000 new jobs were added last month! That shows my economic policies are working!" Garbage. It shows that the job market is going backward, not even keeping up with equilibrium.
the july numbers were surprisingly high, which caused the august numbers to get revised. now the new numbers don't meet the revision. amazing how the man (dubya) is set up to do nothing right. and no, i would never vote for him (or kerry or nader for that matter).
give me a candidate (that is on the ballot):
1. pro-choice
2. against restrictive gun control (no machine guns makes sense... some of the other restrictions are ludicrous, not to mention how ineffective they are)
3. pro legalising pot (tax the shit out of it)
4. against Microsoft
War is a good stimulant as it pulls more out of people for a brief time, and it jump starts the war-industry establishment. But, over a long period of time, like line after line of coke, it starts doing damage. There is nothing really profitably "produced" in war - it just lays the ground with destruction to start rebuilding.
Mr. Bush has accomplished the impossible. He has declared "endless" war, destroyed so much of the infrastructure that rather than being a stimulant for reconstruction, it is a depressant to see the needless devastation. Best of all, Mr. Bush has made so many "friends" that the next step where you profit from war is impossible in Iraq. And other than polarizing the country he has achieved nothing. It is fitting that he goes down in history as the mantle-bearer of Herbert Hoover.
It is not easy for a single peorson to gut the economy. But Mr. Bush with his neocon and tax-cut loving buddies has achieved the impossible. Here's cheers to the endless wars!
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
I know, realistically they just are. People expect the President to "handle the economy".
But it's stupid. The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.
The rest is cyclical. From where I'm sitting the economy is doing fine, even though the government still takes too much money out of it.
If I lost my job, I wouldn't blame the President, I'd blame the bum in the mirror.
sigs, as if you care.
Unemployed as of June last year, unemployment ran out at end of year. I am not counted as unemployed since then, despite being very much so.
I'm leaning toward voting Bush, but I have heard Kerry and others attack Bush for "mismanaging the economy". It seems to me that none of this is really Bush's fault, the tech bubble was bound to colapse and actually began to fall apart in April 2000 when the Nasdaq tanked. And also that 9/11 thing.
Bush's deficit spending on defense has created jobs (at the expense of accumulated debt of course). But I'm surious to hear what you anti-Bush people think. Specifically, what has Bush done to mismanage the economy??
I sent this around in an email at work to my team to be funny.
From: Boss
To: Employees
Subj: Job growth data
-
Hello! I wanted to forward around the following job growth data.
96,000 new jobs added the month of september.
NOW GET TO WORK AND STOP READING STUPID EMAILS OR YOU'LL BE LOOKING FOR ONE OF THEM!!
Signed,
Your Boss
Easy guys, I put my pants on one leg at a time. The difference is after I put on my pants I make gold records!
Things like extra tariffs on certain products. Working with foreign goverments on trade deals. Investing in education to make certain that the companies still employing in your country can actually hire the people they need. Investing in healthcare so people can be cured fast to minimize downtime. Investing in infrastructure to make certain goods and people can move about.
Investing in research to make give your companies an edge they need but can't afford.
Investing in security, not just police but things like a navy to make sure pirates are kept under control or even eliminated (you don't think the real pirates stopped because they got bored?)
A goverment can do plenty to either hurt or benefit the economy. Bush has helped the economy of the rich but not that of the common american. Outsourcing is great for management and share holders. The worker loosing his job is worse of, but hey, who cares eh?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Considering a successful terrorist attack on a major financial center of the nation, a massive nosedive in airline business as a result of 9/11, and the dot com goldrush crash.
But, of course, the Kerry camp is in full 9/11 never happened pretend mode and they'll make as much hay out of this as they can.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way. It's all about who you lower the taxes for. Someone really rich who already owns everything he needs getting a 20000$ tax reduction won't be spending that tax reduction. He'll put it in his caymen island account or something. However 100 lower to middle class people getting a 200$ tax break will use the tax break to get the urging things in their life, like changing that timing belt or fixing the crack in the foundation. Heck I know I could use 200$ less taxes this year.
That trickle down economy principle only works in some cases, when the rich don't mind spending the money they get. But the truth is a trickle up economy is more likely to work. We, the poorer people are the ones who spend money because we don't have all we want or *need*. We are the ones who make the economy roll. Lowering taxes for us does something substantial to the economy and to jobs in general. Lowering for the rich just makes rich people richer.
