CRR- sure, but those statistics don't take into consideration people that haven't been able to find a job and used up their unemployment. It also doesn't state that people are making less money at these new jobs than at their old ones that were shipped to China. So, yeah, with first hand experience I can say that the economy isn't doing great.
Bush: Work three jobs? That's fantastic!
by Elsewhere 49 Replies latest jw friends
-
under74
-
ColdRedRain
But those statistics take into account that there are jobs being spawned as we speak. A year ago at this time, the employment newspaper in my area was only 7-8 pages long and none of those jobs lasted more than one printing. Now, the employment newspaper here is around 10-12 pages long and those jobs are lasting 2, even 3-4 printings.
The economy recovered all of it's jobs lost during the 2000(Guess who was president back then?)-2003 job recession and 146 thousand more to date.
In 2005, the economy's going to spawn an expected 2-3 million new jobs (although conservative estimates put it around 1 million.)
The jobs that are being outsourced to India are jobs that would be lost to some other country because we simply don't have a monopoly on these industries anymore. Remember when most of our automotive jobs went to Asia and Mexico? Asians and Mexicans learned how to make cars when the USA had a monopoly on it and most of our automotive jobs went to those countries.
Also is the example of IT. In the beginning, the only country in the world that made PC's was the USA. Now you can get Korean computers, Japaneese computers, German computers, British computers, and even computers made in Iceland.
I sense a great ignorance about economics on this board. Despite our industries losing their grips on their monopolies, the sky's not falling.
In fact, there are new industries popping up. Because you want it to fall because you don't like a man that's in charge doesn't mean it's falling.
ColdRedRain, of the Business Major class
-
Gretchen956
And the majority of those new jobs are service oriented which is why you need three jobs to pay the rent. So, we have more people off the unemployment roles who are still out of work but aren't on the statistics anymore. We have people like me, who lost their job and could only find on paying 14k a year LESS. Or you have those who have to hold down numerous jobs just to keep a roof over their heads. And you have people like my friend who just went on Social Security which will now be his only income. For myself, I don't want to be paying brokerage fees and making wall street rich off my social security. Leave it to Bush to find ANOTHER way of making money for his business cronies off the backs of us working people.
There are SO many people on the verge of being homeless, many only a paycheck or two away. And, the new budget severely cuts social programs.
The only good thing lately that I see is that with farm subsidies being drastically cut people can actually FEEL that they are getting f%cked. Before that moral superiority thing was WAY more important.
Sherry
-
jeanniebeanz
No wonder he's getting so much gray hair! Poor fella...
Jean
-
funkyderek
There are SO many people on the verge of being homeless, many only a paycheck or two away. And, the new budget severely cuts social programs.
Cutting social programs means lower taxes, which means higher take-home pay, more investment, higher rates of employment, fewer low-paid jobs being outsourced, all of which will lower the unemployment rate.
The only good thing lately that I see is that with farm subsidies being drastically cut people can actually FEEL that they are getting f%cked.
Agreed. It's good that your government has finally realised they shouldn't be paying farmers not to produce food. Farmers should be competitors in a free market, like everybody else. Again, this means more money in the hands of the people who earned it.
-
ColdRedRain
Cutting social programs means lower taxes, which means higher take-home pay, more investment, higher rates of employment, fewer low-paid jobs being outsourced, all of which will lower the unemployment rate.
Which is true in theory, but not in practice. The cuts do not always result in lower taxes, just pork programs for congressmen. If we can eliminate pork, we can both have lower taxes and a very healthy social benefit system. Pork alone costs billions which could go into helping a minority businessman *cough cough* go into business.
And besides, it's not even a true cut. It's just a reduction in growth of those social programs. Last budget, they got a 7% monetary increase over the budget before it the year before. This year, it's just a 5% increase. That's not a true cut. It's a reduction in growth, which means one thing: The Republican party has hoodwinked us again.
-
CoonDawg
Cutting social programs means lower taxes, which means higher take-home pay, more investment, higher rates of employment, fewer low-paid jobs being outsourced, all of which will lower the unemployment rate.
True, but you have to realize too, that though your federal taxes may not be used for social programs, a society is only as good as it's weakest members. How do you think these will be taken care of? Cuts are being made in areas where they shouldn't ....areas that have proven results...like the COPS program that helped reduce crime. You'd think in this age of international terrorism and homeland security that we'd want to have more first responders on the front lines every day. Oh, the government wants that so they can claim the credit, but they are too beholden to big business to make them pay for it. Instead it falls back to the middle and lower class working folks who take the hit in local taxes and property taxes. Unfunded mandates still cost money.
