Unemployment for young Americans over 52%

[spursncowboys]

The dead end kids

By RICHARD WILNER
Last Updated: 4:45 AM, September 27, 2009
Posted: 1:34 AM, September 27, 2009
The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.
And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession -- in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.
"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."
Al Angrisani, the former assistant Labor Department secretary under President Reagan, doesn't see a turnaround in the jobs picture for entry-level workers and places the blame squarely on the Obama administration and the construction of its stimulus bill.
"There is no assistance provided for the development of job growth through small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs in the country," Angrisani said in an interview last week. "All those [unemployed young people] should be getting hired by small businesses."
There are six million small businesses in the country, those that employ less than 100 people, and a jobs stimulus bill should include tax credits to give incentives to those businesses to hire people, the former Labor official said.
"If each of the businesses hired just one person, we would go a long way in growing ourselves back to where we were before the recession," Angrisani noted.
During previous recessions, in the early '80s, early '90s and after Sept. 11, 2001, unemployment among 16-to-24 year olds never went above 50 percent. Except after 9/11, jobs growth followed within two years.
A much slower recovery is forecast today. Shierholz believes it could take four or five years to ramp up jobs again.
A study from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a government database, said the damage to a new career by a recession can last 15 years. And if young Americans are not working and becoming productive members of society, they are less likely to make major purchases -- from cars to homes -- thus putting the US economy further behind the eight ball.
Angrisani said he believes that Obama's economic team, led by Larry Summers, has a blind spot for small business because no senior member of the team -- dominated by academics and veterans of big business -- has ever started and grown a business.
"The Reagan administration had people who knew of small business," he said.
"They should carve out $100 billion right now and create something like $5,000 to $6,000 job credits that would drive the hiring of young, idled workers by small business."
Angrisani said the stimulus money going to extending unemployment benefits is like a narcotic that is keeping the unemployed content -- but doing little to get them jobs.
Labor Dept. statistics also show that the number of chronically unemployed -- those without a job for 27 weeks or more -- has also hit a post-WWII high. Could it be that when they raised the minimum wage, they hurt the very same people they were going to "help"? Just a thought.
Where is Obama's exit strategy for this recession, besides talking about Bush?

[boutons_deux]

"Just a thought"

and it's still just bullshit.

Minimum wage ain't the problem.

"Where is Obama's exit strategy for this recession,"

read the fucking papers.

Much of stimulus funds haven't been disbursed yet, but the floodgates are opening.

[PEP]

"Just a thought"

and it's still just bullshit.

Minimum wage ain't the problem.

"Where is Obama's exit strategy for this recession,"

read the fucking papers.

Much of stimulus funds haven't been disbursed yet, but the floodgates are opening.
Are you a business owner?

Whats going to happen when the floodgates are opened? Is unemployment going to go down to 0?

[ChumpDumper]

Did it ever go down to zero under Reagan?

[PEP]

Did it ever go down to zero under Reagan?
Well Bououtons, is it?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll answer and say unemployment will not go down to zero when the stimulus monsy is actually spent.

Now, could you answer and say whether it went to zero under Reagan?

[SnakeBoy]

Unemployment never went to zero under Reagan therefore everything is just peachy now. Mmm, mmm, mmm!

[ChumpDumper]

Unemployment never went to zero under Reagan therefore everything is just peachy now. Mmm, mmm, mmm!You don't know just how retarded that is.

[George Gervin's Afro]

[B] Could it be that when they raised the minimum wage, they hurt the very same people they were going to "help"? Just a thought.
Where is Obama's exit strategy for this recession, besides talking about Bush?

:lmao

[spursncowboys]

:lmao I wonder what the percentage of your posts that are emocons? 40% or is that too modest.

[ChumpDumper]

There is much to emote about on this board.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wonder what the percentage of your posts that are emocons? 40% or is that too modest.

ok i'll play dummy. since it's obama's responsibility to get us of the this recession can we figure out who's policies started it? I would assume that we'd need to know who created this recession so we don't make the same mistake again. would that be prudent?

[spursncowboys]

You don't know just how retarded that is. You are the retarded sounding one. Obama cheerleader.

[baseline bum]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

"Where is Obama's exit strategy for this recession,"

read the fucking papers.

Oh I understand.

You don't care if the exit strategy has any merit, you just like the phrase.

[spursncowboys]

ok i'll play dummy. since it's obama's responsibility to get us of the this recession can we figure out who's policies started it? I would assume that we'd need to know who created this recession so we don't make the same mistake again. would that be prudent? ten months into office, it is still Bush's fault. What policies exactly created this and what has Obama done differently than bush. Great job of playing dumb except I don't think you are playing.

[spursncowboys]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.jpg Where did you get this from?

[George Gervin's Afro]

ten months into office, it is still Bush's fault. What policies exactly created this and what has Obama done differently than bush. Great job of playing dumb except I don't think you are playing.

So the recession started when Obama got into office. This means that whatever happened prior to him caused this mess. Shouldn't we learn what caused it so we don't repeat the same policies? I know this may a bit difficult for you to wrap your head around but will you answer my question?

[baseline bum]

Where did you get this from?

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

You don't see a need to raise it when the real value drops 20% ?

[ChumpDumper]

You are the retarded sounding one. Obama cheerleader.Nah, not a cheerleader. I just wanted to find just how warped your point of view was.

Turns out it's quite a bit.

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you get this from?
If you go back a level from the image file link, you get this a page from what looks like an Oregon State University instructor's plan called Wealth and Poverty (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/). Wonder if it's indoctrination material, or legitimate. I'm going to scan through it.

Page of associated links:

Wealth and Poverty Links (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/wplinks.html)

That chart is on this link:

Minimum Wage History 1938-2009 and percent of poverty level and covered (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html)

[boutons_deux]

Full employment is defined at 4.5%, not zero, but I wouldn't expect you redneck dumbfucks to know that.

I've read many articles about the stimulus funds arriving and saving/creating jobs, with the bulk of the stimulus funds still to arrrive.

Big example was the Clunker program, but there are many more.

Under St Ronnie, full employment was never achieved, not even close:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I don't think we'll hit full employment (4.5% unemployment) for many years. And many of the quality jobs are gone forever, the middle class hollowed out and bled to subsistence by health care ripoff.

It's classic Keynesian economics that the government spending goes up to take up the slack when non-government spending (eg, US consumer spending) goes down.

The current crisis has totally refuted the Friedman/conservative monetarist theory, where the economy is managed with money supply (Fed rate). With Fed rate at effectively 0%, the Fed can do nothing but print money and hope. No traction at all with the lever of interest rate.

The current crisis has shown the the conservative principles of free markets and deregulation are total bullshit.

The Repugs/conservatives are plainly wrongies in economics.

[ChumpDumper]

If you go back a level from the image file link, you get this a page from what looks like an Oregon State University instructor's plan called Wealth and Poverty (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/). Wonder if it's indoctrination material, or legitimate. I'm going to scan through it.

Page of associated links:

Wealth and Poverty Links (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/wplinks.html)

That chart is on this link:

Minimum Wage History 1938-2009 and percent of poverty level and covered (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html)How would that affect the veracity of the chart?

You would need to show another chart showing different values for the same things.

[angrydude]

Full employment is defined at 4.5%, not zero, but I wouldn't expect you redneck dumbfucks to know that.

I've read many articles about the stimulus funds arriving and saving/creating jobs, with the bulk of the stimulus funds still to arrrive.

Big example was the Clunker program, but there are many more.

Under St Ronnie, full employment was never achieved, not even close:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I don't think we'll hit full employment (4.5% unemployment) for many years. And many of the quality jobs are gone forever, the middle class hollowed out and bled to subsistence by health care ripoff.

It's classic Keynesian economics that the government spending goes up to take up the slack when non-government spending (eg, US consumer spending) goes down.

The current crisis has totally refuted the Friedman/conservative monetarist theory, where the economy is managed with money supply (Fed rate). With Fed rate at effectively 0%, the Fed can do nothing but print money and hope. No traction at all with the lever of interest rate.

The current crisis has shown the the conservative principles of free markets and deregulation are total bullshit.

The Repugs/conservatives are plainly wrongies in economics.

some good premises but all the wrong conclusions.

though monetarism was proven wrong, monetarism by definition isn't free market. It's managed.

And Keynesian economics will be proven wrong as the real economy (not the government fudged GDP numbers) continues to falter.

and cash for clunkers was retarded. classic broken window fallacy.

[spursncowboys]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

You don't see a need to raise it when the real value drops 20% ?
This is from the links page:
Distributive Justice Perspectives (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/wpdjp.html)



A leader for justice and tolerance Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/)
For the a libertarian perspectiveCato Institute (http://www.cato.org/)
For a liberal view check out the ZNET Economic Vision (http://www.lbbs.org/)
For socioeconomic democracy try Center for the Study of Democratic Societies (http://www.centersds.com/)
Socialist Party, USA (http://sp-usa.org/) or World Socialist (http://www.wsws.org/) Web Site
Or check out the Utne Reader (http://www.utne.com/aNewHome.tmpl) on new economic trends
For lots of useful links see Ralph Nader (http://www.essential.org/)

The SPLC is a leader for justice and tolerance? Yeah and Al Jazeer is unbiased media reporting. Socioeconomic democracy? How can communism have the word democracy. I bet this clown doesn't even bring up Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell but will link three commie website for propaganda.

[baseline bum]

Good dodge

[spursncowboys]

Good dodge
I don't trust your source. How did they define real and nominal?
In 38 after the minimum wage was enacted, 500000 people lost their job.