Unless that President is John Kerry - they've got enough personal wealth to hire enough people to affect the unemployment rate :)
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Uh, no, not really. The 5.4% number is not counting all those people out of work for longer than six months. I read one estimate that the true number of Americans of working age who do not have jobs is closer to 10%. Anecdotally, I can believe it. I know people in recent years who tooks many, many months to find jobs. I was one of them. In 1996 I was looking for work and the job market was much better than it is now. Same type of work, same area, different results in a dramatic way. Things have been much worse recently than they ever were in the mid-1990s, even pre-boom.
It was a few sundays ago, that the local newspaper had an article saying that the middle class was only disappearing because they were all becoming upper class. Complete with numbers, too. Numbers to the effect that 50% of us were in the $70,000 a year bracket. (well, close... can't remember, but was over 40%, 44%ish). I was flabbergasted. At age 30, I've only grossed over $30,000 a year twice.
I have no clue what the real numbers are for any of this. But they aren't anything like what is published as truth in these reports.
We are entering the fourth quarter, and the last strong job growth was Q2. Looks like the recovery is fading to me. It probably has something to do with $50+/barrel oil.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
I have a few observations.
Statement : Saddam invaded a free country (Kuwait).
Q1 : Was it wrong for Iraq to invade another free country?
Q2 : Was it against all international treaties to attack another country?
Q3 : Did Saddam have the right to invade a free country?
Q4 : Did the World denounce the action of and call Saddam an aggressor
Q5 : Did Saddam stand by his actions and insist he was doing the right thing.
Q6 : Did Saddam insist that it was in the interest of his country
Q7 : Was it in the interest of his country or his personal gain?
Q8 : What happened Since then?
Q9 : Has Iraq become a more stable and powerful country or become distrusted the world over?
Q10: Could anything have been done differently in Hindsight?
Q11: Did Saddam use Islam to get people's support for his political gains
Q12: Did he give Islam a "fanatic" image?
Statement : Bush invaded a free country (Iraq).
Q1 : Was it wrong for US to invade another free country?
Q2 : Was it against all international treaties to attack another country?
Q3 : Did Bush have the right to invade a free country?
Q4 : Did the World denounce the action of and call Bush an aggressor
Q5 : Did Bush stand by his actions and insist he was doing the right thing.
Q6 : Did Bush insist that it was in the interest of his country?
Q7 : Was it in the interest of his country or his personal gain?
Q8 : What happened Since then?
Q9 : Has US become a more stable and powerful country or become distrusted the world over?
Q10: Could anything have been done differently in Hindsight?
Q11: Did Bush use Christianity to get people's support for his political gains
Q12: Did he give Christianity a "fanatic" image?
Introspective Exercise for ALL americans.
Q1. How is Bush different from Saddam?
Q2. Should the US president take care of the American needs first or shud he be
Q3. Can some country invade US and call upon the world coalition to support its invation?
Q4. What makes US different from the rest of the world that it alone has the "right to use force first"
Q5. How can pre-emptive strike be right for US but not for anyone else?
-jes
But I asked what the President could do, not the government as a whole. And of all the other stuff you mentioned, only building roads / infrastructure and security are the government's domain. All the rest should be left to the private sector, or to the states. Certainly the President shouldn't be involved.
sigs, as if you care.
If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?
The Chinese. They're buying more of it than ever before.
Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way.
It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as percentages of income, not as raw dollars. For instance, if I make $200,000 a year and get a $2000 tax rebate, that's only 1%. If you make $5,000 and get a $200 tax rebate, that's 4%. Suddenly it doesn't look like the rich are getting all the money back, does it?
Of course, some real numbers are worth taking a look at. Bush only cut the Federal Income tax, which is the only part we're concerning ourselves for the purposes of this discussion. Did you know that the top 1% of the country makes 17.53% of the money in the country, but pays 33.89% of the Federal Income tax? (Note: To be in the top 1%, you must make more than $293,000 or so.) The top 50% of the country makes 86.19% of the money, but pays 96.03% of the Federal Income taxes. What are the bottom 50% of the population doing, if they're not reporting their income and paying tax on it?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Something nags me throughout this whole discussion: Of what effect does the economy, the president, and any other external factor have on whether or not you have a job?
