|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps they should just start looking for trainable employees and train them and pay them min wage until they become skilled where they can get raises.
Absolutely. They made their money off the backs of illegals. It's time to quit whining and start playing by the rules.
But of course, they will just then say it's too expensive to make clothes here and move their operations to China, but then again, they are offering $11 to $18 an hour so far anyways.. But then again, AA just wants to support the illegals they hire by trying to use the ruse that Americans are not trained to do garment work which last time I checked never required a college degree. If they are having so much trouble finding legal workers, then they need to do what every other business does out there.. TRAIN PEOPLE to do the work..
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,582
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,582 |
Wow,
I thought, for sure, that I would be the last one posting tonight. I have a 3-hour cushion on you guys!
(I live on the west coast).
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Wow,
I thought, for sure, that I would be the last one posting tonight. I have a 3-hour cushion on you guys!
(I live on the west coast).
what 3 hour cushion? 
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Republicans are playing with fire, playing politics with America's "unemployed" ...
...a Bloomberg poll taken July 9-12 shows 70% of those polled believe reducing unemployment is a priority over reducing the federal budget.
...for those clinging to their Bush tax cut for the wealthiest..the news from this poll is not good...
"The only deficit-reduction measure that gets strong support in the poll is higher taxes on upper-income Americans. "
Bloomberg article
Just as I have said, the priority for spending should be to continue to help those who are unemployed as a result of the WORST RECESSION IN AMERICA'S HISTORY...
...and, the tax cut for the wealthiest needs to ended...ASAP, in my opinion.
If I were in Congress, when Repubs say pay for unemployment funding...I would immediately propose stopping the tax cut going to the wealthiest 1%...
............................................................................
Americans in 70% Majority See More Jobless as Deficit Widens
Jul 13, 2010
More than 7 out of 10 Americans say the economy is mired in recession, and the country is conflicted over how to balance concerns over joblessness and the federal budget deficit, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.
Just like the experts, Americans are torn about whether the federal government should focus on curbing spending or creating jobs, the poll conducted July 9-12 shows. Seven of 10 Americans say reducing unemployment is the priority. At the same time, the public is skeptical of the Obama administration’s stimulus program and wary of more spending, with more than half saying the deficit is “dangerously out of control.”
This concern over spending extends to aid for the jobless. With unemployment at a near-record high of 9.5 percent in June, the public is closely split on whether another extension of jobless benefits, which is stalled in Congress, is worth the $34 billion cost.
“They’re just running out of patience,” says J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based company that conducted the survey. “The number they’re seeing change is the deficit. It’s rising at what seems like an astronomical rate. The number that seems intractable is the unemployment rate.”
The Obama administration expects a record budget deficit this year of more than $1.5 trillion, or 10.6 percent of GDP, according to projections the White House released in February. The U.S. deficit is a greater percentage of GDP than any other major industrialized nation except the U.K., where it is estimated to reach 11.4 percent, and Ireland, where it will be 12.2 percent, according to International Monetary Fund projections released in April.
The only deficit-reduction measure that gets strong support in the poll is higher taxes on upper-income Americans.
Bleak Mood
Four months ahead of the midterm congressional elections, the poll’s results show a challenging climate for Democrats. The public mood is bleak, with 63 percent saying they believe the country is on the wrong track, the most negative reading of Obama’s presidency. After a year of economic growth, 71 percent say the economy is still in recession; another 13 percent say the economy is faltering and will dip back into recession.
Only 1 in 6 say they believe they are personally better off than they were 18 months ago, when President Barack Obama took office. They are more apt to see the economy today as deteriorating than improving.
Hunkering Down
More than half say they are responding to the economic climate by hunkering down. Fewer than a quarter say they are getting back to normal and only 16 percent are seeing opportunity and taking risks. The public’s posture is more pessimistic than the view of global investors polled a month earlier. In a poll of Bloomberg customers conducted June 2-3, more than twice as many respondents -- 35 percent -- said they are seeing opportunities and taking risks.
The divergence in the outlooks of the general population and investors fits the way each group is experiencing the economic cycle. The public confronts an unemployment rate hovering near a 26-year high, home values and retirement portfolio balances that remain below pre-recession levels, and the debt crisis in Europe that threatens the global recovery.
The public’s perception is gloomier than some recent economic data: The U.S. economy has been growing for a year, first-quarter corporate profits were up more than 33 percent from a year earlier and research published in 1980 by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke points to the possibility of “an investment boom” following resolution of uncertainty such as the jitters provoked by the crisis in Europe. In addition, investors have benefited from a rise of more than 36 percent in the S&P 500 stock index since Obama took office even after the recent turmoil in the markets.
Tax Cuts
The public gives the Obama administration little credit for its tax cuts, which according to the Washington-based Tax Policy Center lowered federal income taxes for 93 percent of filers. Asked to compare their federal income taxes to what they paid during George W. Bush’s presidency, only 7 percent say they are lower; 20 percent say their taxes are higher and 65 percent say they are about the same.