No one hires at $7.25/hour for a product or service worth $4 an hour.
- Higher minimum wages make it harder for the young and low-skilled to find work.
- Dedicated and hard-working employees have less chance of getting good merit raises when the employer has to pay everyone else higher minimum wages, regardless of productivity.
- When prices go up with higher labor costs, minimum wage earners lose buying power the most.
- In-state minimum wage increases drive jobs out of state, or out of the country.
http://www.nickcoons.com/blogs/comments.php?blog_id=33

[George Gervin's Afro]

This is from the links page:
Distributive Justice Perspectives (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/wpdjp.html)



A leader for justice and tolerance Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/)
For the a libertarian perspectiveCato Institute (http://www.cato.org/)
For a liberal view check out the ZNET Economic Vision (http://www.lbbs.org/)
For socioeconomic democracy try Center for the Study of Democratic Societies (http://www.centersds.com/)
Socialist Party, USA (http://sp-usa.org/) or World Socialist (http://www.wsws.org/) Web Site
Or check out the Utne Reader (http://www.utne.com/aNewHome.tmpl) on new economic trends
For lots of useful links see Ralph Nader (http://www.essential.org/)

The SPLC is a leader for justice and tolerance? Yeah and Al Jazeer is unbiased media reporting. Socioeconomic democracy? How can communism have the word democracy. I bet this clown doesn't even bring up Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell but will link three commie website for propaganda.


So biased sources can't be trusted.. got it. Now where did you get your original material from?

[spursncowboys]

So biased sources can't be trusted.. got it. Now where did you get your original material from?I don't think the NYPost has three anti-communist websites for their political science class, filled with naive young adults, they are the professor of. So I don't think it is the same situation.

[coyotes_geek]

So the recession started when Obama got into office. This means that whatever happened prior to him caused this mess. Shouldn't we learn what caused it so we don't repeat the same policies?

Well, evidently Obama is a slow learner because his economic policies are identical to Bush's. Massive bailouts, massive government spending, massive deficits, low interest rates to encourage borrowing, basically doing whatever is neccessary to get consumers borrowing and spending. Bush/Obama economic policy is to try and use the same tools that created the mess to dig us out of it.

[baseline bum]

OMG, you're fucking retarded, arguing for people to be able to be paid $4.00 an hour. You can't even pay rent, much less eat on $4.00 an hour working a 40 hour week. Why not just make slavery legal too?

Here, let me show my work:
($4.00 / hr) * (40 hr/week) * (52 week/year) * (year/(12 month)) = $693.33/month

Tell me how someone supports himself on $693.33 a month, even paying no Social Security, Medicare, national, or state tax.

Real wage = wage adjusted for inflation.

[boutons_deux]

"real economy continues to falter."

I've never really heard any alternatives the current Keynesian govt stimulus.

Let WF, Citi, BoA, AIG all to to bankruptcy, maybe liquidation, rather than bailed out? defaulting on and wiping out all their toxic debts?

The economy would be in much worse shape now without the bailout. Keeping the economy from totally cratering by the probably-too-small stimulus is much better than doing nothing.

[spursncowboys]

OMG, you're fucking retarded, arguing for people to be able to be paid $4.00 an hour. You can't even pay rent, much less eat on $4.00 an hour working a 40 hour week. Why not just make slavery legal too?

Here, let me show my work:
($4.00 / hr) * (40 hr/week) * (52 week/year) * (year/(12 month)) = $693.33/month

Tell me how someone supports himself on $693.33 a month.

Real wage = wage adjusted for inflation. No your fucking retarded. The minimum wage is one of the reasons why inflation goes up so quickly.

[baseline bum]

No your fucking retarded. The minimum wage is one of the reasons why inflation goes up so quickly.

So how do you survive just on your own (forget supporting kids) on $693.33 a month, dodge boy?

[baseline bum]

No your fucking retarded. The minimum wage is one of the reasons why inflation goes up so quickly.

So the national minimum wage being fixed for 10 years is why it became worth 20% less in that time period? OK. :rollin

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me how someone supports himself on $693.33 a month, even paying no Social Security, Medicare, national, or state tax.

Get a roommate, second job, use public transportation. Whatever it takes to do it legally.

Supply and demand also rules. think rent would be as high as it is if people more made less money? All markets are out to get as much of your money as they can separate you from. A lesser amount is preferable to none.

[spursncowboys]

So the national minimum wage being fixed for 10 years is why it became worth 20% less in that time period? OK. :rollin Are you serious? Do you know what inflation is?

[Wild Cobra]

So how do you survive just on your own (forget supporting kids) on $693.33 a month,
One more thing.

If we stopped allowing the illegal employment of those stealing low wage jobs, the marketplace would pay more to get people to work on it's own. If the illegals are truly doing the jobs American's don't want, then the wages would rise to supply enough people for the demand of jobs.

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg
Look at around the time deflation stopped. Same time Our country was taken over by the nanny state Keynsians

[baseline bum]

Get a roommate, second job, use public transportation. Whatever it takes to do it legally.

Supply and demand also rules. think rent would be as high as it is if people more made less money? All markets are out to get as much of your money as they can separate you from. A lesser amount is preferable to none.

Hmmm... so drop $60 a month on your bus pass. Work yourself to death. Spend maybe $400 to split a small place with someone else.

Sorry, your scenario means the only way minimum wage workers will survive is by robbing your ass, sticking up liquor stores, or selling drugs.

[baseline bum]

One more thing.

If we stopped allowing the illegal employment of those stealing low wage jobs, the marketplace would pay more to get people to work on it's own. If the illegals are truly doing the jobs American's don't want, then the wages would rise to supply enough people for the demand of jobs.

That's one thing I agree with you on. There should be huge penalties for selling out American citizens and hiring illegals. As in, your company gets shut down for repeated infractions.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm... so drop $60 a month on your bus pass. Work yourself to death. Spend maybe $400 to split a small place with someone else.

Sorry, your scenario means the only way minimum wage workers will survive is by robbing your ass, sticking up liquor stores, or selling drugs.
I've done it for several month before in the past. It's not easy.

I'm just sick and tired of you liberals wanting the government to fix all your problems. How about just moving back with you mommy and sucking your thumb if you cant deal with life.

Last I check, a monthly TRIMET pass here was something like $72 if I remember right.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

A monthly all zones pass is up to $86, and a two zone is $75:

TriMet fares (http://trimet.org/fares/index.htm)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, evidently Obama is a slow learner because his economic policies are identical to Bush's. Massive bailouts, massive government spending, massive deficits, low interest rates to encourage borrowing, basically doing whatever is neccessary to get consumers borrowing and spending. Bush/Obama economic policy is to try and use the same tools that created the mess to dig us out of it.

is obama cutting taxes during a time of war?

[coyotes_geek]

is obama cutting taxes during a time of war?

Obama is leaving taxes exactly where Bush left them, while we're still at war.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama is leaving taxes exactly where Bush left them.
And letting the tax breaks expire, right?

[boutons_deux]

"letting the tax breaks expire, right"

RIGHT! $800B in estate tax cut is more than enough for the super-wealthy handful of families to which it applies.

[coyotes_geek]

And letting the tax breaks expire, right?

Probably so. Taxes are going to have to come up sometime.

[spursncowboys]

Obama is leaving taxes exactly where Bush left them, while we're still at war. Obama and the Dem's have increased taxes while we are at war and plan on letting the Bush tax cuts go, so that will be an increase on taxes-tax increase.

[baseline bum]

I've done it for several month before in the past. It's not easy.


You worked for half the minimum wage? Are you stupid?



I'm just sick and tired of you liberals wanting the government to fix all your problems. How about just moving back with you mommy and sucking your thumb if you cant deal with life.

Last I check, a monthly TRIMET pass here was something like $72 if I remember right.

Wow... so more than 10% of your (full-time) income just for a ride to work? We should definitely strive for that. Hell, it would go way up when everyone making minimum wage gets dropped further and can't afford any car. And then almost 60% for rent? What about gas, water, electricity, food, laundry... absolute necessities? Then SS and Medicare, then a harshly garnished paycheck if you ever have to visit a hospital? (no way you can afford the most expensive medical care in the world on $4/hour, especially without insurance that you can't afford and obviously don't get from work when they're paying slave wages). Cut yourself pretty deeply while slicing onions or throws out your back lifting an AC unit? Sucks for you with no coverage from work and a bill you'll never repay having a job you never have a cent of either disposable or emergency income to spare.

I'm sick and tired of you Republicans who consider it government ass-wiping to do sensible things like try to bring down the price of what is by far the most expensive health-care system in the world. I love how ensuring a minimum wage that still falls way short of the poverty level is considered government babying. Placate all the banks and defense contractors with corporate welfare, but people can all fuck off.

[Winehole23]

I'm sick and tired of you Republicans who consider it government ass-wiping to do sensible things like try to bring down the price of what is by far the most expensive health-care system in the world.Socialism!


Placate all the banks and defense contractors with corporate welfare, but people can all fuck off.Bingo.

Good nutshell.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I've read many articles about the stimulus funds arriving and saving/creating jobs, with the bulk of the stimulus funds still to arrrive.

It's funny to pretend the stimulus funds will actually stimulate the economy. The whole stimulus bill was a gift to liberal special interests, and is timed to buy votes for November 2010. Acting like it will set our country on a path to economic recovery is funny.



Big example was the Clunker program, but there are many more.

Yep, great example. Kickback for bankrupt Detroit automakers with crappy products. How's those auto sales numbers looking since the Clunker program ended?

You want to know how to stimulate our economy and get the unemployment rate out of its death spiral? Get the government out of the stimulus business. Get it out of the wallets of all businesses by throwing around crap and trade and universal health care bills.

Companies are holding onto the cash they have to figure out what's going to happen with both of those liberal economy killers before they'll start hiring in any kind of sustainable or recession ending quantities.