There are two ways to view the world: I am a captain of my fate, or I am a robot with its fate predetermined by people I don't even know (God, the President, or some secret Jewish conspiracy).
I know which philosophy I adhere to. That's why when the dot com bubble burst, and I found myself on the streets with a new child and without cash, I went to find a job and eventually found a well-paying one, albeit not in the industry. Now I am back working at a major dot com and I am enjoying life.
I can't imagine what drives people to make themselves slaves to someone else's will. How does the president create or destroy job? Has he ever interviewed for you? Has he hired you? Does he write secret messages to your potential employer "Hey, don't hire this guy. We don't want the economy to grow right now." Of course not.
And the economy dictating your lifestyle? That's silly. I think of the economy as the weather. Sure, I won't sow wheat in the fall, but then again, I wouldn't sow in the summer either. The economy has its cycles, and rather than wake up every morning and look out the window to see which way the economic winds are blowing, how about you learn a bit on the subject and figure out which way the winds will blow tomorrow so you are ready for it? It really isn't that complicated of a subject. All you need to understand is what Adam Smith wrote down in the "Wealth of Nations" and then how to identify the conditions he described in today's environment.
I totally support Bush. But if Kerry gets elected, or even Nader, or even Stalin for instance, it won't effect my fate. I am a captain of my fate. I don't let others dictate which way I go.
I think that is a major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem so that I don't have to worry about that so much. Kerry supporters are looking to Kerry as a savior. Kerry is supposed to correct all of life's ills and prescribes a panacea to the old, sick, young, and uneducated. They want to put Kerry in charge, but I want to hire Bush to do a job. That's a big difference in perspective.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Oh, I see. You're entitled to your opinion, and to slander and bully anyone who doesn't share it. But people who disagree, they don't have a right to their opinion and must be wrong no matter what. It must be nice to live in a fantasy land.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
It's hard work being a truly motivated fast food employee. It's hard work trying not to get sick when you have no health insurance.
Bush is the one who decided to finance companies moving their jobs to foreign countries, not Democrats.
If you're married and both you and your spouse work at a decent job (doesn't have to even be that good paying of a job!) and earn around $35K/year - congratulations you're rich!
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
But I asked what the President could do, not the government as a whole.
You're right, this situation is not just the president's fault.
Responsibility lies with the Republican-controlled Congress, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the president.
Remember to vote against all three.
There is no evidence supporting your claim.
If you graph salary v. % of income spent on taxes, it's really low as you approach that middle 50% but as you get up to the top 25% it goes up (no surprise here).
What is surprising is that as you go lower the federal taxes as a percent of income go up as well. Much of this can be attributed to payroll taxes. I'd like to see that problem get fixed; it's not fair no matter how you cut it.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
"...Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years...."
. ap /
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty
> Bush is the one who decided to finance companies moving their jobs to foreign countries, not Democrats.
1 _- 1_1/President_Clinton_Signs_NAFTA.html
And it was the Democrats, specifically Bill Clinton, that signed NAFTA which made it all possible.
See:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_701507082_76156434
To see Clinton and Gore accepting applause for this travesty.
Caution: Contents under pressure
A Personal Message from George Soros
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
[...]
When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.
[...]
Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there.
[...] (more text in Soros' message)
.
George Soros wants bush gone. He's speaking the truth at his own cost. And he has got more patriotism in his thumb than you have in your whole body.
The same people who make the claim you just made also claim there is no global warming and say 5 stem cell lines are enough for completele stem cell medical research programs. The way the statitics were compiled hasn't changed. The same measurements that Clinton was held to, Bush is held to. It's distortions and distractions used to steer the conversation away from the fact that Bush has cause huge increases in the numbers of Amercians that have lost their health insurace under Bush.
How is unemployment calculated? I am unemployed, as are most of my close friends. Are we included in the statistics? If so, seeing as I dont regularly tell anyone I am unemployed, how?
Now my assertion was that trickle up economy is what works, not trickle down. Lowering taxes for the rich only make rich people richer. Poorer people are the ones who spend their tax credits not the rich people. The lower to middle class tax cuts can make an economy roll!