The Bloomberg National Poll is based on interviews with 1,004 U.S. adults ages 18 or older. Percentages based on the full sample may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Americans’ anxieties over the economy are reflected in the top issues they see facing the country: Unemployment and jobs, cited by 41 percent, and the federal deficit, cited by 26 percent, dwarfed other concerns. Few Democrats share the concern over the deficit, with just 7 percent choosing it as the top issue -- last in a list of five -- versus 44 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents.
Work Needed
“People need to have work to keep their living going,” says poll respondent Jane Phillips, an 80-year-old retired school teacher from Springfield, Ohio, who listed unemployment as the most important issue. “It downgrades our people if they don’t have anything to do.”
The two big priorities are reversed among respondents who say they will definitely vote in November and say the election is exceptionally important. A 41 percent plurality name the deficit as the top issue, compared with 33 percent who pick jobs among those who say they are intensely interested in the November congressional elections. Respondents who describe themselves as Republicans say they are more likely to vote, the poll shows.
“The debt that our kids are accumulating is going to be beyond belief,” says Jim Tympanick, 55, of Foxborough, Massachusetts, an independent who works in technology support. “I don’t see how it can be rectified without an increase in taxes.”
Stimulus Package
The White House hasn’t made much progress in selling its $862 billion economic stimulus package. Asked how their opinion of the stimulus has changed in recent months, respondents were divided about evenly among those who say they had become more supportive, those who are less supportive and those who haven’t changed their opinion.
Other high-profile spending plans undertaken in the wake of the financial crisis have fared worse. The assistance package to automobile companies is becoming less popular: 48 percent say they had become less supportive in recent months versus 17 percent who say they have become more supportive.
By a two-to-one margin, the public classifies the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Plan that Congress passed in 2008 as the financial industry teetered as an “unneeded bailout” rather than “necessary.”
Tax Options
Asked about a range of options to cut the budget deficit, the public is willing to consider removing the cap on earnings covered by the Social Security tax, currently set at just under $107,000, and eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under Bush.
The public opposes a 2 percentage point increase in income tax rates on the middle class, cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare benefits, though 52 percent say they would at least consider an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65.
The public is divided on cuts in spending on defense, education, public housing, regulatory agencies or public works and on discontinuing extensions of unemployment benefits to help close the deficit.
Perceptions of the economy’s performance split sharply along party lines. A 48 percent plurality of Democrats say the economy is getting better. Only 17 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independents see an improving economy.
Young Voters
Younger Americans also had a slightly more positive read on the economy, with 31 percent of people under 35 saying they believe it is improving. Middle-aged Americans had the most negative reading, with only 24 percent describing the economy as getting better. Among those over 55, 28 percent say the economy is improving.
Voters in Western states also were more pessimistic, with 24 percent seeing an improving economy versus 27 percent in the Midwest, 29 percent in the Northeast and 30 percent in the South.
To see the methodology and exact wording of the poll questions, click on the attachment tab at the top of the story.
To contact the reporters on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington D.C. at mdorning@bloomberg.net; Catherine Dodge in Washington at cdodge1@bloomberg.net.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
There is an industry right there for someone.
Train people for these jobs. There are TONS of educational funds available for people to learn new skills.
$11-18 per hour is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. On the high end, that's a little over $37,000.
Of course ..... then someone has to do "menial" work ........ and after taxes and everything ,might be lucky to see $22,000 clear. Why work 40 hours per week, in a difficult job, for about $425/week clear when you can sit at home, on the dole, and make about $350?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The only people that can get medical help are those that are wealthy. If you don't have a lot of money, just go die on the street.
You used to make logical posts. I didn't agree with much but you made some sense.. those days appear to be gone.
Quote:
The city I live in has a hospital where they have the up to date equipment and the best doctors, what do they do to the poor? They refuse to admit them. They send them across town to a hospital run (in part) by the Catholic Church.
So the poor get to go to a hospital and get treated by a board certified doctor? I thought you said only the wealthy get treated? 
Quote:
Yes it is. It is for profit. If an HMO has to actually pay money out for treatment they refuse the treatment. They force their patients to take placebos or non-effective drugs because they save money for the HMO's.
I've had health insurance for 20 years and not once has an HMO made me do that... I've had a few minor surgeries during that time, a few sprains, illness, I've had medication, my family has had counseling services, I've had dental work done, I've had vision appointments (3 members of my family wear glasses), we've had 2 babies and all of the appointments that babies require... not once have I had a problem... and I ain't rich. I'm middle management but the admin staff at my company has the same insurance I've got and the company pays 100% it for all of us.
Quote:
Probably because they are ... poor? Like me, I teach (when I can). I have just enough money to get by. Am I angry about that? No. I'm happy just getting by. I don't want to live in a mansion with gold plated bathroom toilets.
Thats fine for you.. but some people want more than that.. so stop giving their money away. See this is hypocrisy of the highest degree. You want to live the way you want to live, but tell others who want to live differently how they should live and what they should have to do with their money...
Quote:
No, that does not make one stupid. That means one devotes their time to helping others. I provide a public service to society. Whereas, the rich, they get their money and lock it up.