Also, I constantly hear the government talk about it being "our money"....well, it is...but it's an insurance program, not an entitlement program. The plan that seems to make sense to me is to encourage additional retirment savings by giving tax breaks above and beyone what IRA's and 401K programs already qualify for. Leave the Social Security safety net in place for when another World Com or Enron screws people out of the money they've invested in "secure" companies they won't have to eat catfood and drink their own urine.
Mr. Bush has been hollering about the crisis in Social Security since his failed run for congress in 1978. Sure, it needs some adjustments, but the reported crisis is quite simply overblown.
As far as working multiple jobs to make it, well, I've been there when I've had to be. I am now in a position to save some money for retirement with only working one job....that takes alot of time every week....but I like knowing that a safety net is there.
I still don't see how the job numbers are all that great when our job creation still is at a negative balance since 2000. Our job growth rate hasn't even kept pace with the population increases. Long term unemployment claims are still through the roof....and the figures don't take into account those who have dropped off the unemployment rolls because of exhausted benefits.
Do I think that this is Bush's fault entirely? no. But I do think that his flippant view of the effects of his policies don't help the situation. Having such a huge trade deficit isn't helping either...and now we're looking at a budget that doens't take into account the ever mounting costs of the war or the transitional costs of this proposed "fixing" of social security (to the tune of about 2 trillion bucks). Oh, sure, I guess we can keep mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren to the Saudis and the Chineese....but we'll be dead, so who cares, Right?
Ern
-
Preston
I'm not too crazy about Bush (not Bush the man but Bush the policy maker) but I don't think Bush was saying that it was "fantastic" that the woman was working "three job" I think Bush was sayiing that it was "fantastic" that the woman was willing to do whatever it took for her kids.
- Preston
-
roybatty
It isn't Bush who's created this economy, it's the Wal-Marts and mega-corporations and we who support them (either by buying the products they sell or being stockholders that demand more profits). I'm no Allen Greenspan but I'll give you a personal example. I own a small, engineering and manfacturing business. Need a new product designed an manufactured?, I'm your man. Anyway, one of my biggest clients sells house hold products to Wal-Mart. You as a customer want lower prices, Wal-Mart puts pressure on my client for lower cost (no matter what the cost) and he puts pressure on me. I hear it all the time from them "What do you mean you can't cut your costs by 30%? I can get that same machine built in China for much less....blah blah blah." Well, a Chinese toolmaker makes oh, about a dollar a day. My guys make anywhere from $18.00 to $25.00 an hour plus benefits. Nothing steller but a decent living. Now multiply this problem nationwide and you see the problem. Good paying, manufacturing jobs are leaving the U.S. faster then you can blink. So when I go out of business and my toolmaker who makes $22.00 an hour is out of a job, what will he need to do? Since there aren't any manufacturing jobs left, he's going to have to work during the day at Wal-Mart making $8.00 an hour and at night at some trucking firm (making $8.00 an hour) unloading Chinese made goods. He'll then spend his money at Wal-Mart because it will be the cheapest place to shop and that's all he can afford to buy...cheap Chinese made goods. The irony kills me.
-
ColdRedRain
I still don't see how the job numbers are all that great when our job creation still is at a negative balance since 2000. Our job growth rate hasn't even kept pace with the population increases. Long term unemployment claims are still through the roof....and the figures don't take into account those who have dropped off the unemployment rolls because of exhausted benefits.
Liberals are funny. State a fact to them (I.E. Bush wasn't president in 2000 so there's no way he could have affected the economy, the job market fully recovered it's losses since the job recession) and they completley ignore it like nothing's going on.
Just look at one of my posts above.
Annnyyyyways...
Also, I constantly hear the government talk about it being "our money"....well, it is...but it's an insurance program, not an entitlement program. The plan that seems to make sense to me is to encourage additional retirment savings by giving tax breaks above and beyone what IRA's and 401K programs already qualify for. Leave the Social Security safety net in place for when another World Com or Enron screws people out of the money they've invested in "secure" companies they won't have to eat catfood and drink their own urine.
Social security is an entitlement program. My mom paid jack shit in social security, guess what she's getting? Yup, social security benefits. And social security isn't going away. It's just getting privatized so people won't have to deal with the fact that in 20 years, SS is going to start paying out more than it's getting in. And where do you think the money spent from the privitization of social security is going to go to once it's spent?
Taxes, which in turn, will still build up the social saftey net.