Bush and Co said they cut taxes for the rich to help the economy but it was a lie like many other things, they only helped themselves. Sure you can put any rethoric in front of me like "rich people pay more than their fair share of taxes" but honestly I won't care too much. They got rich because the economy was healthy and they want to ruin it now so they can get a bit richer. When someone writes laws for the country he has to think of what is best for the country not for his rich friends. My neighboor could use a 200$ tax cut to get his car back on the road. It doesn't take much but 1000 poorer people getting a 200$ tax credit helps the economy more than a rich fsck getting a 20000$ tax credit. In the first case 1000 people spend 200$ whereas in the second, one person can put even more money in his caymen island bank account.
There are vast numbers of adults working in fast food jobs below management level. That is a fact.
This might hold some water if the democrats actually did something in the senate. they are hell bent on keeping Bushes judical nominees through filibuster but voted for his tax cut, for NCLB, for the patriot act, for the war, for everything bush has done the democrats voted *for*..
Clinton/Gore may have signed NAFTA, but Bush is the one who implimented a policy of having the US Government finance the cost of companies moving jobs out of the country.
From the actual report:
"Total employment was about unchanged in September at 139.5 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was little changed at 62.3 percent. Over the month, the civilian labor force was essentially unchanged at 147.5 million. The labor force participation rate was 65.9 percent in September and has been at or near that level since late last year. (See table A-1.)"
Bush and his apologists can spin these numbers any way they want, as they define "unemployment" to exclude all kinds of people without jobs. How many of those "new jobs" Bush will talk about are jobs left idle by the thousands of reservists in Iraq and elsewhere? We've got 293M people in the US, with only 66.9% aged 15-65; even these numbers lie, somehow saying we've got 4.6% without jobs, compared with the still-rosy 5.4% summarized in the report. How many of these jobs are part time? How many pay too little to matter? How many are people working past their retirement age because they've lost their pensions, or their investments? We remember what the job market was like "when Clinton was reelected" in 1996: jobs were falling off the trees. Now, they're flying overseas, where the labor, environment and pay conditions are already in the cesspool into which Bush is herding this economy. Do your career a favor and see through these lies, and get someone new to manage the economy on which we depend, who hasn't been a miserable lying failure all his life.
--
make install -not war
How much of the job losses were from the dotBOMB crap? Talk about a much needed event. I'm glad the investors lost their money, but I wish it hadn't hit so many every day folk.
Damien
Most likely they will buy stock, or invest. Rich people dont throw money in their matress they invest it which create puts the tax cut money right back into the economy.
However 100 lower to middle class people getting a 200$ tax break will use the tax break to get the urging things in their life, like changing that timing belt or fixing the crack in the foundation. Heck I know I could use 200$ less taxes this year.
Pretty much everyone is getting a 3% cut in their taxes. Contrary to popular beilef thie was not a cut for the rich (The highest bracket pays 37.5% and the lowerst pays 15%..
That trickle down economy principle only works in some cases, when the rich don't mind spending the money they get. But the truth is a trickle up economy is more likely to work.
The rich buy IBM stock and the poor shop at walmart both create jobs, *in china*..
We, the poorer people are the ones who spend money because we don't have all we want or *need*.
Anyone who honestly believes that poverty is an extreem problem in America has *zero* perspective. Your worried about a timing belt? Do you think that is fomone owns a car, a tv, has access to the internet, has foor, a roof over their head, that somehow the system has failed them?
Lowering taxes for us does something substantial to the economy and to jobs in general. Lowering for the rich just makes rich people richer.
Again I am not rich but the CEO of my company is, he is very open and I watch him like a hawk to see just how he got where he is (he was not born into money). He works his tail off and invest money when I worked on the network at his house I saw not one dime hidden in a jar, he did however let me see his stock portfolio and trust me he does more for the economy than you or I do..
What? you have to be kidding, I was under the impression that payroll taxes cover things like Social security. Social security is supposed to work like this: you put something in you get something out. My SS benefit will be the exact same as someone who makes half of what I do, to you this is not fair? No instead we should more focus on income re-distribution.
If you graph salary v. % of income spent on taxes, it's really low as you approach that middle 50% but as you get up to the top 25% it goes up (no surprise here).