You sir, are an arrogant ass. You are the equivalent of Paris Hilton.. by your own admission you provide no jobs to people, you provide very little in the way of tax money because of your meager existence, you provide very little money to charity because you make just enough to get by, you provide no investment capital through investments... yet you are hell bent on judging other people and telling other people how they should live and telling other people what they should do with their money.
Quote:
All the Paris Hilton's of the world make me sick. They haven't worked a day in their life, yet, they sit there acting like people like me are worse than dirt.
Sounds like you have a serious complex about these kinds of things.. can't say I spend a lot of time worrying about what the Paris Hiltons of the world do or say or think... if Paris Hilton's opinion of you is that important to you, perhaps you could friend her on Facebook and talk to her about it.
Quote:
Immigration is a national issue and as such it is to be decided on by the Federal Government.
then Arizona should send the federal government a bill for the tens of millions of dollars it spends for the services it gives to illegals. Money that it spends because the federal government won't enforce its own laws.
Quote:
Arizona is purposely overstepping its legal powers by regulating international commerce.
So a person skipping across the border is a product?
Quote:
Arizona is overstepping its bounds by trying to dictate to the federal government on how to deal with Mexican citizens.
The federal government is derelict in enforcing its own laws... if somebody was breaking into the states offices and stealing millions of dollars every month and the FBI did nothing about it, it would be no different. It's a crime, it's costing the state millions and millions of dollars, and the federal government is doing nothing about it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So a person skipping across the border is a product?
I would use the term commodity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
While Republicans were attempting to convince the American people they care about the deficit and opposed unemployment benefits based on the "deficit argument", overwhelmingly, the American people see through the GOP's game.
It's a simple test of values, should the Bush tax cuts be ended to offset cost of extending unemployment benefits to Americans who are still laid off?
...and the GOP failed this test, miserably and exposed their priorities, which boils down to...
.........adding to the deficit for tax cuts for the rich are a good thing, according to the GOP.
.........adding to the deficit to extend unemployment benefits to American workers are a bad thing, according to the GOP.
........................................................................
It's Unanimous! GOP Says No To Unemployment Benefits, Yes To Tax Cuts For The Rich
July 13, 2010
For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren't willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."
He was correct.
"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."
The CBO and other budget experts strongly disagree. And Democrats want to preserve the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $200,000-$250,000 a year -- but only for them. Allowing them to expire for wealthier people would raise hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, which could allow them to offset the spending Republicans currently decry.
However, the GOP's top budget guy, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), disagrees. He said Kyl's prescription -- offset spending with tax increases or program cuts, but treat tax cuts differently -- is exactly right. "It makes a lot of sense, because, you know, when you're raising taxes you're taking money out of peoples' pockets," said Gregg when asked by TPMDC. "When you're spending money, you're spending money that is -- it's not the same thing because it's growing the government. So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset."
The expert view is that giving unemployed people money to spend stimulates the economy much more than does preserving tax cuts for the rich. But this view is not shared by the chairman of the Republican Senate re-election committee.
"I think the urgency of deficit neutral extension of unemployment insurance has increased because of the size of the deficit and the size of the debt," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), another member of the GOP leadership team, told TPMDC yesterday. "I'm aware in the past some extensions have not been paid for, but if there's one thing that I'm hearing from my constituents it's that deficit spending has to stop, and I think this is a good place to do it."
Extending tax cuts to wealthy Americans is a different story.
"The problem is, you know, when you raise taxes, which is what that will be if no action is taken, taxes will go up on dividends and on capital gains on a whole lot of people who aren't rich. And the problem with that in a recession is it further contracts capital formation and investment which means it has a negative impact on jobs. I really can't think -- if you really set out to try to come up with ways to discourage people from investing and creating new jobs and growing their business, I can't think of a more comprehensive agenda for doing that than what we've seen over the last year and a half."
To be sure, a few moderate Republicans have supported the idea of extending unemployment benefits without paying for them. But, as Kyl implied, they are the distinct minority.
"If we extend the president's tax cuts -- if we wanted to do new tax cuts, I think we ought to cut spending to pay for them," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the most conservative members of the GOP. "But the tax cuts that we have today?" The answer to that rhetorical question, presumably, is no.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps they should just start looking for trainable employees and train them and pay them min wage until they become skilled where they can get raises.
Absolutely. They made their money off the backs of illegals. It's time to quit whining and start playing by the rules.
