Debt

Dave, as we bicker amongst ourselves, so do those a-holes in DC, its a stalemate, it got to big for its own good, Obama is a weak pres, just like Carter,(doing more good know than when he was CEO) but i watch these debates amongst the GOP and all they do is point, I want someone that is going to pop out from the group and grab the bull by its balls and squeeze, im past the boy who cried wolf. I just shake my head and gave both parties a chance, it really seems to me that its a mockery of what are founding fathers set out to do

is a dictatorship possible? this democracy thing aint working anymore

OOW....I am sure there are millions of people that truly don't want to be unemployed. And, that is very unfortunate. I feel for those people. Its too bad that companies like GE are moving jobs to China. You know GE right? Its the company headed up by Jeff Immelt who is Chair of Obama's Jobs Board. Tell me that one doesn't have some bad optics.

Employers aren't hiring right now because of our Dear Leaders policies. Its all about the high costs, and uncertainties associated with Obamacare, and other regulations his regime is putting into place. I think you will see employment start to increase once we have a new President and the old policies being repealed.

But, regarding "welfare for work", maybe it won't lead to massive new employment, BUT, don't you think that it will do some good? Instead of people not having to lift a finger to get a welfare check, they would at least have to get off their arses, get up in the morning, go to work, learn a skill, and learn how to work with others? Maybe that in turn will lead to the possibility of getting a job when the economy turns around. I fear though that for some in our society, its too late. They have become so accustomed to having the govt take care of them, they are now hopeless. They are the ones that are doing drugs, involved in crime, and have large numbers of illegitmate children because the government has taught them that they can get more $$$$ for each kid they have. Unintended consequences.....

Remind me again what is is about liberalism that is so wonderful???

now the next question, I know this, you know this, dont you think the guys with PHDs which we elect know this too?

you rarely hear about the type of drugs people are on nowadays, I would bet 90% of the drugs people are on are prescribed drugs, not illegal, thats big business itself, so if you back up the clock why is this country so saturated with prescribed narcotics? down south here in ohio they have pain clinics set up, walk in walk out and you have a prescription for 90 oxys which go for about 50 bucks apiece on the streets. its a synthesized form of heroin. the only people supposedly that get these are cancer patients. when you cant get these then the user switches to heroin itself.
so when you talk about drug use in this country it originates here from professionals ie: doctors, guys that spend 8 years in college to obtain a degree, men who take a oath,
meth, also made here in the trailer parks of America, it really all boils down to the almighty greedy dollar, medicate the masses which happens to be the poor person in this country and profit.
so at the end of the day who is responsible?

davidg wrote: ononewheel wrote: Well, did you read what I posted about the drug testing?   Are you just going to sweep what I said under the rug, and forget about it? Ok, so we require them to do work. I agree with you!! Except that about shoots the argument of government creating jobs right in the heart. Yes, I read what you posted about drug testing. I heard the same results you did on MSNBC (yes, I watch MSNBC occasionally....when Fox News has a commercial on:). Maybe its true, maybe its not. Lets say it is. Even if its only 2% that test positive for drugs, I say they shouldnt get govt money if they are on drugs. As for the other 8%, the private sector will eventually take care of them. And, as long as we are already paying people for doing nothing except staying home and having more kids to get more welfare, lets put them to work in the process. We will at least get some value for the money we are already spending, and maybe people will decide that IF they have to work anyway, maybe they will decide that welfare fraud is just not worth it, clean themselves up, and go get a real job.

Yeah, the idea of putting people to work for unemployment benefits and welfare has been floated around and it does seem to be gathering support.

I say it is a hell of an idea. Why not. I say many would benefit, and it just might help drag us out of this slump. I think many employers could use the help, especially those afraid to hire right now. I can only imagine the amount of people who would find a well paying job just because of this "program".


I still say many are unemployed, not because they want to be.

Heres a fun quote


Pro golfer Paul Azinger thinks President Obama might be hitting the links a bit too hard.