Because unlike Income taxes SS is aimed at all people equally is not so much a tax as an entitlement.
The best thing to do is scrap income tax altogether and go to a sales tax. I would keep the IRS around to precess receipts (everyone would be exempt on $amount a year in purchases so that the truely poor would not be taxed on food, cloths and the like. I would keep SS tax only because its not so much a tax as a fund, in princaple the government has to give that money back to you when there is retirement.
Sorry, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but here goes: Social Security and unemployment benefits are giant horribly run pyramid schemes that have no place in America. Medicare and Medicade (also financed through payroll taxes) as poorly run as they are do have some societal benefits (not that there arn't other ways to get them), but, like publicly funded schooling, are technically a form of wealth redistribution.
Reguardless on where you stand on any of this, it is unfair for someone who is poor to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes then someone in the middle class. Optimally they'd spend the same percentage, and if you believe in wealth redistribution (which I am throughly convinced can never actually work), the poorer people should pay a lower percentage. No matter who's philosophy I apply, I can't think of any reason they should spend more.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Than do away with is all together dont shift the cost into income tax
Reguardless on where you stand on any of this, it is unfair for someone who is poor to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes then someone in the middle class.
Except SS is not a tax like income is a tax. The government can do whatever it wants with income taxes, SS is marked for a retirement fund in which I will get the same as somebody making half as much as me so why should I pay more? thats the reason SS and income are seperate in the first place.
I can't think of any reason they should spend more.
They dont SS is not a tax...
The average adult household is now a single household.
How does a single person live on 9,750 a year? Very badly.
That's what I'd like to see, but I'm realistic, that's not happening anytime soon.
SS is not a tax
A Tax is (according to Mirriam-Webster) "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons for public purposes". Social Security is supposedly for the public good and it's certainly a public program. By that definition, it's definately a tax; especially after you consider that even the poorest Americans get out less then they put in.
My point is that Bush wanted to cut taxes across the board so he opened up a new low 10% bracket, and reduced the percentage of federal revenue comming from the middle class (by increasing the percentage of federal revenue comming in from the top tax brackets). He did such a good job at middle class tax cuts that the bottom 25% of Americans spend a larger percentage of their income paying taxes then the middle class. Because these guys put in so little anyway, he should have cut their taxes as well.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Wow! An even handed story in the Politics section. Hope springs anew.
Republicans are far more likely to be more supportive of NAFTA and the WTO. It was the Republicans in Congress that voted for NAFTA and the WTO to get it passed. Very few Democratic members of Congress voted for NAFTA and the WTO.
KTD, you're the man. b-baggins is the one I was calling unpatriotic.
BTW I posted anon because I'm sick of getting modded -1 for expressing liberal views. I'm double sick of seeing pretentious conservative morons getting +2 for being republican spin jockeys.
As for Bush... grrrrrrr. I hate that mofo.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
publicly funded schooling, are technically a form of wealth redistribution.
if you believe in wealth redistribution (which I am throughly convinced can never actually work)
Any market or economy is technically a method or instrument for the redistribution of wealth. They work every day. Just look at how much wealth has been transferred from the poor and middle classes to the rich in the last 20 years.
Lots of factors influence how these systems work. Almost any law you can think of shapes them in some way, changing how wealth is redistributed. If you are truely against the redistribution of wealth, you are ultimately against the concepts of trade and money. Good luck getting those eliminated.
Democratic members,
Didn't need to vote for it. They knew 'Their man' Clinton would sign it and Gore would be there cheering him on.
And if you choose to ignore/discount the full truth then that's your problem pal.
Caution: Contents under pressure
This does not answer the question of the persons motivation? how busy are they trying to learn things that will make them more marketable..
Two worker families are at the greatest risk of fiscal catastrophe because if either worker gets sick or loses their job the loss of income is typically irrecoverable. If you think a career in fast food is any way to live I suggest you go try it.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
United States 2000 Census Average household size - 2.59 Don't just make up stuff. It makes you look bad.
here.
Opening paragraph below
Note that social security is not for public purposes it provides no service for the general public, I pay money in that I will get out.. So no by that definition it is most definatly not a tax.