Who do you think you are? As a conservative you should know we never speak ill of big business. /sarcasm off/
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
OK, I can kinda see where they are coming from. Extending the current tax program is not "additional spending". Technically, it's not lowering revenue either. I think that we should cut off unemployment benefits as they are set to expire, and people can go sign up for welfare benefits. Sorry, but if you can't find any job in 2 years, you haven't looked. Maybe it's not a job you "want" ..... but I have worked several jobs in my lifetime that I didn't want to work. It sucks ...... it can be somewhat demeaning ...... but you live through it. Maybe 2 parent homes will need both parents to work a lesser paying job in order to pay the bills. There are a lot of people in this country waiting around for jobs that are NEVER coming back. NEVER. The manufacturing employment in this country is shrinking because the market is shrinking ..... and technology is advancing. It sucks for those involved. Like all things in life though, we have to deal with reality and not how we wish things could be. Further, maybe people will have to do without a few "necessities" .... like cable, or cell phones for the whole family. Maybe they'll have to watch the old TV a while longer rather than running out to buy a new one. Yeah it sucks .... but if you are not working, sacrifices are not uncalled for. Back to taxes ..... I think that we should expire ALL of the "Bush" tax cuts ...... eliminate the child tax credit ...... eliminate the earned Income Tax Credit program alltogether ....... return to the pre-Bush tax cut initial tax rate of 15% instead of 10% ..... and get most of the people in this country paying taxes instead of only 53% of us. I think that we should eliminate the mortgage tax credit ..... eliminate the car purchase tax credit ..... and basically eliminate each and every tax deduction there is. I don't feel that the middle class has held up its end of the tax bargain ..... so as a member of that class, I volunteer to elimiinate my own tax credits, and those of everyone else in the middle class. My mortgage isn't big enough to make a difference as far as deductions go ..... so I volunteer to give this deduction up. That's awfully big of me, isn't it? In all seriousness, I think that we need to do whatever it takes to make sure that EVERYONE in this country pays taxes towards its support and defense. Start taxing welfare benefits as income. Force people to have to actually experience some of the pain that the rest of us do on April 15th. People have gotten so used to "free" that they don't care what happens with other peoples' money. Maybe if they have to share in the process, and share in contributing to the financial well-being of the country, then they'll actually wise up as far as out of control spending goes. I doubt it ..... but maybe for a few. Some will still spew forth with evil "RWers" putting people out on the street by cutting unemployment after only 2 years ....... 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
my wife has an interview this afternoon for a job that she is way over-qualified for but is anxious to take if offered.... wish Mrs. DC the best please. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Good luck to her. Someone has to pay the taxes to support mac.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Republicans are playing with fire, playing politics with America's "unemployed" ...
...a Bloomberg poll taken July 9-12 shows 70% of those polled believe reducing unemployment is a priority over reducing the federal budget.
...for those clinging to their Bush tax cut for the wealthiest..the news from this poll is not good...
"The only deficit-reduction measure that gets strong support in the poll is higher taxes on upper-income Americans. "
You do realize that extending and keeping people on unemployment is not creating jobs or reducing the number on unemployment, right? Whereas tax cuts for business *may* create jobs where businesses cannot afford them before.. And of course higher taxes on the richer folk is going to be popular because most of them are not rich enough to have to pay those higher taxes..
If you tell the same group that we can continue to extend unemployment benefits but further down the road, they would have to pay higher taxes, you will see support for extending these benefits decrease by a major margin. If we continue down the road of deficit spending which is what we are doing by extending unemployment benefits we *all* will need to pay higher taxes later one.. One day we will need to pay the piper... If we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire in the meantime as well, then so be it as well.
If they really wanted to help the unemployed, there are better options than just give them free money. If they use up all their unemployment, then offer them money for community works.. Or you can use option B) subsidize their lower wage employment... or option C) Give tax credits to businesses to offset portions of wages on any new job they create.
Option A) we get something in return. B) we won't be spending as much and people would be more willing to take a lower job to get them by.. C) They'd be getting a job.
Quote:
Just as I have said, the priority for spending should be to continue to help those who are unemployed as a result of the WORST RECESSION IN AMERICA'S HISTORY...
Worst recesssion.. worst recession.. sorry but I think the Great Depression may have some differing opinions on what's worse... But we cannot continue to spend spend spend while we have no money to do so because all that is going to do is create a bigger problem down the road..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
GO Mrs. DC,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Tux the current administration does not care about getting people back to work and on their feet. The current administration cares about creating an even broader class of government dependence... that is why they seek to extend unemployment, that is why they seek to crush the middle class in the gulf coast by stopping drilling, that is why they are issuing big stimulus packages.... There are ways to encourage independence and prosperity and there are ways to promote government dependence and this administration, at every turn, is promoting government dependence.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Tux the current administration does not care about getting people back to work and on their feet. The current administration cares about creating an even broader class of government dependence... that is why they seek to extend unemployment, that is why they seek to crush the middle class in the gulf coast by stopping drilling, that is why they are issuing big stimulus packages.... There are ways to encourage independence and prosperity and there are ways to promote government dependence and this administration, at every turn, is promoting government dependence.
You forgot about granting amnesty to illegal aliens..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Good catch. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
my wife has an interview this afternoon for a job that she is way over-qualified for but is anxious to take if offered.... wish Mrs. DC the best please.
