Debt

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.   

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.

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.

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?

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

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???

is a dictatorship possible? this democracy thing aint working anymore

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

I think the BJs relieved the presidential tension, come on Kennedy did it too

davidg wrote: eric lavine wrote: is a dictatorship possible? this democracy thing aint working anymore I would argue that the soft dictatorship we have been living under for the past 2 1/2 years isn't working. In fact, you can see what its doing to our country, and people are rejecting it. Its time to end this little experiement and put democracy back to work again. Its works everytime its tried.

With all the regulation the govt has put out in the last two years we we have more dictated control than ever in history. Hows it working? It has frozen business. If it lasts it will chase far more employment off shore. If you think about it takes an amazing amount to get these companies to move from this country where wages and bennefits might be $50 an hour, to countrys where wages and bennefits might be $10. What do you think it will take to get them back? We will have to work for free. Better to keep them in the first place, they are our life blood and we are chasing them away.

heavy taxes on imports? I watched i think it was 60 minutes, the CEO of Cisco said himself the we created to good of incentives to move abroad, corporatly i believe they pay 17% because they are based in Sweden with 1 girl in a rented office, thats the corps home address, he himself seems like he doesnt mind being set up here in the US and pay the standard 35%....at the end of the day though, he is a businessman, I cant remember what the savings were, maybe 21 billion???
swipe a pen, and if you want to do major business in this country, you have to be based in this country or you pay a high import tax, i believe they are 600 hundred major corps based in Ireland doing the same thing, phizer, phiezer being one of them

On Healthcare, get the government out of the way, and let the free market come in to compete, and costs will come down. Right now, the government won't let insurance companies compete across state lines. Its amazing what will happen to costs when you have competition. I am in the plastics industry, and I see it everyday. COSTS COME DOWN!!!

When is the last time the government managed anything efficiently? They can't even send a letter out without losing money.

OverMyHead wrote: Seth, you didnt comment on the Newgate program that raises people out of poverty. You have said you hate monopolies, but the govt has a monopoly on welfare, and unemployment. They take the money at the threat of invading your homes with guns if you do not pay. I would rather choose to give money to innovative programs than a one fits all unsuccesfull govt plan. We have been fighting the war on poverty for over 60 years. It is by far the most expensive we have ever fought, the result. in total numbers there are far more in poverty now than when we started. In percentages we have the same in poverty now as we did when we started and there has been very little fluctuation o0ver the 60 years. We not only have not one the war, but we have yet to win a battle. This is what happens when you have a monopoly. the program is used to buy votes. It is not helping anyone rise out of the situation. You say there are people on welfare that would chose to get off it if they could. These are the people that would find something else if welfare were not there, it is just convienient and easy to collect the check. Another group will not get off till they are cut off, but we do not cut them off, so we will pay forever. It is broken system, that needs to be re-designed on a clean sheet of paper, probably in the private sector where people expect results.

As for Newgate, I am not familiar with that exact program but I am with others like it.   I was the coordinator with a program called "fresh start", after my first tour. It is very similar to Newgate I imagine, except it is building houses using almost solely "at risk youth" , which are then sold to families who meet certain criteria. This one however was partially funded federally through Americorp.

Excellent program, I didn't last long though. My mentality just wasn't with a wanna be gangster, who had not a shred of respect. I let my temper get the best of me, and I re-upped.

Anyway, these programs are great but I just can't see how they would replace the the current system.

I better like the idea spoken about recently on this thread. How about you take the folks on Unemployment and get them in touch with employers somehow. The unemployed still get a check, the employer gets some labor in return for paying the unemployment insurance and hopefully they form a relationship that turns into a regular position.

I do question specifics about how it would function as if the employers simply chooses to continue paying the UC insurance, it would be cheaper for them than assigning the person as full time.

Dave, you are right our current system is broken, couldn't agree with you more. Where you and I differ is how we should fix it. I still contend many currently unemployed are so not because they want to get this huge check every week.    I just don't agree with you about the private sector, that is not the answer to all our problems.

eric lavine wrote: im still having a very hard time with the HC system in this country, i really feel the insurance companies are in deep dictating, monopolizing, picking and choosing, people are living longer, I could put a new set of tires on a car, but its still a pos, its draining the entire system as Dave points out in an earlier post of one part of a business that suffers you then pull from a positve entity, something has to be done to the HC system to contain the costs, the COG should go down as time passes, but it isnt, not that long ago, 15 years, i didnt have to come up with a nickle to pay for HC because it was covered by the employer medical, dental, eye 100%. now i pay out of pocket as most do and it crunches your bottem line at home, now you cant buy that new car which stimulates, those new 180.00 Nikes, a boat and so on....start at the core, fck i need a new fridge, but I'll wait

I find it funny the amount of republicans fighting "the affordable care act",   before Obama was in, it was talked about constantly, and they were for it.

You can have affordable care, or you can have the current system. The current one is broken. All those that are not covered, get expensive treatment, and you pay for it anyway. But common problems that are not life threatening go untreated.

Pretty damn sad in this country you have to be part of the "haves" to get some treatment for a common problem. Oh, you have a job at Walmart but no insurance, and you cannot afford to get eye surgery so you can see well, sorry , only the strong survive. That is pretty much what the Republican party stands for.

I spent two tears in Costa Rica. Costa Rica that little third world country. EVERYONE there was covered. EVERYONE. How can they do it? Of course to follow an example we would have to change some values we have come to accept as normal.

ononewheel wrote: Dave, you are right our current system is broken, couldn't agree with you more. Where you and I differ is how we should fix it. I still contend many currently unemployed are so not because they want to get this huge check every week.    I just don't agree with you about the private sector, that is not the answer to all our problems.

And this is what you see as the soulution.