[Trainwreck2100]

Yep, great example. Kickback for bankrupt Detroit automakers with crappy products.




Didn't CFC go towards all makes of cars, not just Det. made?


Also Some people make more on unemployment than $8 an hour, so yeah why work.

[Cry Havoc]

I've done it for several month before in the past. It's not easy.

I'm just sick and tired of you liberals wanting the government to fix all your problems. How about just moving back with you mommy and sucking your thumb if you cant deal with life.

Last I check, a monthly TRIMET pass here was something like $72 if I remember right.

:wow

I have no words to respond to this kind of idiocy. Just wow.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's funny to pretend the stimulus funds will actually stimulate the economy. The whole stimulus bill was a gift to liberal special interests, and is timed to buy votes for November 2010. Acting like it will set our country on a path to economic recovery is funny.



Yep, great example. Kickback for bankrupt Detroit automakers with crappy products. How's those auto sales numbers looking since the Clunker program ended?

You want to know how to stimulate our economy and get the unemployment rate out of its death spiral? Get the government out of the stimulus business. Get it out of the wallets of all businesses by throwing around crap and trade and universal health care bills.

Companies are holding onto the cash they have to figure out what's going to happen with both of those liberal economy killers before they'll start hiring in any kind of sustainable or recession ending quantities.

why would the dems need to buy off special interests in 2010? Seems to defy any logic when they didn't have any problems with the same special interests in 08. So if you are right which of these 'special interests' have the possibility of voting or supporring republicans?

[NoOptionB]

lol @ this generation and upcoming ones


Can't get jobs, dollar is a joke, and high interest rates on the way. Sucks for them.

[Wild Cobra]

Probably so. Taxes are going to have to come up sometime.
I don't know why they have to.

Thing with taxes, over the long term...

When you raise taxes expecting more revenue, you do for maybe a year. Then the real economics catches up. People have less to spend and the economy has a slight decline. When you multiply less economy time more taxes, the tax revenue comes in at about the same, or lower.

Look at historical charts of federal revenue. It averages about 18.2% of GNP no matter what the tax rate is. Increasing taxes just lowers the GNP, then you have 18.2% of a smaller GNP. Decreasing taxes increases the GNP, and then 18.2% of a higher GNP is obviously more.

[Wild Cobra]

You worked for half the minimum wage? Are you stupid?

<snip>

Does someone need a diaper change so they will stop crying?

I'm tired of you babies thinking the rest of us need to take care of you. Move back in with you mommy.

Liberal, as a whole, want to welcome illegals, want social programs, then wonder why everything is fucked up. Dammit, Stop electing the people who helped cause this.

Taxes and regulations are sending our jobs overseas.

Don't let the unions get so powerful that the auto makers have a hard time competing with foreign makers.

Illegals are glad to have low paying jobs that keep wages down because of supply and demand.

Don't have a job that pays enough? Well improve your marketability to an employer and vote for conservatives who will make this nation work again.

[Wild Cobra]

Also Some people make more on unemployment than $8 an hour, so yeah why work.
Last time I was on unemployment, I received over $400 a week. I think it was $428. Wonder what it would be today? Still, that was $1000 less than I made working.

[Cry Havoc]

Liberal, as a whole, want to welcome illegals, want social programs, then wonder why everything is fucked up. Dammit, Stop electing the people who helped cause this.

You're right. Spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq was a much better use of our money. It definitely couldn't have helped our situation here.


Does someone need a diaper change so they will stop crying?

Nothing like insulting someone to make your statements appear more intelligent and valid. You stay classy, WC.

[clambake]

are you suggesting they move in with you and your welfare mommy?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, WC has received a lot of government benefits.

[clambake]

...and he's in a union.

he should change his name to Wild Leech.

[mogrovejo]

You worked for half the minimum wage? Are you stupid?

What's stupid about that? Working can be gratifying by itself, as opposed to be unemployed and I've personally worked for free in the past and I don't regret it one bit.




I'm sick and tired of you Republicans who consider it government ass-wiping to do sensible things like try to bring down the price of what is by far the most expensive health-care system in the world.

Are you sure those sensible things will work? Are you sure there aren't better options? Are you sure things won't get worse after those sensible things are aproved? Are you sure Americans don't pay more for health-care due to their consumer preferences, because they want more and more expensive health-care? Heck, I pay more for health-care than many of my follow citizens because living in a country with socialized health-care I pay for a private insurance, as I don't want to have a teeth pain for the 8 months I have to wait till I get an appointment to the dentist.


I love how ensuring a minimum wage that still falls way short of the poverty level is considered government babying.

The minimum wage is a poweful instrument of economic exclusion. Or do you really, really believe that employers will pay a larger salary for a work whose productivity won't cover the costs of that salary? Sorry to dissapoint you, but they simply don't offer the job.


Placate all the banks and defense contractors with corporate welfare, but people can all fuck off.

Strawman argument.

[Wild Cobra]

You're right. Spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq was a much better use of our money. It definitely couldn't have helped our situation here.
At least wartime spending is authorized by the constitution. Social spending isn't.

Nothing like insulting someone to make your statements appear more intelligent and valid. You stay classy, WC.
Sorry, but I just cannot help it when people act like a Crying baby ... Cry Havoc.

Wow, do we have a new name for you?

[Wild Cobra]

...and he's in a union.

he should change his name to Wild Leech.
LOL...

At least I belong to a reasonable union. It's the unions that stop at nothing to maximize unreasonable benefits to their employees that I despise.

[Winehole23]

Placate all the banks and defense contractors with corporate welfare, but people can all fuck off.

Strawman argument.It also stands as a straightforward description of what the USG has done since September of last year. The assistance given to various large financial firms puts everything else in the shade.

[mogrovejo]

If the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, why not raise it substantially? Say to $100/hour?

[spursncowboys]

You're right. Spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq was a much better use of our money. It definitely couldn't have helped our situation here. So in your world, Saddam would still be in power? The Constitution covers creating an Army and going to war, but does it cover the govt. owning companies? or taxing only people who earn a higher than most paycheck?




Nothing like insulting someone to make your statements appear more intelligent and valid. You stay classy, WC. classy like mr. peanut.

[spursncowboys]

It also stands as a straightforward description of what the USG has done since September of last year. The assistance given to various large financial firms puts everything else in the shade. Right and it creates monopolies and destroys small businesses. How many car companies went out of business but the ones who were failing the most were "helped".

[Winehole23]

Right and it creates monopolies and destroys small businesses. How many car companies went out of business but the ones who were failing the most were "helped".Why don't you tell me, spursncowboys? I'm not too familiar with the auto industry.

[ChumpDumper]

Right and it creates monopolies and destroys small businesses. How many car companies went out of business but the ones who were failing the most were "helped".What are you talking about now?

[nkdlunch]

At least wartime spending is authorized by the constitution. Social spending isn't.


let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?

:wow

no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking. :tu

[spursncowboys]

let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?

:wow

no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking. :tu

hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?

This is the full context.

[nkdlunch]

hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Source Iraqi casualties March 2003 to...
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths April 2009
Iraq Body Count 92,489 – 100,971 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. June 2009

[ChumpDumper]

hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?Are you serious?

[Wild Cobra]

let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book?

:wow

no wonder the Republican party is in such shambles with this way of thinking. :tu
My statement was not a moral one, but one of legal fact.

Sense of morality cannot overrule our highest law. If you don't like the constitution, put forth the effort to change it.

[nkdlunch]

My statement was not a moral one, but one of legal fact.

good to know. if slavery were still legal you would still support it.

[ElNono]

My statement was not a moral one, but one of legal fact.

Sense of morality cannot overrule our highest law. If you don't like the constitution, put forth the effort to change it.

Killing hundred of thousands of iraqi civilians is legal? I thought international treaties the US has signed say otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

good to know. if slavery were still legal you would still support it.
Wow...

What a deranged mind you have to make such assumptions.

[nkdlunch]

Wow...

What a deranged mind you have to make such assumptions.

well you are siding with the law rather than your morals aren't you? makes me assume you do that often.

[Wild Cobra]

Killing hundred of thousands of iraqi civilians is legal? I thought international treaties the US has signed say otherwise.
Have anything credible to respond to?

First of all, there have always been undesired casualties of war. War isn't pretty. War isn't moral. It's just the less evil of options.

Hundreds of thousands. Bullshit. Too many who are counted a civilians simply had they weapons removed by their allies.

Now I agree it's a sad thing that casualties of war happen. How dare you cheer on the propaganda though?

[Wild Cobra]

well you are siding with the law rather than your morals aren't you? makes me assume you do that often.
Understanding and siding with? I am not using the law to satisfy some evil intent. I am only acknowledging that bad things happen and that sometimes the best course of action is to do equally bad things.

You can be a dick-less pacifist if you want. Myself, I will fight to the end.

[nkdlunch]

Understanding and siding with? I am not using the law to satisfy some evil intent. I am only acknowledging that bad things happen and that sometimes the best course of action is to do equally bad things.

You can be a dick-less pacifist if you want. Myself, I will fight to the end.

there we go with the insults. throwing insults via internet. yeah, you a real man's man :lmao

you are obviously backing the Iraq war, while critizicing the spending on social programs which you are against. You have made your point clear. now, stop backtracking...

and yes, fighting a war vs. a immensely weaker enemy is a real feat. :rolleyes

[Cry Havoc]

hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?

Seriously, how old are you that you can ask that question with a straight face?


:lmao at the complete unraveling of WC's attempts to even appear sane in this thread.

[baseline bum]

good to know. if slavery were still legal you would still support it.

Have you not read his posts about minimum wages? He obviously does support slavery.

Also, I have never taken a cent of welfare, unlike you WC, you fucking hypocrite retard.