I wish her the best. I've seen the 'Sorry you are overqualified' quite a bit lately. Luckily on very low paying jobs, but I really believe people will need to start rolling the dice soon on all the overqualified people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
She just called, said it went well, said she is in fact over qualified and said that the pay is about half what she was making before. Half is still better than nothing. Problem is (if its a problem) my wife is almost too loyal. If she took a lower paying job she wouldn't want to leave it once the economy turns and she could get something that matches her skillset better... Oh well, we'll see what happens, they haven't offered it to her yet.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
But is there room for advancement in the future?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
J/C
I can't believe all the crap I'm reading. For all those people that think tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing, I have one question: Have you ever worked for a poor person in your life? Rich people usually become rich by busting their butts for a decade or so running their own business, until they can afford to pay someone to help run their business. After that, they hope to make enough to pay someone to run all but the upper management decisions in their company. Poor people don't own companies and don't hire workers.
Our corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world. If you add the ridiculous regulations our government forces on people, you will see why some companies move out of the country or outsource work to foreigners. Secondly, corporations don't pay taxes. The consumers of those corporations pay those taxes. If we lower tax rates for corporations, our corporations will have more cash to hire more workers and invest in their companies.
For those that don't think I know what I'm talking about, I remember working in the 80s and 90s. The companies I worked for did their best to hire and keep the best workers. They threw company parties with gormet meals, TV giveaways, vacation giveaways, and other goodies. We had beer of the month parties (Irish beer, Irish food, Irish music etc.), free juices, snacks, and lunches, and other perks. I rarely got a raise below 10%, because I always busted my butt and put forth my best effort. With the heavy regulations now, most people are lucky to get better than a 3% raise.
Cutting taxes on the populace will put more money in the pockets of consumers. People that work hard for their money are more than willing to spend their money for their comfort. I know I do. I'd love to have a newer car or bigger TV, and I don't have a problem with working my butt off to get it.
Unions do not help the worker, they stiffle the worker. Most unions dictate exactly what their workers will do, for how long, and what their path for advancement is. I'd rather have control of my future than some 3rd party. When I started with the company I work for now, I was able to negotiate my salary. I tried to get more money than I thought they would pay me, and haggled my way down to more than I expected in the first place. A union would have set my price for me. I worked hard, put in OT, and impressed my employers. Within 6 months, they gave me a 5% raise bringing me back up to my original price. They are very happy with me, as I excell at my job. A union would not allow me to do that. If we are all equal in the workplace, then we will all be equally poor. I'd rather put for more effort so I can put my kids into dance class, football, and other sports. I like working hard and being rewarded for my efforts. A union won't allow me to do that.
I am an individual that works hard to get ahead of those who don't work hard. I do this to acheive my dreams and help my kids acheive theirs. I want them to be exceptional, and I refuse to let the government drag them down to the level of everyone else.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
For all those people that think tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing, I have one question: Have you ever worked for a poor person in your life?
Yes, yes, and yes. Many, many, many times.
Quote:
Rich people usually become rich by busting their butts for a decade or so running their own business, until they can afford to pay someone to help run their business.
Depends on your definition on 'usually'. 'Rich' people, in many, many, many cases are given their money by inheritance. A larger percentage than anyone with your view would like to admit.
You ever hear the phrase 'it takes money to make money'? That's no lie.
I'm not trying to take away those who had nothing but busted themselves to get something --- that happens a lot too. A LOT. But to pretend like your cut and dried definition is anything but gullible fantasy ...
Quote:
Our corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world.
Now you wouldn't want to compare our corporate income to the rest of the world would you? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
Our corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world.
Now you wouldn't want to compare our corporate income to the rest of the world would you?
Tax rate is independent of income. Tax amount would be the product of income and rate.
So, if it is truly tax rate that he is meaning, then income amount is moot. A rate is a rate and is apples to apples to everyone else.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 106
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 106 |
Quote:
J/C
I can't believe all the crap I'm reading. For all those people that think tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing, I have one question: Have you ever worked for a poor person in your life? Rich people usually become rich by busting their butts for a decade or so running their own business, until they can afford to pay someone to help run their business. After that, they hope to make enough to pay someone to run all but the upper management decisions in their company. Poor people don't own companies and don't hire workers.
Our corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world. If you add the ridiculous regulations our government forces on people, you will see why some companies move out of the country or outsource work to foreigners. Secondly, corporations don't pay taxes. The consumers of those corporations pay those taxes. If we lower tax rates for corporations, our corporations will have more cash to hire more workers and invest in their companies.
For those that don't think I know what I'm talking about, I remember working in the 80s and 90s. The companies I worked for did their best to hire and keep the best workers. They threw company parties with gormet meals, TV giveaways, vacation giveaways, and other goodies. We had beer of the month parties (Irish beer, Irish food, Irish music etc.), free juices, snacks, and lunches, and other perks. I rarely got a raise below 10%, because I always busted my butt and put forth my best effort. With the heavy regulations now, most people are lucky to get better than a 3% raise.
Cutting taxes on the populace will put more money in the pockets of consumers. People that work hard for their money are more than willing to spend their money for their comfort. I know I do. I'd love to have a newer car or bigger TV, and I don't have a problem with working my butt off to get it.
