You are worried that having welfare is better then having a job. I think the bigger worry is that investing into capital gains is better then investing into job creation - and that the people making this decision are the ones with all the cash.
This is exactly what’s wrong with Wall Street. Wall Street, as sad as it sounds, is the brain of our economy. Scratch that, it’s the ID of our economy. It’s greedy, hungry, and scared. It wants as much as it can get right now. If things start going badly, it wants that even more desperately. Problem is, that is the problem. When things go south, the money should go round, not get rounded up.
Unemployment moeny comes from the gov't, which is generated through taxes and such. It's given to people who qualify, and taxed as income. They spend it, and taxes are pulled again.
The same money just gets recycled, there's no real help here. It's not being made to work to generate wealth for the individual or help him out other than cover what he needs exactly at that moment. Him simply spending the same money over and over does nothing for the economy. He needs to build up new money and inject that into the economy, right? That's growth.
This is what’s wrong with people’s perception of the economy. We imagine (for some god-forsaken reason) that the economy is prosperous when people make a lot of money. Guess what? People are making record profits right now in the midst of this crisis. Our economy will actually prosper when everyone has enough money to live on.
Think of the economy like an engine (society/species survival is the vehicle). An engine needs lubrication to run or it binds up. Oil provides that. It’s the same oil for thousands of miles, just getting recycled over and over. Over time, it starts to coagulate (as money does in the hands of the wealthy) and needs to be changed.
What's funny is that money getting recycled really is good for growth. Money that just sits under the mattress or even in a bank account doesn't, but money that's spent does. I buy something at the local store, he pays his employees with that money, they go out and buy things, the stores buy those things from manufacturers, etc, etc. The more times that money goes around before ending up as profit, the more it helps the economy.
This is what’s wrong with our version of Capitalism. We have failed to realize that “profit” actually hurts the economy, unless that profit is spent in its entirety.
The easiest means of creating jobs in such a situation for a government is to simply put people to work building roads, and the like. However that of course means bigger government as they work.
How about raking leaves? Or digging holes? Hire one guy to dig a hole in the morning, and hire another to fill it up in the afternoon. Just make sure they never meet.
It literally doesn’t matter what they’re doing. Sure, some jobs are more productive than others, but the only thing that really needs to happen is to keep the engine going.
If we were smart, we’d be hiring people by the millions to start upgrading our infrastructure to accommodate wind energy. If we adopted this single strategy, we’d pull ourselves out of this mess in a matter of months.
Not at all, but it doesn't put nearly as many people back to work as it did in the past, what with all of the mechanization that has occurred, just like most other labor fields.
On the job training needs to become the norm. The problem is, how do you encourage that when every job opportunity has thousands of applicants?
The answer: just do it. Offer on the job training, suck it up, and the applicant pool will dwindle.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Man, the USA should invade the USA, then they could win the hearts and minds of the people by building roads and bridges.They have a pretty strong army, though. Wouldn't be easy.
Eh, we could take 'em.
Be where the army isn’t. Namely, the USA.
Exactly. Ron Paul would be a great president as he would be forced to do only do the things that a president is ALLOWED by law to do. And at those few things that the President is allowed to do, Ron Paul's policies seem pretty good. Like I said, I dont agree with alot of Paul's stances, but the stances that he has that mesh with executive powers seem pretty darn ok to me. I agree, Citizens United was a horrible ruling, IMO.libertarian leaning Supreme Court justicesGood luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” - Ron Paul
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" - Ron Paul
What could a president legally do to enforce a specific religion upon someone? I am missing something. Please, elaborate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you made 50k a year, got fired, and could get 30-35k a year unemployment for almost 2 years, how quickly would you be motivated to look for work? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a top priority till around week 80 or so if it were me.
Then you don't have a mortgage. Or kids.
Well if you made 50k a year, got fired, and could get 30-35k a year unemployment for almost 2 years, how quickly would you be motivated to look for work? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a top priority till around week 80 or so if it were me.Then you don't have a mortgage. Or kids.
Another thing to consider is that there are two types of "laid off" Everyone that I know who enjoys being on unemployment are laid off but still employed. Construction workers and such get laid off evry winter as there isnt much to do. The ones that I know love it.
The other type is laid off and not employed. That wouldnt be nearly as much fun, choosing which bills need to be paid and which are going to have to wait till next month. Goodbye credit score! (another way that the poor are institutionally kept poor.) article is from CRACKED but still relevant
What could a president legally do to enforce a specific religion upon someone? I am missing something. Please, elaborate.Exactly. Ron Paul would be a great president as he would be forced to do only do the things that a president is ALLOWED by law to do. And at those few things that the President is allowed to do, Ron Paul's policies seem pretty good. Like I said, I dont agree with alot of Paul's stances, but the stances that he has that mesh with executive powers seem pretty darn ok to me. I agree, Citizens United was a horrible ruling, IMO.libertarian leaning Supreme Court justicesGood luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” - Ron Paul
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" - Ron Paul
Enforce a religion on a specific individual? No. Make life uncomfortable for those who don't embrace it/really comfortable for those who do on the sly? Sure. It happens.