[baseline bum]

To summarize WC's stance:

Government handout to Lockheed = good
Government doing a goddamn thing to protect its citizens = royally fucked up

[SpurNation]

How many non working youths were part of this report that don't work because of financial security provided by mom and dad or other?

It's easy to skew numbers.

But let me speak from a small business owner view.

I don't know about all small business but in my small business...I could not afford to hire a 16 - 24 year old and expect the same as I would get from an experienced person. Even hiring them at minimum wage (which I would pay more) because of their inexperience would eventually cost me the more as if paying somebody one and a half that amount to produce the same or better quality and dependability.

Just from experience alone in hiring youth...I have found it unreliable with regards to the sovereignty of my customer base. Business and customer base is crucial to any business large or small and in today's market...extremely competitive. Hiring youth without experience, dependability and work ethic is not a chance many business owners are willing nor can afford to take at this time.

Just wondering if all those factors were part of this report?

[CosmicCowboy]

I think that even worse than unemployment is under-employment. It seems like the days of 40 hrs a week hourly employees is over. It looks like everyone is afraid of whatever new mandates may come down the pipe from the Feds and they just want to hire "part time" workers so they don't get stung.

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Source Iraqi casualties March 2003 to...
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths April 2009
Iraq Body Count 92,489 – 100,971 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. June 2009
How many of those were from Americans?

[spursncowboys]

Are you serious? SHould have known a little bitch sitting at home, enjoying all the great freedoms the US military preserves for you, would seriously believe a bullshit liberal lie.

Definition of Casualty:
The word "casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_%28person%29)" in its most general sense includes the injured as well as the dead. Accounts of the number of coalition wounded vary widely, partly because it is not obvious what should be counted: should only those injuries serious enough to put a soldier out of commission be included? Do illnesses or injuries caused by accidents count, or should the focus be restricted to wounds caused by hostile engagement? Sources using different definitions may arrive at very different numbers, and sometimes the precise definition is not clearly specified. As for the Iraqis, where even the death toll has only been very roughly estimated, it appears that no one has attempted to count the wounded.
You sick fucks wonder why everyone thinks liberals hate America or the military. This type of Rosie Odonnel bullshit. A rough estimate that doesn't include who's to blame for the death. American troops will arrest their own for war crimes, not the other way around.

[ChumpDumper]

SHould have known a little bitch sitting at home, enjoying all the great freedoms the US military preserves for you, would seriously believe a bullshit liberal lie.Your question was this:
hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?Your answer is this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/30/article-1165768-04137FF1000005DC-335_468x406.jpg

and this:

http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/29475-1/Nagasaki-bomb.jpg

You're an idiot.

[mogrovejo]

If the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, why not raise it substantially? Say to $100/hour?

Wasn't the thread about the unemployment amongst young Americans?

[Wild Cobra]

Also, I have never taken a cent of welfare, unlike you WC, you fucking hypocrite retard.
When did I take any welfare?

Unemployment insurance is INSURANCE! Employers have a fee deducted to pay for it.

[Wild Cobra]

To summarize WC's stance:

Government handout to Lockheed = good
Government doing a goddamn thing to protect its citizens = royally fucked up
No wonder you libtards are so fucked up. You cannot properly parse the truth.

[ChumpDumper]

When did I take any welfare?

Unemployment insurance is INSURANCE! Employers have a fee deducted to pay for it.So you took the public option.

Duly noted.

[Wild Cobra]

Just wondering if all those factors were part of this report?
I wonder if it takes into account how many jobs are filled by illegal aliens that youth would normally do?

[spursncowboys]

Your question was this:Your answer is this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/30/article-1165768-04137FF1000005DC-335_468x406.jpg

and this:

http://www.freeclipartnow.com/d/29475-1/Nagasaki-bomb.jpg

You're an idiot. It was a response to his claim about iraqi civilians. therefore the context wasn't the quote by itself. You are an idiot.
Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?

[clambake]

It was a response to his claim about iraqi civilians. therefore the context wasn't the quote by itself. You are an idiot.
Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

It was a response to his claim about iraqi civilians. therefore the context wasn't the quote by itself.Your question was this:
hundred of thousands of civilians. When in American history did our military do that?I took "American history" to mean American history. There was indeed a time in American history when our military killed that many civilians. Next time, I'll just assume you don't mean anything you post because you completely failed to articulate yourself here.


Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?Yes. I am saying the bombs killed Japanese civilians.

Are you saying they didn't?

[mogrovejo]

Killing hundred of thousands of iraqi civilians is legal? I thought international treaties the US has signed say otherwise.

Which treaties are you referring to?

[boutons_deux]

Here's some negative views saying full employment from now on could be a "natural rate" of 6% or 7% unemployment, without even getting into whether the employed have quality jobs. A job is a job for the stats.

http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/navigation/logo.gif (http://www.bloomberg.com/)



Unemployment Confronts Obama Rhetoric With Chronic Joblessness

By Rich Miller

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Full employment ain’t what it used to be.

Economists since the mid-1990s have reckoned that full employment was equivalent to about a 5 percent unemployment rate, taking into account the time required to switch jobs. Now Nobel Prize winner Edmund Phelps (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Edmund+Phelps&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Pacific Investment Management Co. Chief Executive Officer Mohamed El-Erian (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Mohamed+El-Erian&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) say the fallout from the deepest recession in more than five decades is driving the so-called natural rate higher, perhaps to 7 percent.

“We are in the midst of a large and protracted increase in both actual unemployment and its natural rate,” said El-Erian, 51, whose Newport, California-based company manages the world’s largest bond fund. Even with the economy growing, “it will take at least a couple of years” for joblessness to fall to 7 percent from 9.7 percent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USURTOT%3AIND) now.

That may keep the federal budget deficit near a record $1.6 trillion into next year and might prevent the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates in 2010, said Bruce Kasman (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Bruce+Kasman&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), chief economist at New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=JPM%3AUS) the second- largest U.S. bank. Elevated unemployment will also “dampen the recovery in consumption and economic growth,” El-Erian said.
President Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack+Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) has highlighted job creation as the ultimate measure of the economy’s health, telling CNN television on Sept. 20 that it is “the single most important thing we can do.” By this measure, the U.S. is still coming up short, he added. That may hurt Obama’s Democratic Party in the November 2010 Congressional elections.

Rising Unemployment

Government data to be released Oct. 2 will probably show that unemployment (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USURTOT%3AIND) rose to a 26-year high of 9.8 percent in September as companies pared payrolls by 180,000, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Obama, 48, has also pledged a sharp reduction in the budget deficit (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FDEBTY%3AIND) -- a task that would be made more difficult if unemployment stays high, boosting government spending on people who are out of work and reducing tax revenue (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FDEBINCO%3AIND). The administration’s mid-term review forecasts a decline in the deficit to $917 billion in 2019 as unemployment drops to 5.2 percent.

A rise in the natural rate -- the level below which joblessness can’t fall without sparking inflation -- would also create a dilemma for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ben+S.+Bernanke&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and his central-bank colleagues.

High unemployment argues for a loose monetary policy now; former Fed governor Lyle Gramley (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Lyle+Gramley&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) sees the central bank holding the federal-funds rate -- the rate banks charge each other for overnight loans -- near zero until early 2011. Later, there’s a risk Bernanke will ignite inflation if he tries to push the jobless rate down to the 5 percent equilibrium level that’s prevailed in the past.

‘Profound’ Implications

“The implications over the next five to 10 years for fiscal and monetary policy are very, very profound” if the rate has risen, said Neal Soss (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Neal+Soss&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), chief economist in New York for Credit Suisse Holdings USA Inc., a subsidiary of Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=CSGN%3AVX), Switzerland’s second-biggest wealth manager. In that case, the best investment in the medium term might be to buy Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, said Soss, a former Fed official.

TIPS of all maturities are headed for their fifth straight monthly gain as investors hedge against the potential for inflation, even as it has yet to materialize. The securities have gained 7.49 percent this year compared with a 2.65 percent decline for conventional U.S. government debt, according to the Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasury Inflation-Linked Master Index.

Permanent Destruction

Kasman ties an increase in the full-employment rate to the permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance.

Since the nadir of the last recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html) in November 2001, the U.S. has lost 839,000 jobs in the private sector, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the first time that’s happened over the course of a business cycle since 1980-82. Manufacturing and construction were particularly hard hit.

Permanent layoffs (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USJLNOT%25%3AIND) -- for workers who don’t expect to ever regain the same job -- hit a record 53.9 percent of the unemployed in August, according to the bureau. Some 33.3 percent of the jobless had been out of work for 27 weeks or longer (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USDUTWSP%3AIND) last month, down from a record 33.8 percent in July. And at 59.2 percent, the share of Americans who are employed is at its lowest level in 25 years.

“The labor market is showing signs of very considerable stress,” said Gramley, 82, a senior economic adviser for New York-based Soleil Securities (http://www.soleilgroup.com/).

Job-Growth Engines

Every state, the District of Columbia (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSDC%3AIND) and Puerto Rico (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSPR%3AIND) have seen unemployment rise during the recession. What’s more, the states that have been job-growth engines in the past -- including California (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSCALI%3AIND), Florida (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSFLA%3AIND) and Nevada (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USUSNV%3AIND) -- have been among the hardest hit as real-estate values plunged, said Lawrence Katz (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Lawrence+Katz&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The 30 percent decline in house prices (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SPCSUSA%3AIND) during the last three years also makes it hard for some Americans to seek work in another city or state, he said. About 26 percent of U.S. homes with a mortgage were worth less than the amount owed, according to a recent report by analysts Karen Weaver (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Karen+Weaver&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and Ying Shen (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ying%0AShen&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in New York at Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DBK%3AGY), Germany’s biggest lender. Ultimately, as many as 48 percent of mortgages may be “underwater” as house prices fall further, they forecast.