Unions do not help the worker, they stiffle the worker. Most unions dictate exactly what their workers will do, for how long, and what their path for advancement is. I'd rather have control of my future than some 3rd party. When I started with the company I work for now, I was able to negotiate my salary. I tried to get more money than I thought they would pay me, and haggled my way down to more than I expected in the first place. A union would have set my price for me. I worked hard, put in OT, and impressed my employers. Within 6 months, they gave me a 5% raise bringing me back up to my original price. They are very happy with me, as I excell at my job. A union would not allow me to do that. If we are all equal in the workplace, then we will all be equally poor. I'd rather put for more effort so I can put my kids into dance class, football, and other sports. I like working hard and being rewarded for my efforts. A union won't allow me to do that.
I am an individual that works hard to get ahead of those who don't work hard. I do this to acheive my dreams and help my kids acheive theirs. I want them to be exceptional, and I refuse to let the government drag them down to the level of everyone else.
Remember the title of the post. "Republicans thwart bill with unemployment aid, AGAIN." They do this while prolonging tax breaks to the rich. I know most people, maybe all, speak from experience so I'm not shocked by your reply.
I am unemployed in Central Florida with a B.S. in Marketing and I have over 4 years of post college business experience. This is heartbreaking. My savings is dwindling while it seems like my bills are going up - and I'm trying to trim them down. I can't find any suitable type of work anywhere in Central Florida. I'm underqualified, I'm overqualified - I have heard it all. Just remember, there are other dawgtalkers out there that are in dire straights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But is there room for advancement in the future?
No, not really. It's a small office with just a handful of people...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
Remember the title of the post. "Republicans thwart bill with unemployment aid, AGAIN." They do this while prolonging tax breaks to the rich. I know most people, maybe all, speak from experience so I'm not shocked by your reply.
I went to a speech in Stamford, CT with Newt Gingrich speaking last night.
What he proposed at the speech would be to give people 4 weeks unemployment aid, and then after that requiring those still wanting to be on it to spend 3 days a week either, working a job for the govt. or getting educated/trained in updated or new skills.
This to me would make a lot of sense, if feasible. I guess the argument against would be that it would keep people from being able to spend 5 days a week applying for jobs, and that may be the cost of training/educated in new skills could be high (and the initiation costs could possibly be high).
But there are cases of people on unemployment who have given up looking for jobs and i think it would make sense to try and get the most productivity out of our population/system.
And as for tax-cuts for the rich, in general they're the ones who actually pay taxes, invest their money in corporations, and they're the ones that hire people. It sounds bad, but in the past, tax cuts across the board, esp. for the "rich", have worked. As Purp has said, we just need to also cut our spending substantially. It's fairly simple business/economics IMO
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 07/15/10 08:37 AM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Remember the title of the post. "Republicans thwart bill with unemployment aid, AGAIN." They do this while prolonging tax breaks to the rich. I know most people, maybe all, speak from experience so I'm not shocked by your reply.
I am unemployed in Central Florida with a B.S. in Marketing and I have over 4 years of post college business experience. This is heartbreaking. My savings is dwindling while it seems like my bills are going up - and I'm trying to trim them down. I can't find any suitable type of work anywhere in Central Florida. I'm underqualified, I'm overqualified - I have heard it all. Just remember, there are other dawgtalkers out there that are in dire straights.
TLBorlando...don't be surprised if all the "anti American worker" Republicans on this board, ignore your post.
Anyone posting on this message board, about the "reality" of today's employment situation, is immediately classified as "a lazy, no good democrat".
Republicans on this message board believe deficit financed tax cuts for the wealthiest, is a good thing...that trickle down economics is the only economic model this country should consider.
We just lived through 8 years of trickle down economics that rewarded the richest Americans...after living through 8 years of Democratic economic policies that focused on raising taxes on the richest and targeting tax cuts toward the working class....
...yet the GWBush Republicans on this message board will tell you that the Bush tax cuts should be extended...
Republicans cannot face reality...trickle down economics failed (again) and many Americans seeking work live with that reality, today...Americans like Dawgtalker TLBorlando...
TL...welcome to the board and thanks for adding your comments.
...note: I have no idea if TL is a democrat or republican...folks need to realize, many "republicans" are unemployed too!
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
We just lived through 8 years of trickle down economics that rewarded the richest Americans...after living through 8 years of Democratic economic policies that focused on raising taxes on the richest and targeting tax cuts toward the working class....
Democratic policies...........Like a balanced budget and huge reductions in spending in Washington by republican congresses Mac?
Part of the problems we may be faced were those two idiot democrats working for Fannie and Freddie the wonderful Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who put us into this home mortgage crisis by doing everything they could to offer loans to people who simply couldn't afford them. Don't forget that one..........
As far as I'm concerned, within two years, the democrats have managed to spend absurd amounts of money (much more than GWB) and continue to rack up a debt that was already way too high because George Bush was a fairly big spender as well (which should be blamed on him, as well as our congress). We need small government, low regulation, low taxes. That way our country doesn't go bankrupt too. Look at the governments of Greece, Italy, and Spain, all countries have large public sectors with major spending problems, all going broke.