My point is that Bush wanted to cut taxes across the board so he opened up a new low 10% bracket, and reduced the percentage of federal revenue comming from the middle class (by increasing the percentage of federal revenue comming in from the top tax brackets). He did such a good job at middle class tax cuts that the bottom 25% of Americans spend a larger percentage of their income paying taxes then the middle class. Because these guys put in so little anyway, he should have cut their taxes as well.
So they should get free SS?
social security is not for public purposes it provides no service for the general public, I pay money in that I will get out..
I'm sorry, I just can't believe that anyone still believes this. Are you really that gullible?
I was making it a fairly straight forward discussion. You just made it that much harder.
At age 30, I've only grossed over $30,000 a year twice.
I'm 40. I didn't make over $40,000 until I was 35. People are making more money earlier, so I guess the economy really is improving!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Anybody who continues to show up for a minimum wage fast food job is plenty motivated already.
There's a forty something guy who works the window at a Wendy's near me. It hurts to see the look on his face sometimes. His affect is flat.. he's courteous in his tone but you can tell how much it must hurt to work there at his age. He must be a very strong person inside to hold down that job - probably only keeps going for his kids.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
A highly motivated adult manages a fast food restaurant and hires high school and college kids.
Cool. And here I thought the problem might be difficult.
We can all make enough money and get health care by managing burger joints. And selling ad space to each other.
I'm sorry, didn't that concept die back in the 90's?
Clinton and Gore could have held all the pep rallies they wanted. NAFTA and WTO were laws that had to pass Congress. Without the Republicans in Congress voting for the WTO and NAFTA, nothing happens.
The Republicans in Congress are every just as much to blame for WTO and NAFTA as Clinton.
if you look at the numbers, the jobs that have been added recently have come largely from government and healthcare, there is no way that either of those groups can sustain growing employment for that much longer. Government because there is that wacky thing calld the deficit that W. seems to think is his score on pac-man, just gobble it all up, and healthcare because economies cannot sustain having huge amounts of the GDP eaten up by healthcare.
In many ways things like healthcare and gas prices are exactly like taxes. Both are necessities, but the costs can get carried away. If my healthcare costs increase 40%(taking inflation into account) and my gas prices have a similiar increase, I wind up spending more money for the same amount of stuff. Exactly like taxes. So when Dubya claims that he saved me all this money, I like to point out that I am in fact paying more out of pocket for the same things I was 4 years ago, and my tax cut doesn't even begin to cover it.
Monstar L
If a guy flips burgers and then goes home an studies to make his life better he is motivated, if he goes home and watches TV he is not motivated.
Look at Edwards latest pathetic "my daddy worked in a mill" story, it was about how his fater was up late at night learning math that was a motivated man and it rubbed off on his sun (no matter how much I disagree with his politics).
You act like fast food jobs are easy. Ever done it? It's tiring, tedious work. I don't think George W. Bush could keep a minimum wage fast food job.
In a nation with a GDP of nearly 11 Trillion Dollars what exact impact do you thing 120 Billion would have?
You're confusing GDP with tax revenues. The are NOT the same.
Spending that $120 Billion on extending the unemployment benefits would have done far more to help this country than going after some third world tinpot dictator.
John Edwards' father is exactly what the ideal example should be. John Edwards father was only a mill worker for a few years. He worked very hard and rose into middle management at that mill before he retired.
NAFTA and WTO passed Congress because a few Dixiecrats similar to Zell Miller voted with the Republicans in the House and Senate.
If you are against WTO and NAFTA, you should not be supporting Republicans. You are the one who has been buffaloed.
The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.
My oh my. I guess the President doesn't also do things like sign subsidies and tariffs and such. What about the budget?
The President asks for specific taxes and his budget spends that money in specific ways. Both of those affect the job situation.
I should remind you of what Ross said about a giant sucking sound if NAFTA was approved.
It's tiring, tedious work. I don't think George W. Bush could keep a minimum wage fast food job.
Nor could Kerry or edwards whats your point?
lets clear one thing up I have zero hopes for either major party candidate. but if a teenager can do it while going to school (as I did) I dont think a grown man doing it gives him a title of motivated individual..
Gotta say I agree with most of it. Particularly the Euro vs Dollar.
But that last part about Bush believing in manufacturing. I don't see that. I do see Bush making it more profitable to do the manufacturing overseas. And that annoys me.