Katz identifies labor mobility as a key factor in reducing the natural rate of unemployment. Mobility (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/migrate.html) fell last year to its lowest level since records began in 1948, according to the Census Bureau. The so-called national mover rate declined to 11.9 percent of the population in 2008 from 13.2 percent in 2007 as 35.2 million Americans one year or older changed residence.

Deep Recession

Mobility is likely to fall further this year in response to the deep recession, said Peter Francese (http://207.5.131.222/), demographic-trends analyst for New York-based Ogilvy & Mather, which is owned by WPP Plc (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=WPP%3ALN) of London, the world’s largest advertising company.

“It will plummet so close to zero you’ll be surprised,” said Francese, who founded American Demographics magazine. That will likely depress consumer spending, which historically accounts for about 70 percent of gross domestic product.

“People who move spend a bundle, on draperies, furniture, rugs,” he said.

A shift in the Beveridge curve is also signaling an increase in the natural, or non-accelerating inflation, rate of unemployment to between 6 percent and 7 percent, said JPMorgan Chase’s Kasman.

Worker Skills

Unlike the more popular Phillips curve, which compares unemployment to inflation, the Beveridge curve looks at job openings in relation to employment. A high level of both vacancies and unemployment suggests that workers lack the skills to fill the jobs available and that the natural rate, or NAIRU, is higher.

The curve, developed by the late British economist William Beveridge, is more accurate at presaging changes in full employment than its Phillips counterpart, according to research by Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/) Senior Fellow William Dickens (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=William+Dickens&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) that was presented at a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference last year.

Many economists, including Gramley, don’t believe the natural rate has risen. Fed policy makers seem to be in that camp. They put the longer-run unemployment rate -- a proxy for the NAIRU -- at 4.8 percent to 5 percent, according to the minutes of their June 23-24 meeting.

That may be too optimistic, said Phelps, 76, a professor at Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/) in New York who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2006 for his theories on the interplay between inflation expectations and employment.
“There’s a bit of whistling past the graveyard here,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Rich Miller (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Rich+Miller&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in Washington [email protected]
Last Updated: September 27, 2009 19:10 EDT

==========

So all the "young Americans", esp blacks and Hispanics, that don't finish HS are and will continue to be in deep shit. Their poverty and joblessness will fuel crime, like poverty and joblessness do everywhere.

So all you gun nuts buying up all the ammunition are really arming yourself against the black guys on the bottom, not against the Magic Negro on top.

[LnGrrrR]

Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?

I think it's pretty obvious they did. Are you positing that every single person hit by the bomb was military personnel?

[Cry Havoc]

It was a response to his claim about iraqi civilians. therefore the context wasn't the quote by itself. You are an idiot.
Are you saying that the bombs hit Japanese "civilians"?

..... I'm biting my tongue not to respond to this more vehemently, but you really need to do at least the tiniest amount of research before engaging yourself in a debate with people on this board. Seriously. At least go to wikipedia and read a little bit, because it's better than nothing, which is where you're apparently coming from as a basis of knowledge now.

[spursncowboys]

I think it's pretty obvious they did. Are you positing that every single person hit by the bomb was military personnel?
Cryhavoc: thanks for the lesson.
LnGrrrR: I believe, that Truman was correct in treating the entire population as non-civilians. There was an idea about Japan that every citizen would fight an invasion with the Americans. They estimated 60000 Americans KIA if they tried to invade mainland Japan. I think he did the right thing. He did give the Japanese govt. a chance to give up b4 both abombs.

[jman3000]

I'm in the group and I have a job. Wooo... go 48 percenters!

[spursncowboys]

I'm in the group and I have a job. Wooo... go 48 percenters!
Lucky you that people will always be going to Whataburger. Hey some advice: stop being such a jerk at drive-thru.
j/k

[LnGrrrR]

Cryhavoc: thanks for the lesson.
LnGrrrR: I believe, that Truman was correct in treating the entire population as non-civilians. There was an idea about Japan that every citizen would fight an invasion with the Americans. They estimated 60000 Americans KIA if they tried to invade mainland Japan. I think he did the right thing. He did give the Japanese govt. a chance to give up b4 both abombs.

Ah, that old canard about every Japanese person being a 'fighter'.

Look, if another country invaded America, do you think that only the military would take up arms against them? Of course not. Normal citizens with guns would either take them on solo or form a militia.

Given this info, would that in turn justify a nuclear strike against the US, in order to save X number of soldiers on the opposite side?

The loss of life to soldiers is what makes a war so costly. To throw that aside by using a nuclear bomb that you know will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians is the wrong moral choice, I feel.

[hope4dopes]

Hey, the young put Obama in the whitehouse now they can reap the benifits of their decision.I think the young republicans may find themselves with a sudden influx on their hands. lol

[Trainwreck2100]

I'm in the group and I have a job. Wooo... go 48 percenters!

I have a job but am underemployed so i don't know where i satnd

[spursncowboys]

Ah, that old canard about every Japanese person being a 'fighter'.

Look, if another country invaded America, do you think that only the military would take up arms against them? Of course not. Normal citizens with guns would either take them on solo or form a militia.

Given this info, would that in turn justify a nuclear strike against the US, in order to save X number of soldiers on the opposite side?

The loss of life to soldiers is what makes a war so costly. To throw that aside by using a nuclear bomb that you know will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians is the wrong moral choice, I feel. I believe America to be that kind of country. If I were a bastard commie and was wanting to invade America, I would have to think about having to destroy a huge amount of the population. Many strtegists have agreed to that fact.
You are talking about war as some kind of game. Patton said after we are done killing the enemy we are gonna kill them some more. You go to war to win,
I don't agree with your reasoning on your ethics. The moral choice is to keep the people who elected you to run their govt. that should be number one.

[Cry Havoc]

I have a job but am underemployed so i don't know where i satnd

Well, you haven't been leg swept yet, but your employer is walking towards you and looks really pissed.

[LnGrrrR]

I believe America to be that kind of country. If I were a bastard commie and was wanting to invade America, I would have to think about having to destroy a huge amount of the population. Many strtegists have agreed to that fact.
You are talking about war as some kind of game. Patton said after we are done killing the enemy we are gonna kill them some more. You go to war to win,
I don't agree with your reasoning on your ethics. The moral choice is to keep the people who elected you to run their govt. that should be number one.

So you think a nuclear strike against a populous city, say, Boston or New York, is morally justified?

Also, you don't believe in "just war", I'm guessing? Do you know what that is?

You have a warped sense of morals if you think that morality is whatever lets you keep your job.

[spursncowboys]

So you think a nuclear strike against a populous city, say, Boston or New York, is morally justified?

Also, you don't believe in "just war", I'm guessing? Do you know what that is?

You have a warped sense of morals if you think that morality is whatever lets you keep your job.
keeping your job means keeping the population safe IS moral.

[LnGrrrR]

keeping your job means keeping the population safe IS moral.

So you think a politician should do whatever it takes to make the populace safe? Should politicians start banning cars, for instance?

[baseline bum]

When did I take any welfare?

Unemployment insurance is INSURANCE! Employers have a fee deducted to pay for it.

I wasn't talking about unemployment. I seem to remember you and your mother living off government assistance.. food stamps or section 8. Do your nag your welfare queen mother the same way you nag people here who don't take government handouts?

[ChumpDumper]

I believe America to be that kind of country. If I were a bastard commie and was wanting to invade America, I would have to think about having to destroy a huge amount of the population. Many strtegists have agreed to that fact.
You are talking about war as some kind of game. Patton said after we are done killing the enemy we are gonna kill them some more. You go to war to win,
I don't agree with your reasoning on your ethics.So by your reasoning, no civilians were killed on 9/11.

You're an idiot.

[spursncowboys]

So you think a politician should do whatever it takes to make the populace safe? Should politicians start banning cars, for instance? Please just try and be human. Your a smart guy. Stop with this gotcha shit. A President decides our countries foreign policy. He declares war. The Congress makes laws for us Americans. A President's foreign policy is different from his Domestic. I disagree with a President having so much domestic power but that can be anothter day's post.
With your same line of thinking, should terrorists have our bill of rights? Should our enemies be able to vote for our president? Should we give welfare to every country we fight?

[spursncowboys]

It's funny how people in this forum say that terrorists and our founding fathers were of the same mold.
And yet my credibility is in question. NO chump, like always your an idiot.

[spursncowboys]

I wasn't talking about unemployment. I seem to remember you and your mother living off government assistance.. food stamps or section 8. Do your nag your welfare queen mother the same way you nag people here who don't take government handouts?
So welfare is ok unless you are against it, and then you aren't allowed to talk about it. What if he saw the traps it creates from his mother?

[ChumpDumper]

It's funny how people in this forum say that terrorists and our founding fathers were of the same mold.
And yet my credibility is in question. NO chump, like always your an idiot.You just said that all Americans would act like soldiers if the USA were attacked.

The USA was attacked on 9/11, so according to you there were no US civilians killed on 9/11.

It's not my fault you don't fully appreciate the implications of your Red Dawn fantasies.

[spursncowboys]

You just said that all Americans would act like soldiers if the USA were attacked.

The USA was attacked on 9/11, so according to you there were no US civilians killed on 9/11.

It's not my fault you don't fully appreciate the implications of your Red Dawn fantasies.
Your retarded ass needs to understand what you read.

[baseline bum]

So welfare is ok unless you are against it, and then you aren't allowed to talk about it. What if he saw the traps it creates from his mother?

I'm not for welfare in anything but cases where the person is flat-out unable to work. I am for things like decent minimum wages that ensure anyone who works hard can have some kind of reasonable standard of living, but apparently that's more government hand-holding than actually taking assistance directly from the government like WC and his mother.