Our country needs to learn to live within its means, that goes for the government as well as the people.
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 07/15/10 08:50 AM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We just lived through 8 years of trickle down economics that rewarded the richest Americans...after living through 8 years of Democratic economic policies that focused on raising taxes on the richest and targeting tax cuts toward the working class....
If you think that was the difference between the Clinton years and the Bush years then you are seriously dumber than I thought.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Well, Al Gore did invent the internet which was responsible for one of the greatest economic booms in history. The Clinton administration certainly deserves some credit for this  NRTU, but I am so freaking tired of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans crap! The tax cuts were for EVERYONE mac! Will you at least admit that instead of repeatedly saying "tax cuts for the wealthy"? If the Bush tax cuts are to be eliminated, ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE ELIMINATED! Put it back to the way it was so ALL Americans have a stake in their country.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
TL, Sorry to hear about your tough times. My family has gone through tough times in the past as well. I know it isn't easy and I hope you will be able to find a job soon. mac, I like how you immediately answer someone who agrees with your opinion. Like I told you before mac, the Bush tax cuts did not decrease revenue to the government. I REPEAT THE BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT DECREASE REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. They increased it, the problem wasn't the tax cuts, it was the increase in spending that far outweighed the increase in revenue. Also the Bush tax cuts were for EVERYONE THAT PAYS TAXES. I am in no way shape or form rich. in fact I made even less when the tax cuts were put into place. I think I made 28k gross that year at age 22. And in the mail I received a check for $150. I remember I used the money to buy myself a mini-disc player from Coconuts in Macedonia (great investment huh, I actually still have it too  .) So how can it be a tax cuts for only the rich when a 22yo kid that was making 28k got a tax cut??? My final thing to point out in your arrogance is you keep on saying this was all cause from 8 years of republican leadership. I seem to recall that the democrats took control of Congress in 2007. So why didn't they start changing things back then??? Not to mention you completely ignore the impact of the housing market crash which you can not lay the complete blame on the republicans for that mess. Sure they have blame but the democrats damn near engineered that from the beginning. If the democrats were so much for the working people then why didn't they just do a bill for unemployment? Why to they want to be able to insert a bunch of pet projects into a bill that is suppose to be for the working American? Because they really don't care (and neither do the republicans) about the working American. It's nothing but a political slogan to get what they really want. The republicans did the same stuff when they were in control. But that doesn't make what the democrats are doing now right. Two wrongs don't make a right. The democrats and republicans all have blame on the shape of our economy and instead of really doing things that will help they both want to soapbox to further their agendas.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, but 3 lefts make a right. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Republicans are playing a game with America's unemployed that could blow up in their faces. Blocking unemployment benefits to Americans who were laid off due to the GREAT GWBUSH RECESSION, is not a popular position. Obviously, most Americans are not buying the GOPs sudden interest in reducing the deficit as a legitimate excuse for blocking unemployment benefits... ... or maybe most Americans recognize the level of HYPOCRACY being exhibited by the GOP, claiming deficit financed tax cuts for the rich IS OK WITH THEM, while the deficit financed extension of unemployment benefits for unemployed AMERICANS , IS A BAD THING. Republicans in congress and those who support them are out of step with "most" Americans. Voters Say To Hell With Deficit Reduction, Help The Unemployed
07-14-10
Two national polls released Tuesday revealed that registered voters think it's more important to help the unemployed than to reduce the deficit.
Voters are generally wary of government spending to boost the economy, but they nevertheless told ABC News and CBS News that the deficit is no reason not to help the unemployed.
Fifty-two percent of voters told CBS that Congress should extend unemployment benefits "even if it means increasing the budget deficit," including 35 percent of Republicans. Sixty-two percent of registered voters told ABC Congress should extend benefits despite concerns that doing so "adds too much to the federal budget deficit."
In a Bloomberg survey, 70 percent of voters said reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the deficit. But only 47 percent said Congress should reauthorize extended benefits, which in some states provided the unemployed with up to 99 weeks of checks.
A poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project in June found that 74 percent of voters think helping the unemployed is more important than reducing the deficit.
Extended benefits for the long-term unemployed lapsed at the end of May because Republicans and some Democrats in Congress insisted that the cost of the jobless aid not be added to the deficit.
Though ABC notes that this issue "may be one place for Obama and the Democrats to try for traction," they haven't found it. During the past several weeks, Democrats in the Senate have been unable to muster the 60 votes they need to break a Republican filibuster, failing by just one vote in the most recent attempt. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that Democrats will try again on Tuesday, after the swearing-in of a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).
The poll results suggest that most voters agree with economist Mark Zandi, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, who has argued that helping the unemployed is more important than deficit reduction in the short-term, and that nickel-and-diming the unemployed now could jeopardize the economic recovery.
Democrats, including Reid, have said several times in recent weeks that jeopardizing the recovery seems to be exactly what the GOP is trying to do. "It wouldn't do their electoral prospects any harm for there to be more economic misery in America before the election, let's put it that way," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Republicans are playing a game with America's unemployed that could blow up in their faces.