The author, businessman and 12-time PGA Tour winner took to Twitter Thursday to zing the commander-in-chief over his frequent golf outings while on vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

"Facts: Potus has played more golf this month than I have: I have created more jobs this month than he has," Azinger wrote.

ononewheel wrote: Well, did you read what I posted about the drug testing?   Are you just going to sweep what I said under the rug, and forget about it? Ok, so we require them to do work. I agree with you!! Except that about shoots the argument of government creating jobs right in the heart.

Yes, I read what you posted about drug testing. I heard the same results you did on MSNBC (yes, I watch MSNBC occasionally....when Fox News has a commercial on:). Maybe its true, maybe its not. Lets say it is. Even if its only 2% that test positive for drugs, I say they shouldnt get govt money if they are on drugs. As for the other 8%, the private sector will eventually take care of them.

And, as long as we are already paying people for doing nothing except staying home and having more kids to get more welfare, lets put them to work in the process. We will at least get some value for the money we are already spending, and maybe people will decide that IF they have to work anyway, maybe they will decide that welfare fraud is just not worth it, clean themselves up, and go get a real job.   

Well, did you read what I posted about the drug testing?   Are you just going to sweep what I said under the rug, and forget about it?

Ok, so we require them to do work. I agree with you!!

Except that about shoots the argument of government creating jobs right in the heart.

Remember there were problems with regan too.

The horse is only half as good as having the carriage with the horse.


The economy had nowhere to go but up under Bush, and lowered taxes didn't help there.

89Ski_Nautique wrote: Good article by Stephen Moore, refer to the link below: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics I agree whole heartly that "Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs. But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?" Randy

That is an interesting article. Kinda what I thought before I even read it, Mr. Moore has been a supply side guru from day one.

Because that article leaves out so many details it can hardly be used to bolster support for "lowering taxes".   Anyone with an above average knowledge base in economics of any sort, articulate, and a forum for their particular ideology could do the exact same work Mr. Moore has done.   During these years the economy had nowhere to go but up, remember that.

Good article by Stephen Moore, refer to the link below:

Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics

I agree whole heartly that "Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.
But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?"

Randy

ononewheel wrote: Dave, It used to work that way, it was called profit sharing. That isn't what the Verzion strike was all about but whatever. ....Hey, I just agreed with you. Don't get used to it.

Seth, I wont get used to it but it is kind of nice now and then.

Verizon has many divisions each has performance expectations, while Verizon is profitable overall they own some phone utilities that are old school wires on poles. The guys that maintain the lines are the ones with issues. Unfotunatly that particular industry is in decline. People are dumping hard wired phones for internet phone and cell service. Providers are having to drop prices to compete, and the infrastructure is aging and needing more repair. This is a dying industry. I would not be surprised if someone told me new developments will no longer be wired for telephone service in the near future. It can all be handled with cable, satalite and cell. It will take time but phone lines will likely go the way of the horse and buggy. Unfortunatly the jobs and money will go with them. I worked in a profitable division of a company that was losing money elsewhere, it is an injustice to have money taken from one division to prop up another on a long term basis. We would see facilities remodled and continue to loose money while we drove ambulances with 300+ thousand miles on them and were told there were no funds to replace them. Things change and that has consequences. Sometimes your job drops in value and pay and bennifits will have to reflect that.

when you dont give em money they show up at your door,
one on one, the figure is 3.6 trillion for a war on oil and we didnt get any, I havnt look at the casualty numbers either.

You are talking of poverty and you seem to worry about them quite a bit. I dont mind helping them folks out, our country is great like that. But what are half of welfare folks on, what do poor folks do when you flip em 5 at a light. You think they really have a agenda to get out of the poverty life. Hell no! Boozers, loosers, dont want to work anyways. When you give em the 5, straight to the store for booze or to the dealers house.

I think the next pubby that gets elected, fix this welfare crap. Everyone can get on it but high stipulations and DRUG TESTS to being on welfare. I guranntee that over half of peps on welfare are on the ***************g crak pipe when they are suppose to buy food, shoes, diapers for the babys but they dont care.