[LnGrrrR]

Please just try and be human. Your a smart guy. Stop with this gotcha shit. A President decides our countries foreign policy. He declares war. The Congress makes laws for us Americans. A President's foreign policy is different from his Domestic. I disagree with a President having so much domestic power but that can be anothter day's post.
With your same line of thinking, should terrorists have our bill of rights? Should our enemies be able to vote for our president? Should we give welfare to every country we fight?

My point is that it is not the politicians' jobs to make us SAFE. It is to create the law. And it's the President's job to make sure that law is faithfully enacted.

In the view of the Founding Fathers, the President's ability to create foreign policy was limited at best. The legislature both controlled whether we went to war, and what treaties we ratified.

Of course, I'm not going to argue for any of your strawmen about whether we should provide all the same benefits to those who aren't in our country. (Although I would argue the Bill of Rights applies not only to citizens, but to all who are on American soil.)

I just hate to see people say that the gov's job is to keep us safe, when that's not their job at all. It's that attitude that allows them to get away with breaking the law, in the name of 'safety'.

[ChumpDumper]

Your retarded ass needs to understand what you read.I understand perfectly. You don't think there are any civilians in war if there would be a substantial civilian resistance to attack.

If you want to back away from that contention, be my guest. People are free to flip-flop if they choose.

[LnGrrrR]

It's funny how people in this forum say that terrorists and our founding fathers were of the same mold.
And yet my credibility is in question. NO chump, like always your an idiot.

He brought up a good point.

Let's run over the points you've shared.

A) You think it was moral to use a nuclear bomb on Japan.

B) You feel this way because you believe that citizens would have taken up arms against us, therefore making themselves a legal target.

C) You feel that Americans would also take up arms against foreign intruders.

Given A, B, and C, I don't see how you can't argue that it's also moral for terrorists to attack our 'civilians'. If you DO have a good logical reason, by all means, spell it out please. :)

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't talking about unemployment. I seem to remember you and your mother living off government assistance.. food stamps or section 8. Do your nag your welfare queen mother the same way you nag people here who don't take government handouts?
Oh... I see...

Well you were referring to my mother, not me.

Get your shit together. I gave you the proper response to your statement. I didn't take those food stamps, I was just a child. My mother did. And only for a few weeks at that.

Are you retarded or something?

Besides, I never said I was against short term help for when people have problems in life. I am only against the system where people live in a dependent fashion. This must be the nth time I've said that now. Don't you libtards ever absorb factual information?

[LnGrrrR]

Oh... I see...

Well you were referring to my mother, not me.

Get your shit together. I gave you the proper response to your statement. I didn't take those food stamps, I was just a child. My mother did. And only for a few weeks at that.

Are you retarded or something?

Besides, I never said I was against short term help for when people have problems in life. I am only against the system where people live in a dependent fashion. This must be the nth time I';be said that now. Don't you libtards ever absorb factual information?

I have to back up WC here. The repeated slurs against his mother for being on welfare for a short amount of time don't seem to really jive with his criticism of long-term welfare recipients.

I'll take WC to task whenever I think he's trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but I don't think he deserves the venom that some posters here give him.

[Wild Cobra]

I have a job but am underemployed so i don't know where i satnd
Well, I'm underemployed too. I am only making about 75% of what I did in 2002.

[baseline bum]

Besides, I never said I was against short term help for when people have problems in life.



I'm just sick and tired of you liberals wanting the government to fix all your problems.


Hypocrite fucking retard

[boutons_deux]

underemployed means you aren't working 40 hours (eg, a full time job, but 4 x 8 hours/week, or a part-time job when you want a full-time job), not how much your full-time salary is compared to your previous jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

I have to back up WC here. The repeated slurs against his mother for being on welfare for a short amount of time don't seem to really jive with his criticism of long-term welfare recipients.

I'll take WC to task whenever I think he's trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but I don't think he deserves the venom that some posters here give him.
Thank-You.

Some of these people just really piss me off. No wonder they don't have a good job if this is how they treat their coworkers for no good reason.

[johnsmith]

I sort of doubt that the level of respect you garner on this board is equal to the level of respect that the 'Wild Cobra' bashers give to their co-workers..........

[baseline bum]

Thank-You.

Some of these people just really piss me off. No wonder they don't have a good job if this is how they treat their coworkers for no good reason.

Fuck you. Every post of yours is an insult calling someone a libtard, so quit crying about how unfair everyone is to your moronic ass.

[LnGrrrR]

Fuck you. Every post of yours is an insult calling someone a libtard, so quit crying about how unfair everyone is to your moronic ass.

True, but I do think there's a difference in insulting someone and insulting someone's mother. I know that no one is explicitly insulting WC's mother, but it does have the ring of classism to it (haha you were once poor!). Even if that's not what's meant (like, say a white person saying the N word... ok ok I'll admit it, I'm just searching for Yoni), it can still be taken that way.

[boutons_deux]

trash talking WC's mom because she's on welfare is wrong.

but WC's "conservative" attitude, like St Ronnie's, is that people on welfare are ripping off the system, they're losers, WTF is wrong with them they can't find a job, etc, etc. For all we know, WC's mom is a St Ronnie "welfare queen".

And the AEI and Heritage Foundation would also trash any losers on welfare as parasites, and not really "poor" (in Africa/India/China terms) because they have TV, fridge, cellphone, and car.

[johnsmith]

True, but I do think there's a difference in insulting someone and insulting someone's mother. I know that no one is explicitly insulting WC's mother, but it does have the ring of classism to it (haha you were once poor!). Even if that's not what's meant (like, say a white person saying the N word... ok ok I'll admit it, I'm just searching for Yoni), it can still be taken that way.

Slow down LnGrrrR, the basis upon which many hilarious jokes are born are due to one's mother.........and in this case, WC's mother.

[Wild Cobra]

underemployed means you aren't working 40 hours (eg, a full time job, but 4 x 8 hours/week, or a part-time job when you want a full-time job), not how much your full-time salary is compared to your previous jobs.
True, but I thought I'd point out things are as good for me as they used to be either. Going from a minimum variable $80 k to $114 k between 1997 and 2002 to what I have now has taken a few lifestyle changes I still have a hard time adjusting to. I can't just buy what I want anymore, I have to budget.

Don't get me wrong, I know I'm not special or anything, it's that nearly all jobs are paying less than before in real spending power. Between trade agreements, an overage of people willing to work for low wages here, and a punitive tax system... Things will only get worse. Especially with a congress and president that doesn't understand basic economics.

[LnGrrrR]

My point is.... surely the liberals on this board have plenty of ammo to bash WC with, without resorting to comments about his mother being on welfare. Can't we?

Can't we just slam his opinions with fact and reason, rather than resorting to remarks about people's family? Or at the least, just limit ourselves to slinging insults at WC himself? I'm pretty sure he can take it. :D

[baseline bum]

True, but I do think there's a difference in insulting someone and insulting someone's mother. I know that no one is explicitly insulting WC's mother, but it does have the ring of classism to it (haha you were once poor!). Even if that's not what's meant (like, say a white person saying the N word... ok ok I'll admit it, I'm just searching for Yoni), it can still be taken that way.

It's fair game. The guy complains that government shouldn't be swooping in and fixing peoples' problems at his expense, which isn't very consistent with how he had other peoples' taxes put the food on his table. More "Do as I say and not as I do" conservative crap.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck you. Every post of yours is an insult calling someone a libtard, so quit crying about how unfair everyone is to your moronic ass.
aaawww...

Therms of endearment.

Seriously though, I would prefer to have civil discussions. People like you, Chump, and a few others just really agitate me. Care to try to stay civil, and I will too.

Funny, Clam used to really piss me off. He's mellowed a bit though. I can actually have conversations with him.

At least I'm not ignoring you like I am Chump. I'm tired of his type of harassment. He just never stops.

[Wild Cobra]

My point is.... surely the liberals on this board have plenty of ammo to bash WC with, without resorting to comments about his mother being on welfare. Can't we?

Can't we just slam his opinions with fact and reason, rather than resorting to remarks about people's family? Or at the least, just limit ourselves to slinging insults at WC himself? I'm pretty sure he can take it. :D
Yes, slam me, not my friends or family.

[LnGrrrR]

It's fair game. The guy complains that government shouldn't be swooping in and fixing peoples' problems at his expense, which isn't very consistent with how he had other peoples' taxes put the food on his table. More "Do as I say and not as I do" conservative crap.

True, but I don't think he's ever said he's against welfare in total; just against the "welfare queens" as it were. Of course, I disagree on the amount of true "welfare queens" out there, but that's a different issue.

WC has said a few times that he supports welfare on a limited basis as an emergency social fund.

And even if it WERE fair game (which I don't think it is), why should we resort to that? The discourse is crude enough here, must we lower it more?

Call me a pearl clutcher, or perhaps a concern troll. But I'd like to think that not using family members to insult each other would be better for this board in general.

[nuclearfm]

True, but I don't think he's ever said he's against welfare in total; just against the "welfare queens" as it were. Of course, I disagree on the amount of true "welfare queens" out there, but that's a different issue.

.

How do we define a welfare queen? Does being someone's mom exclude you from that label?

[LnGrrrR]

How do we define a welfare queen? Does being someone's mom exclude you from that label?

I would think a 'welfare queen' is a person that stays on welfare for a long time, without putting forth much effort to find a job. Going on and off welfare multiple times would also probably count.

[baseline bum]

True, but I don't think he's ever said he's against welfare in total; just against the "welfare queens" as it were. Of course, I disagree on the amount of true "welfare queens" out there, but that's a different issue.

WC has said a few times that he supports welfare on a limited basis as an emergency social fund.