Blocking unemployment benefits to Americans who were laid off due to the GREAT GWBUSH RECESSION, is not a popular position. Obviously, most Americans are not buying the GOPs sudden interest in reducing the deficit as a legitimate excuse for blocking unemployment benefits...
... or maybe most Americans recognize the level of HYPOCRACY being exhibited by the GOP, claiming deficit financed tax cuts for the rich IS OK WITH THEM, while the deficit financed extension of unemployment benefits for unemployed AMERICANS , IS A BAD THING.
Republicans in congress and those who support them are out of step with "most" Americans.
Blah, blah, blah. Just because you capitalize a bunch of words to emphasize them doesn't mean anything.
To all...talking with my neighbor last night, he said he is collecting something like $600 every two weeks on unemployment. $1200 a month? You have got to be kidding me. Something is terribly wrong with this picture. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
In a Bloomberg survey, 70 percent of voters said reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the deficit. But only 47 percent said Congress should reauthorize extended benefits, which in some states provided the unemployed with up to 99 weeks of checks.
It would appear that Bloomberg surveyed the most intelligent group of people because they get it. Reducting unemployment is more important in the short term than reducing the deficit, that's why 70% of the people voted that way.. However a large percentage were smart enough to realize that this bill does NOTHING to reduce unemployment so they voted to NOT extend benefits via this bill.
If congress could come back with a non-pork loaded bill that helps the unemployed and has a chance at helping to create a few jobs I might get behind it... they throw this crap bill out there than call anybody opposed to it insensitive.. what a bunch of morons.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 70 |
I don't think he realizes that Congress has all the say in budget/tax rate bills. The president can only sign or veto a bill (of course as president, he does have considerable pull)
"Every time that I score, I'm going to get the ball and sign it "To Holmgren" and give it to him just so he has the proof that I'm worth every penny"- JC
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
mac, I like how you immediately answer someone who agrees with your opinion.
Like I told you before mac, the Bush tax cuts did not decrease revenue to the government. I REPEAT THE BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT DECREASE REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. They increased it, the problem wasn't the tax cuts, it was the increase in spending that far outweighed the increase in revenue.
free...it's easy to "say" but show me the evidence.
Maybe at a point in time, what you say is true, BUT, something went horribly wrong with the Bush economy.
We have the luxury of looking back at the last 8 years under the GOP "trickle down" economic model and see that IT DID NOT WORK!
We also have the luxury of looking back at the 8 years previous to the GW Bush economics and compare them to the Clinton/Dem economic policies and see which economic model worked the best for America.
Obviously, Bush's economic model did not match or pay for his ambitious Republican agenda, because it came up unbelievably short, didn't it?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
The housing boom went bust ..... loans went bad .... and the ecomony collapsed.
It was similar to what happened at the end of the dot com bubble.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
mac your conclusion is correct but your path to getting there is terribly flawed. Quote:
Maybe at a point in time, what you say is true, BUT, something went horribly wrong with the Bush economy.
Tech bubble bust, 9/11, Katrina, housing bubble bust.. mac there are plenty of reasons economies move and taxes is only one small part of it. If there was an ideal level of taxation that works in all economies don't you think some brilliant guy would have figured it out and we could just adjust accordingly and never had any kind of a dip in the economy? I'm not assigning any blame but the groundwork for a lot of what derailed the economy during the Bush term was laid during the Clinton years, part of it was in the "Crap happens" category like 9/11 and Katrina which I won't blame on anybody... and unfortunately much of it was self-inclicted because of the republicans in congress spending like crazy and Bush signing it and trying to take dem issues like prescription drugs... Then there is the one war that most people support and the ill-conceived one that could have been avoided..... A lot of blame to go around for why the Bush economy was so bad... sure a fair amount of it falls on Bush, but some of it does not.... I know you don't want to ever admit it but economies don't change on a dime when there is a change in the oval office.
Quote:
We also have the luxury of looking back at the 8 years previous to the GW Bush economics and compare them to the Clinton/Dem economic policies and see which economic model worked the best for America.
The economic model that clearly works the best is when you have some huge dynamic shift in the economy... which we have had about 4 times in our history.... we had the gold rush, we had the industrial revolution, we had the post WWII boom, and we had the tech boom.. mac as much as you want to give credit to clinton for the economy, those things cannot be predicted, Clinton was the beneficiary, good for him. Clinton could have lowered taxes to 10% on the wealthiest Americans and we would have had a booming economy and an economic surplus because money was moving at a rapid speed due to the tech boom. Clinton also benefitted from Newt Gingrich's republican congress that sort of acted like conservatives are supposed to act.
To simply say that Clinton raising taxes on the wealthy by 3% and Bush cutting them back by a few % is the reason for all that has happened is incredibly shortsighted and narrow minded... and I really hope that on some deeper level you understand that.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans Thwart Bill With
Unemployment Aid, "AGAIN" - contd.
|
|