But that's because I do believe that we need a strong manufacturing segment in our country. We take in the cheap raw materials and export the more expensive finished goods.
I suppose you consider Nancy Pelosi a Dixiecrat? Funny, I thought she was from San Francisco.
Or Nita Lowey, isn't she from New York somewhere???
Or Anna Eschoo, another Dem from Northern California?
Or Gerry Studds, isn't he from Massachussetts?
I don't know what you're smoking, but it's clouded your perception of the world.
As far as being buffaloed, perhaps you should look in the mirror. At least I can accept reality.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Fine, don't put words in my mouth just so you can pretend you have a point.
>>If any of those people go home from work and play X-box, or just smoke and watch TV I will absolutly say to them that they are unmotivated..
Oh, I see. So fast food workers are automatically lazy pot heads? When you were selling trinkets at parades, would you have appreciated being painted with those broad strokes? Is it OK for you to do that, now that you are (presumably) no longer in hard times? Real mature.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Keep up the spinning. You are not fooling anyone else, but with enough spin you might hypnotize yourself into believing it.
My point is that some people in fast food ARE motivated adults.
>>its what they do above and beyond to imrpove their situation that matters..
Of course. One has to work to get ahead. No one disputes that. What I am saying is that there are more "motivated adults" than there are jobs. It sounded to me like you and b-baggins were implying that unemployed and underemployed people are *ALL* lazy. Sure, some fast food workers ARE kids, but some are not.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
No I'm not fooling anyone. Don't want to, don't claim to. Facts are facts, they certainly are not spin by any means.
h il lips.PDF
Nancy Pelosi did vote for NAFTA. Just like Bill Clinton did, effectively. Google it. It's right there for all to see.
If you cannot find it then read the nice paper a student wrote concerning the NAFTA vote:
http://www.econ.duke.edu/Journals/DJE/dje2000/p
At the bottom you will find who did and did not vote for NAFTA.
Or just keep your head in the sand and continue to think that there is someone on capital hill who actually gives a damn about you.
Caution: Contents under pressure
It's not realistic to assume that everyone who is underemployed or unemployed is unmotivated. It may be comforting to blame people for their problems but it doesn't make it the case. Sometimes people are at fault and sometimes bad things happen to good people.
It's a lot easier to "just" get another job for some people than others. A poor person who can't afford college is at a disadvantage to a middle class person who floated through college. The poor person can be twice as "motivated" and still end up flipping burgers while the middle class person gets an entry level job in an office.
Hell, there aren't even enough Burger-flipping jobs to go around.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Industry 2002 2012 Percent Change
Software publishers 256 430 68
consulting services 732 1,137 55 (Management, scientific, and technical)
elderly/resid care 695 1,078 55
Computer systems design 1,163 1,798 55
Employment services 3,249 5,012 54
rehabilitation serv 1,269 1,867 47
Ambulatory health care 1,444 2,113 46
IS, data proc 529 773 46
Water, sewage 49 71 45
Child day care 734 1,050 43
There are jobs to be had and fields that are growing (http://www.collegeboard.com/article/0,3868,4-24-0 -237,00.html)
It's not realistic to assume that everyone who is underemployed or unemployed is unmotivated.
Based on what?
A poor person who can't afford college is at a disadvantage to a middle class person who floated through college.
They are called student loans, I got them.. I knoew of people who lived off of the in addition to going to school.
Yes it is. The idea is that society benefits because we are redistributing wealth to keep old people from burdening their children and dying in the streets because they planned their retirement poorly (Personally I think if someone fails to plan ahead they should get what's comming...). The government is taking your money and giving it to the general public presumably for the benefit of everybody.
Another way to look at this:
I pay money in that I will get out
No you pay in money that someone else takes out today. When you are old someonelse will pay for you (hence my pyramid scheme comment; this plan relies on continual population growth to work); historically, you also don't get out the same value as you put in (because of inflation and other factors). This is why it's a tax, Congress takes money from you and spends it on someone else.
So they should get free SS?
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
No its not about distributing anything. If you pay zero dollars into the system you dont get anything out. You get a statement every october which tracks how much you get in, based on the about you get in you get so much out. You earn credits.
For example right now If I became disabled I would get more than twice what my wife would get, wanna know why... Because I have put twice as much in as she has.