And even if it WERE fair game (which I don't think it is), why should we resort to that? The discourse is crude enough here, must we lower it more?

Call me a pearl clutcher, or perhaps a concern troll. But I'd like to think that not using family members to insult each other would be better for this board in general.

How is it not fair game? If I turn out to run a restaurant that hires illegals and pays them $4 and hour, it would be completely fair to call me out on my hypocrisy because of it. Yet WC constantly bitches about the welfare state and how its not government's responsibility to help people who make bad decisions or have bad situations thrust onto them. It's hypocritical as hell.

[LnGrrrR]

How is it not fair game? If I turn out to run a restaurant that hires illegals and pays them $4 and hour, it would be completely fair to call me out on my hypocrisy because of it. Yet WC constantly bitches about the welfare state and how its not government's responsibility to help people who make bad decisions or have bad situations thrust onto them. It's hypocritical as hell.

And what if your Dad did it, and by doing so, was able to afford to send you to school?

Would it still be hypocritical if you wanted to restrict immigration opportunities then?

Some would argue it is, I would argue it isn't. You can appreciate what a situation did for you while disagreeing with it.

As well, there is a difference between complaining about a 'welfare state', where people come to expect money from the government for long amounts of time, and welfare as a short-term emergency fund to prevent destruction of wealth until another job is found.

[Wild Cobra]

How do we define a welfare queen? Does being someone's mom exclude you from that label?
The people who regularly live off the public dole rather improving themselves for self sufficiency. The handicapped and elderly I an fine with long term help. Otherwise, any government subsidies should be for short term only. Not a lifestyle.

[clambake]

i've always referred to you as "the welfare baby".

many on this forum would bash a woman on welfare for having babies they cannot afford.

just remember that.

[spursncowboys]

I understand perfectly. You don't think there are any civilians in war if there would be a substantial civilian resistance to attack.

If you want to back away from that contention, be my guest. People are free to flip-flop if they choose. Im not flip flopping. I never said there aren't any civilians in war... I already said what I think. Im not explaining to you wht is already on the board.

[clambake]

Im not flip flopping. I never said there aren't any civilians in war... I already said what I think. Im not explaining to you wht is already on the board.

you shouldn't have done that.

now you will be considered a coward on your own team.

[LnGrrrR]

Im not flip flopping. I never said there aren't any civilians in war... I already said what I think. Im not explaining to you wht is already on the board.

Care to define exactly what a 'civilian' is, then?

[Wild Cobra]

Im not flip flopping. I never said there aren't any civilians in war... I already said what I think. Im not explaining to you wht is already on the board.
Don't bother arguing with him. He's never wrong (in his mind.) When he is, he changes the subject or asks stupid questions. If more people ignore him like I do, he'll stop for a bit.

[spursncowboys]

Care to define exactly what a 'civilian' is, then?
No. But I will go back to what I said about Hiroshima. I said I agreed with Truman about the fact that the Japanese culture had them different than other countries, like France.
I want to get back to you people and what this started from. who believes that US forces have killed tens of thousands of iraqi civilians? This is what brought this up.

[LnGrrrR]

No. But I will go back to what I said about Hiroshima. I said I agreed with Truman about the fact that the Japanese culture had them different than other countries, like France.
I want to get back to you people and what this started from. who believes that US forces have killed tens of thousands of iraqi civilians? This is what brought this up.

I don't think US Forces have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians directly. I believe the claim was being made that, due to the war, there has been civil unrest and upheaval. This has led to civil war in Iraq, which led to many deaths that might have been prevented in the usual societal structure that was there before the Iraq War.

But I think the civilian point is valid and important as well. You said you agreed with Truman that the Japanese culture was different from France. You said this because you thought Japanese would fight to the last man, correct? But didn't you also say this about America? Do you think America would not fight to the last man?

[ChumpDumper]

No.Why not?


I want to get back to you people and what this started from. who believes that US forces have killed tens of thousands of iraqi civilians? This is what brought this up.Tens of thousands? Sure. They killed a couple thousand in the much shorter Gulf War by their own count.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think US Forces have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians directly. I believe the claim was being made that, due to the war, there has been civil unrest and upheaval. This has led to civil war in Iraq, which led to many deaths that might have been prevented in the usual societal structure that was there before the Iraq War.

But I think the civilian point is valid and important as well. You said you agreed with Truman that the Japanese culture was different from France. You said this because you thought Japanese would fight to the last man, correct? But didn't you also say this about America? Do you think America would not fight to the last man?

Here is what NK... said
let me get this straight. Spending to ensure every american has healthcare is not ok. but spending to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is ok in your book? I agree that the terrorists have killed many civilians.
About the America being one I wrote this a page back
I believe America to be that kind of country. If I were a bastard commie and was wanting to invade America, I would have to think about having to destroy a huge amount of the population. Many strtegists have agreed to that fact.

[SpurNation]

I (and most of my friends) would fight to the death if ever forced. I don't know about all of America though. I think many (not majority mind you) in this country would subjecate themselves to an aggressor.

But it wouldn't take a majority to subjecate themselves to an aggressor that would make it hard for a majority of us who would fight to keep the aggressor from winning.

All it took was about 20% of the people during the Revolutionary War to defeat the British. Meaning...even though 80% had no interest in becoming sovereign from England...they also didn't support England with their own life.

[LnGrrrR]

SpursNCowboys, that's my point.

You said you're ok with a nuke strike on the Japanese because you think all of them would have fought back, or at least, a majority.

Yet you also think that America would do the same. So why wouldn't a nuclear strike against us also be moral?

And Spurnation, I think you're missing the point of the convo I'm having with SpursnCowboys :D

[spursncowboys]

Im not talking about morals. I am talking reality. Morals doesn't stop the bomb from exploding. That is why we keep as few countries as we can with nukes. Also I didn't say I was ok with it. I said I agreed with Truman. I don't want to monday morning quarterback something like that. He made a tough decision and more Americans got to live because of it. It wasn't a guarantee that we would have beaten Japan. They were dug in pretty well. They did not believe in surrender and neither did their population. However the reason why a nuke strike against us, as far as countries, is we have more and we have more advanced at closer ranges. This is what I mean as a President to keep us safe. I don't want a president to ponder the moral relevance of a situation if we were being attacked.

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed that Truman had a hard decision to make, and I would not want to be in his shoes for that.

I think your dismissal of the importance of the moral high ground is too quick though. The moral high ground is what will often win over the populace, and without it, it can be tough to fight a war. Sometimes it is not sheer numbers that win, but willpower and morale.

[spursncowboys]

Agreed that Truman had a hard decision to make, and I would not want to be in his shoes for that.

I think your dismissal of the importance of the moral high ground is too quick though. The moral high ground is what will often win over the populace, and without it, it can be tough to fight a war. Sometimes it is not sheer numbers that win, but willpower and morale. Right but you have to win, and then worry about winning over. I am sorry to leave the idea that I do not want my country to follow a high moral stand. It is just my morals are different. I think we have been arguing ethics.

[Clandestino]

Not sure if this has been said, but the age group from 16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen. Their parents also baby the fucking shit out of them.

That is why half aren't working.

[LnGrrrR]

Right but you have to win, and then worry about winning over. I am sorry to leave the idea that I do not want my country to follow a high moral stand. It is just my morals are different. I think we have been arguing ethics.

So you believe morally that one should do whatever is in their capability to do so? Sounds like Neitzche and his idea of the Uberman.

[boutons_deux]

"16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen"

link?

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure if this has been said, but the age group from 16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen. Their parents also baby the fucking shit out of them.

That is why half aren't working.
Unemployment figures are based on who wants to work but aren't. Now I would agree it's easier to lie, and say you are looking not expecting to find work, but I would never attribute the large figure to that.

Think about it this was. For every illegal alien working a low wage job, that a first time job taken for a US citizen. Today's kids may be lazier than past generations, but work is one way to instill better behavior in responsibility.

Even as bad as the economy has been here in Oregon, both my daughters worked, starting in High School. Setting the example of even working low paying jobs or bad jobs tend to rub off on children. In the long run, society, and the parents are to blame. Liberals advocate programs for people not working, so teens see an easy way out. Many live in families on the government take. Only the parents who show shame in being on such programs turn that into a positive for their children.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree about getting your kids to work jobs growing up. I started working when I was 14, and I think it had a positive effect.

[DarkReign]

Ive had a tax-paying job since I was 11. There is no excuse for these brats.

[Clandestino]

"16-24 is the laziest group this nation has ever seen"

link?

From having to manage these little fuckers who think they should have a 100k paying job right out of college. That's all the data i need. Plus, there have been countless 20/20, primetime and 60 minutes shows dedicated to the lazy generation.

[Nbadan]

Clandestino must get his facts from FAUX News

http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad185/tannybogus/FOX.jpg

...that's a 97% unemployment rate!

[greyforest]

Clandestino must get his facts from FAUX News

http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad185/tannybogus/FOX.jpg

...that's a 97% unemployment rate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa

Population
- 2009 estimate 307,619,000
- 2000 census 281,421,906


there aren't 149 million unemployed though

[boutons_deux]

truth about jobs that no one wants to tell

If the feds don't spend money to put people back to work, the economy won't recover and politics will get uglier

By Robert Reich
Oct. 03, 2009 |

Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part-time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job.

In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment).

Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a midterm election. Be prepared for worse.

So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services.

And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead.

Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: the government.

Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.

Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.

When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grandkids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night.

My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing.

You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again.

People who now obsess about government debt have it backward. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then -- after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt.

But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.

Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind.

The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were.

State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever.

-- By Robert Reich


==============

What's the Repug solution to the jobs disaster? Do they fuckin care?