Be where the army isn’t. Namely, the USA.To defeat myself, I must be where I am not.
Deep.
What could a president legally do to enforce a specific religion upon someone? I am missing something. Please, elaborate.
Most obviously, appoint judges who also believe that until there is a sufficient majority to do so.
If this seems extreme, both Justices Scalia and Thomas have argued that states are not be bound by the freedom of religion clause and should be able to establish state churches.
Certainly could continue to send federal money to churches to help them "serve as vital institutions", with no restrictions on who they help or what they teach with that money.
Obviously he'd need Congressional support to do much, but that's a given for any president.
I'm also not very impressed by an argument that basically says "You should support him even though he wants to screw you over as much as possible, he really won't be able to do much to you."
Which isnt my arguement. I fail to see how not ASSASSINATING US CITIZENS and beating terrorism by not engaging in illegal wars that encourage terrorism is screwing you over as much as possible. I would think being assassinated or sent to a far away land to die for no good reason would be more of a "screw you" than anything else. I never said he was the best, I said that he is, in my opinion, the best running. He does have some very big faults, which have been pointed out. Faults that would not or would be a slim chance to occur.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seen from the outside (I am not a citizen of gods own country) the problem seems to be that the vast majority of the americans cling almost religiously to their respective believes despite many indications of them not working.
Prime examples are "guns for everyone cause more security", "unhindered capitalism is best for growth and prosperity", "deficite spending is no problem", "everyone can make it on her own in this great country", "lowering corporate/rich taxes is good for the whole country", "a strong government will choke our country" and so on.
Here in Germany a word of Winston Curchill was very popular these days: "You can trust in the USA to do the right things, after they tried all other alternatives."
No, your argument (Edit: in that post) was "He thinks the US should be a Christian country and that the Constitution supports that, but he wouldn't really be able to force you to be Christian so it's OK."
If you think his foreign policy trumps that, that's fine. But don't dismiss his religious opinions as irrelevant.
They're especially worrying from someone who claims to be a strict Constitutionalist, since they show how strangely he might interpret the Constitution.
Ah ok. Hey that's fair and I can with live that. I dont agree, but I agree to disagree and will stop with the Paul in this thread.
I don't know your situation, but I have known many people who claim that they live frugally who aren't. I'm currently helping someone cut their grocery bill to about 1/4 what it has been for years (not by cutting quality of what's bought, but teaching how to find deals).
Yeah, I'm guilty of that. I'm no good at comparative shopping or using coupons. But I've got the luxury of being a spawnless bachelor, and hence, no incentive to change my spendthrift ways.
article is from CRACKED but still relevant[/url]
Hee hee!
Seen from the outside (I am not a citizen of gods own country) the problem seems to be that the vast majority of the americans cling almost religiously to their respective believes despite many indications of them not working.
Prime examples are "guns for everyone cause more security", "unhindered capitalism is best for growth and prosperity", "deficite spending is no problem", "everyone can make it on her own in this great country", "lowering corporate/rich taxes is good for the whole country", "a strong government will choke our country" and so on.
Here in Germany a word of Winston Curchill was very popular these days: "You can trust in the USA to do the right things, after they tried all other alternatives."
Here's one "the same size fits all". For example, not everyone lives in the city - some live out away from the police and need guns to protect against wildlife and criminals, because it takes too long for cops to arrive.
A lot of people don't realize just how big the US is compared to European countries, just how diverse the US is (both demographically and geographically), etc. I really do think that more European style policies would work, but only on the same scale which, for us, would be at the state level, not the federal government.
As for Europe's vaunted social security systems, they are largely falling apart due to heavy immigration. The US has always had a larger immigration rate than Europe.
I'm an American and I love guns and socialism.
I know little about the day-to-day politics going on in Europe, but it's clear that austerity and shredding the welfare state is the order of the day.
At the same time, though, I know that most commentators on the American economy lie their asses off--about unemployment, about military spending, etc., etc., so I tend to be skeptical of claims that European social-democracy is unsustainable. But, like I said, I don't know.
What I do know, though, is that whatever the state of the welfare state, the ruling elites no longer want to pay for them.
I further think that to an extent that most people don't want to accept, all of the 20th century welfare states were successful attempts to buy off rebellious and unruly working classes. The destruction of the Soviet Union has freed up a lot of money that used to go towards combating the appeal of Communism--that probably sounds ridiculous to an American, but if you look at European politics you'll see that remnants of the Stalinist parties are still rather sizeable and they used to be much bigger.
I can't speak to the European situation, but in America (where, of course, there is no mass socialist or labor party), I don't see any hope of relief in the near future. Both parties, imho, are ideologically committed to the idea that what's best for Wall Street is best for America.
In general, I expect that the next bunch of years is going to bring about a further lowering of the living standard of the working classes and the growth of a truly destitute surplus population.
I don't think it's going to be much fun at all.
Also, what's up with all the civility in this thread lately? Yawn. The London Riots thread was much more fun.
Also, what's up with all the civility in this thread lately? Yawn. The London Riots thread was much more fun.