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
So they should just do away with SS# the current system does not punish anyone.
Don't forget that last year at this time President Bush signed the bill into law that caused the lose of up to 2 million jobs.
Lowering taxes for the rich only make rich people richer. Poorer people are the ones who spend their tax credits not the rich people.
i couldn't agree more. for example, i'm a rich fsck and i never buy anything. why just yesterday i got on my lear jet (which i didn't buy, i just inherited it) and flew down to the caymen islands to deposit my enormous paycheck (which i don't deserve -- i just got really lucky one day and somehow luckily got this great job where i don't really do anything except look out my big window and occasionally fire people after outsourcing their job to a 5 year old girl in bangladesh who would be far happier if she were still at home starving and too weak to swat at the flies in her nose but is instead slaving away in my corporate air conditioned sweat shop call center). i rolled my wheelbarrow (i inherited that too) full of $100 bills up to the teller and told her to be sure and place my money under a nice king sized serta mattress and not some cheapo little air mattress from kmart or whatever store the lower classes shop at down there in the caymen's.
clue: the bank takes you're money and invests it in the market (ie other companies) and those companies take the money and either hire people or buy equipment or give it to their "benedict arnold" ceo who --guess what? puts it in the bank!
that was funny. :)
Hm? LGF isn't a white supremacist site.
Obviously, that comment was toungue-in-cheek (although from what I understand, LGF comments are an entirely different matter).
[Ok, now I have to ruin the joke by explaining it]
I understand the gist of LGF is: Muslim culture is corrupt (or whatever) and many terrorists commit acts in the
Although it's not a 1-to-1 analogy, a similar justification was used for persecuting the Jewish people in the 20th century - i.e. that many (literally) bomb-throwing Socialists/Anarchists/Communists happened to be Jewish.
Similarly, certain people are using the acts of a violent minority to characterize an entire people or religion. Obviously, this is - for lack of a better word - retarded.
Again, as I understand it, LGF commenters regularly evoke images of mass-slaughter of Muslims - something the site's proprieter condones while regularly deleting blocking criticism of the same. So, while it's not as bad as an overtly racist site like Stormfront or whatever, it still is in the same direction - i.e. bigoted/small-minded
I'm told that the unemployment numbers come from surveys, not unemployment checks.
But no one I know has ever been surveyed about that. I find it very interesting.
And now, for something completely different.
>>The fact I got jumped on for saying that there is no proof one way or the other if a person is motivated because they are in fast food.
>>>>It sounded to me like you and b-baggins were implying that unemployed and underemployed people are *ALL* lazy.
>>Not for a moment, you read the post through partisan eyes.
Sorry for jumping on you then. You appeared to be supporting b-baggins in the implication that truly motivated people are not unemployed. Actually, I'll level with you; this post made a slight observation that "The most motivated people at the polls this election will be the ones without a job... As they should be. The rest of us with jobs will just decide our candidate based upon other issues." The response, "Don't count on it. The truly motivated people are already working." really bothered me. Plus I know b-baggins is a raging zealot conservative(oh, Nietzche.. if you fight monsters, take care not to become a monster), and I recognized you as conservative as well. Frankly, I've seen so much wierd bush glorifying *stuff* on slashdot lately it's driving me to zealotry myself. Damn, I'll admit that I stepped over the line. Sorry. But I just can't bring myself to identify with you. Our values are just too different. I can't not feel compassion for the poor person who's gone from $30k a year to $12k a year, or $0k for that matter. I can't help disagreeing with most things that come off of republican lips. One time I heard that there were conserva
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Harvard's economists say Bush sucks. Isn't Harvard like, where all the really smart people go?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Sorry N3WBI3, you're not a troll. I take it back. I still take issue with b-baggins, and I still stand with leftie. But you weren't trolling or baiting... although I don't see things the way you do. But you're not a troll and I'm sorry I called you one.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Damn, that was easier to come up with than I thought. Sorry, N3WBI3. Hey leftie, N3WBI3 isn't pro Bush! :) Hey b-baggins, Harvard says Bush is screwing the economy. And there's still no WMD :O
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Can anyone provide insight or references for these positions?
It only counts the people with unemployment benefits, once they run out they don't get counted, the unemployed number is much higher than reported.