[coyotes_geek]

What's the Repug solution to the jobs disaster? Do they fuckin care?


Doesn't matter if the repugs care or not. The dems are the ones in charge. This is their problem.

[boutons_deux]

As the opposition, the Repugs don't have any proposals or bills to remedy the banksters' economy?

I guess not. I do appreciate deeply that they did propose a federal budget without numbers :lol

[Winehole23]

Doesn't matter if the repugs care or not. The dems are the ones in charge. This is their problem.Tomorrow it could be yours and mine.


With no end in sight to the country's job market woes, the House has agreed to give the jobless in a majority of states another 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits," the AP (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/23/house_bill_adds_to_jobless_benefits_in_27_states/)reports. "The bill, which passed the House 331-83, approves the extra three months of benefits for those jobless living in 27 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Ricohttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/23/2077987.aspx

[coyotes_geek]

As the opposition, the Repugs don't have any proposals or bills to remedy the banksters' economy?

I guess not. I do appreciate deeply that they did propose a federal budget without numbers :lol

Would it matter if they did? It's not like the democrats are all that interested in what the republicans think these days. Again, this is the dems mess to clean up and they're not interested in what the republicans think. So whether the republicans have any ideas or not, probably not, it's pretty much irrelevant.

[coyotes_geek]

Tomorrow it could be yours and mine.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/23/2077987.aspx

Yep. That's why instead of worrying about healthcare right now Obama & Co should be worrying about how to get the infrastructure spending moving.

[DarkReign]

Well, since we love European systems so damn much lately, why not be like them and have the government be the single largest employer hands down, right?

This country has gone fucking insane...the things some of you will consider in the face of adversity is beyond my comprehension.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, the fallacy that just any old college degree is the pathway to a better life has certainly been exposed. All those guys and gals that skated through school with their liberal arts degrees are finding out that they just wasted a shitload of money on school and don't have any real world skills that employers will actually pay for.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, since we love European systems so damn much lately, why not be like them and have the government be the single largest employer hands down, right?


Which European systems are you referring to? Who has advocated government domination of the job market?



This country has gone fucking insane...the things some of you will consider in the face of adversity is beyond my comprehension.

Why would you NOT consider any particular option in the face of adversity? Consideration does not equal enactment.

In any event, does a drowning man refuse a flotation device based upon its color?

[hater]

Well, since we love European systems so damn much lately, why not be like them and have the government be the single largest employer hands down, right?


huh? Im sure we already are and have been for decades

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the fallacy that just any old college degree is the pathway to a better life has certainly been exposed. All those guys and gals that skated through school with their liberal arts degrees are finding out that they just wasted a shitload of money on school and don't have any real world skills that employers will actually pay for.
No kidding. I don't have a single day of college, but I have vast experience. That's what employers want.

[rjv]

No kidding. I don't have a single day of college, but I have vast experience. That's what employers want.

some employers.

[Wild Cobra]

some employers.
If an employer is stupid enough to look at college and not experience, I don't want to work for his dumb ass anyway.

[rjv]

If an employer is stupid enough to look at college and not experience, I don't want to work for his dumb ass anyway.

yeah, those hospitals, law firms, architect firms, engineering firms, accounting firms and schools sure are stupid.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have friends that have kids that have been out of college for 2+ years that STILL haven't found jobs that are "good enough" for them. They are still being supported 100% by their parents and I have to bite my tongue to not say what I think...

How are those parents doing those kids a favor by not telling them to get their asses out there and find a job or they will cut them the fuck off...What the fuck did they think was going to happen when they spent 5 years getting a degree in English, or Art History, or Psychology?

[Wild Cobra]

yeah, those hospitals, law firms, architect firms, engineering firms, accounting firms and schools sure are stupid.
Ah... That's not where my experience is at anyway. Besides, there are plenty of those on the list that a high school education was enough to get started on the ground floor in. I took 1 yr of drafting in high school for example. Some states, you don't need college top be a lawyer. Just have to pass the bar exam.

Lets face it. Not all fields need college. Today, it's needed to make up for what schools lack. It's been more than 30 years since I was in High School. Schools really suck compared to back then.

[boutons_deux]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_bi_ge/us_good_jobs_unfilled/print

CC thinks undergrad school should be a vocational/technical school, like a glorified Fox Tech, but when people are trained for specific areas, they miss out of broader "liberal"/cultural/critical thinking education and end up ignorant and sheeple voting for Repugs and conservatives. :)

[DarkReign]

huh? Im sure we already are and have been for decades

I didnt look it up, but just for perspective, Sweden's government employs 30% of its people.

Thats what I was referring to and I know America isnt there yet. Should have been more clear.

[DarkReign]

Which European systems are you referring to? Who has advocated government domination of the job market?

Expanding the government employee pool is exactly that. Since the private market cant produce the necessary jobs, I dont think its prudent the government do it for us, is my point.


Why would you NOT consider any particular option in the face of adversity? Consideration does not equal enactment.

In any event, does a drowning man refuse a flotation device based upon its color?

Meh, very true. But most problems find the path of least resistance and proposing a feel-good, easy-street solution like expanding the government employ in an attempt to stem the mounting job losses seems much too appealing in the face of the alternatives.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_bi_ge/us_good_jobs_unfilled/print

CC thinks undergrad school should be a vocational/technical school, like a glorified Fox Tech, but when people are trained for specific areas, they miss out of broader "liberal"/cultural/critical thinking education and end up ignorant and sheeple voting for Repugs and conservatives. :)

So it's cool to have a broad liberal/cultural/critical thinking education and be 25 years old, no job, and living off your parents? At least you have plenty of time to play video games and post on the internet and make fun of those damned narrow minded conservatives.

[Winehole23]

So it's cool to have a broad liberal/cultural/critical thinking education and be 25 years old, no job, and living off your parents?I'd be cool with that now, but when I was 25, I wasn't.

[Shastafarian]

I don't have a single day of college

Color me shocked.

[rjv]

So it's cool to have a broad liberal/cultural/critical thinking education and be 25 years old, no job, and living off your parents? At least you have plenty of time to play video games and post on the internet and make fun of those damned narrow minded conservatives.

i know. don't you hate it when people make generalizations about specific groups? i mean, how myopic is that kind of logic.

[boutons_deux]

"narrow minded conservatives"

Please, you flatter yourself. It's close-minded conservatives.

[MannyIsGod]

Expanding the government employee pool is exactly that. Since the private market cant produce the necessary jobs, I dont think its prudent the government do it for us, is my point.



Meh, very true. But most problems find the path of least resistance and proposing a feel-good, easy-street solution like expanding the government employ in an attempt to stem the mounting job losses seems much too appealing in the face of the alternatives.

I'm sorry, but nearly every economist I read keeps saying that we needed more government stimulus not less. I just don't buy that we should somehow be sticking to asking for less government intervention when all of the people who know whats going on are saying we need more of it.

I'm not advocating more government jobs but more government spending in any event. People keep worrying about the debt but they do not realize that if the economy does not grow the debt does.

I have read economist after economist after economist say that the real danger is not short term deficit spending but a long term stagnant economy stuck in a liquidity trap.

[boutons_deux]

many months ago, Reich and Krugman were both saying the risk was the stimulus (not the bailout) being too small, not too big. The hole was huge, the hole filling had to match it.

And yes, with the economy back in health and growing with job holders and business paying taxes, the deficit would be paid down, just like Clinton did in paying down the national debt in the 90s during the "longest economic expansion in peace time"

classic Keynesian economic mgmt.

But Congress will now block any increase in stimulus funds, with the Repugs screaming "govt takeover", blah blah blah, and doing everything possible to spite Magic Negro and make him fail, no matter how bad it is for US citizens, while the chickenshit Dems will cower before the Repug hateful insanity.

[CosmicCowboy]

But Congress will now block any increase in stimulus funds, with the Repugs screaming "govt takeover", blah blah blah, and doing everything possible to spite Magic Negro and make him fail, no matter how bad it is for US citizens, while the chickenshit Dems will cower before the Repug hateful insanity.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

How old are you? Do you actually have a job? do you support yourself and/or a family?

[Wild Cobra]

many months ago, Reich and Krugman were both saying the risk was the stimulus (not the bailout) being too small, not too big. The hole was huge, the hole filling had to match it.

And yes, with the economy back in health and growing with job holders and business paying taxes, the deficit would be paid down, just like Clinton did in paying down the national debt in the 90s during the "longest economic expansion in peace time"

classic Keynesian economic mgmt.

But Congress will now block any increase in stimulus funds, with the Repugs screaming "govt takeover", blah blah blah, and doing everything possible to spite Magic Negro and make him fail, no matter how bad it is for US citizens, while the chickenshit Dems will cower before the Repug hateful insanity.
As they should.

I disagree with about half of Keynesian Economics. Thing is, it applies 0% to today's problems.

The primary reason I believe Keynesian economics has helped in the past is because it was used to get people to spend more money. His theory has to do with financial assets not in the market, but just being saved. His approach gets people to maintain a reinvigorated economy by saving less and spending more. Today, most consumers have more debt than savings. Because of this, Keynesian economics will harm us rather than hurt us.

People, this is not the case anymore. For spending by the government to improve the economy, we have to have good jobs for people. to continue to have money to spend. Everything our government doing is counterproductive to this.

More taxes, less money to spend.

More regulations less profit for companies and salaries.

More free trade, less manufacturing jobs that historically paid well.

Government is the problem. Not the solution. For Keynesian economics to bail us out of this one, we need to return the exported jobs to the USA, or create new ones. The government only creates jobs that are a burden to the tax payer. The private sector creates the jobs we need, but government policies make it harder and harder as time goes by. Government needs to take a serious look at the problems they cause, and stop causing them, then go back and fix the problems caused bu the government.