Better? :)
Most of the construction workers I know are contractor types. They don't get unemployment when they're not working, they just don't get paid. Not nearly as much funAnother thing to consider is that there are two types of "laid off" Everyone that I know who enjoys being on unemployment are laid off but still employed. Construction workers and such get laid off evry winter as there isnt much to do. The ones that I know love it.
Its not that are 2 type of unemployment benefits. Its that are 2 different types of unemployment. Everyone that I know who thinks that being on unemployment is a great thing is the first type. They have a job to go back to. Everyone else thinks its not so great. That includes independent contractors. They are their own bosses, so if they are unemployed, by definition, they dont have a job to go back to.
|
Most of the construction workers I know are contractor types. They don't get unemployment when they're not working, they just don't get paid. Not nearly as much fun
Government contractor type here and seems like every 12-14 months I'm laid off or "in between contracts." I'm technically eligible for unemployment, but always keep 6 months of bills in my savings (or easily liquidated investments). That always serves me fine until the next contract comes along. Shrug. Guess it just depends on the line of work.
Another thing to consider is that there are two types of "laid off" Everyone that I know who enjoys being on unemployment are laid off but still employed. Construction workers and such get laid off evry winter as there isnt much to do. The ones that I know love it.Where do you live? I love construction. I was a welder/pipe fitter/plumber.
The other type is laid off and not employed. That wouldnt be nearly as much fun, choosing which bills need to be paid and which are going to have to wait till next month. Goodbye credit score! (another way that the poor are institutionally kept poor.) article is from CRACKED but still relevantThis is the only option we have where I'm at.
PA. Every winter, the construction companies lay most everyone off, so they can collect. (A few big projects go on, but its a slow time.) Every Spring, business picks back up and people go back to work. I suspect that most anyone who says that they liked being on the dole were of this type where they know that they have a job to go back to. Ive done this before and it is pretty nice. Ive never been on unemployment without a job to go back to, but I can imagine that it would be pretty damn scary.
How much his rent comes to isn't really relevant. What is included in it is somewhat relevant. Some places include cable/internet/phone along with gas and water.
I'm far more interested in what isn't included--what his $300 budget is.
$300 a month is some people's grocery bill. To live on that after rent is quite frugal. It would potentially include electricity (which in this heat wave is not insignificant), car insurance (maybe not if he lives in a city with sufficient public transportation where a car is optional), medical insurance (unless he has awesome benefits) and the like. Even so, if he had none of these expenses, living on so little is quite a feat.
Wait...did someone write that they could wind up unemployed and still pay the rent for a good long while...as long as they excluded the cost of rent? :P
|
|
Actually, the rent is relevent because I find that living on $300 a month before paying rent hard to believe. If you include rent, then he ISN'T living on $300 a month. Which means the money has to be coming from somewhere else. Savings or something. If it is savings, that will only last for so long. Which supports my view that being on unemployment is incentive enough to go back to work.I'm living on savings and I never said that I could live like this indefinitely. What's your point?
The point is that rent is the largest expense most people have. Living on 300 a month isn't hard if you aren't paying rent and aren't paying for the most expensive item/gas to get to work, car payments, etc...
30 a month is 10 dollars a day, which is plenty of food...if that is your only expense.
Saying "Without rent" is like saying "If I were homeless..."
bump
.
..
...
....
.....
I am/am not confused.
Who are the protagonists/antagonists?
How long must we wait for the car chase?
Where is the giant robot?
Ninjas?
The dead walking/salsa/the lambada?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warren Buffet -- socialist communist big government lover wants higher taxes.
Just saying...
Quite telling that the second richest man in America thinks he pays too little taxes. I like how he trounced every argument against raising taxes too.
There's no limit on how much a person can pay in taxes, there's just a limit on how little. He can write a fat check to the gov't if he wants to. Nothing stopping him. It's his money.
There's no limit on how much a person can pay in taxes, there's just a limit on how little. He can write a fat check to the gov't if he wants to. Nothing stopping him. It's his money.
True...but quite beside the point.
There's no limit on how much a person can pay in taxes, there's just a limit on how little. He can write a fat check to the gov't if he wants to. Nothing stopping him. It's his money.
Not true -- the IRS will cite you for an incorrect payment.
Buffett did the next best thing, and is donating a projected $37,000,000,000 to charity (in stock, so final prices may vary, to the Gates Foundation) -- is that a fat enough check for you? That's some 85% of his total worth. You can't say he doesn't put his money where his mouth is.In that, we agreed with Andrew Carnegie, who said that huge fortunes that flow in large part from society should in large part be returned to society. In my case, the ability to allocate capital would have had little utility unless I lived in a rich, populous country in which enormous quantities of marketable securities were traded and were sometimes ridiculously mispriced. And fortunately for me, that describes the U.S. in the second half of the last century.
Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it's neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money.
$37,000,0000,0000
That's not a real number.
That's not a real number.
Read it and weep, Dr Evil. That's billion, not million.
EDIT: Oops -- I see. Frozen fingers. Read: $37,000,000,000.