US Government Shutdown

[metis]

According to the BLS has released the U6 numbers through Nov 2013. Yes the U6 has dropped 0.8% from Nov 2012 to Nov 2013. So as you can see the economic picture is still depressed.
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Yes, unfortunately it still is depressed, but fortunately it is improving, and that's really the most encouraging thing. I've mentioned it before, but I'll mention it again, and that is most of what I was reading and hearing from some of the economists back in 2008 was that this recession was a game-changer, that it would likely take 5 to 10 years to recover, and that we were not going back to where we were.

What we experienced at the end of 2008 and later was a major structural defect that affected so many different areas, and some of these defects still have not adequately been altered. For example, we now have fewer banks than before, thus moral hazard is even a greater problem. And if you think we got it bad, do you keep track of what's happening elsewhere, such as in Europe?

There's one item I didn't comment on that you posted, and that is especially one area where we do agree, and that's the problem with the fallout from moving into a global economy, which gave us a relatively short-term shot in the arm, but a long-term nightmare because of the great "sucking sound" of jobs leaving, plus the effect of forcing employers to keep American wages as low as possible in order to compete with imports and exports.

It's especially this reason why I feel that we must move towards a single-payer medical approach, lower the real corporate tax rate but with very few deductions, and then pass a VAT to make up the difference. We also must invest into our infrastructure or we simply will become a second-rate nation. We have to learn that we can no longer be the world's policeman. We must also invest more in education at basically all levels, plus also do more with helping people retrain for new jobs.

All of this is going to cost us money, which also means some higher taxes, but if we don't do it, we will be slipping gradually down. We're in a competitive world, and if we refuse to take the proper steps to compete, we're going to lose.

 

[Reverend Rick]

All of this is going to cost us money, which also means some higher taxes, but if we don't do it, we will be slipping gradually down. We're in a competitive world, and if we refuse to take the proper steps to compete, we're going to lose.

LOL, your going to have follow one of your fearless leaders, (Nancy Pelosi) and "Embrace the Suck". :ignore:

 

[metis]

LOL, your going to have follow one of your fearless leaders, (Nancy Pelosi) and "Embrace the Suck". :ignore:

You can laugh all you want, but not investing in our future is committing societal death by slow suicide. How can we grow without investing in our future? It's not that I just think we should throw money at the problem, heaven forbid, but that we simply cannot cut, cut, and cut some more, and then expect that somehow this is going to miraculously make us a better and more competitive nation.

Years ago there was a Fram oil-filter commercial, and the mechanic points to a car with engine problems and says that the person who owned the car didn't replace the oil filter on any kind of regular basis. As he's holding up the new filter, he says something I can still remember quite well: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later". And I do believe this holds true with us as well.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, I believe that the figures show that unemployment is up, the majority of the jobs created are part-time. Also one of the major reasons the stock market is going up is companies are basically doing the same but with less people and the Fed is printing money keeping interest rates down thus more money is going into the stock market vice interest bearing commodities. Unemployment is going up due to many factors, one of which is globalization. Duggest you read the following articles.
Why the Stock Market Goes Up As Jobs Go Nowhere | FS Staff | FINANCIAL SENSE
A Record Stock Market with Record Federal Debt: Does This Make Sense? - Forbes

This is really how you see us evil Republicans? We seriously need to tone this down a bit, (not RF in real life). If we ge demonised before we even do anything, (Mitt did not win) if you expect the worst you will only see the worse.

JB has took a step towards the center, HR better do the same because in case if you have not noticed the American people are not pleased with either side right now and expect both sides TO WORK TOGETHER.

Real life would dictate that we are going to have to compromise. That means your not going to get everything you want and neither am I.

The fact is that the economy is improving, and the Republicans are doing their darndest to make sure that the American people don't realize this, or else to downplay it as much as possible. Why? For the exact same reasons they have been the useless obstructionist, sky-is-falling, hypocrites for the last 5 years: They, under no circumstances, want Obama to have success. And, sadly, what's good for Obama is also good for America. Which means... they don't want what's good for America, or any good news for America, at least, not for another 2 years. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind about this, and I agree, it is unfortunate and extremely cynical, but I really can't see any other way to read what's been going on since Obama has taken office.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well DP, if you want people to create more jobs, raising minimum wage, requiring them to provide health insurance, and rasing taxes rains on that parade.

Raising what taxes though. Democrats are trying to get revenue without raising taxes. Eliminating various tax expenditures to some of the wealthiest corporations is a start.

I am of the opinion that we can't have more jobs AND address income disparity at the same time. You have to get a job first, then improve working conditions. First things first.

I disagree. Raising the minimum is doable. Many of the states are out in front of the federal government on this and many of the companies in these locales are continuing to hire.

NewYork has enterprise zones were new and expanding companies pay zero taxes for 10 years. That will prime the pump.

Sure but that is nothing more than cost shifting. Bobby Jindal was thinking of doing something similar in Louisiana...and thought he would pass the price tag onto the people in the form of higher sales taxes.

Extending unemployment keeps people out of the work force, why work when you get a check for doing nothing?

You clearly don't understand how unemployment works. In order to even get a check you have to show proof that you are actively seeking employment. No one is sitting at home collecting a check for the sake of collecting a check...especially with the amount they're actually giving you. You have to get past the notion that people receiving UI are lazy or don't want to work. These people do in fact want to work...and the data shows that jobless claims have actually dropped.

Yeah, I know thats harsh but after 99 weeks we still throw them to the wolves. Your just puting off what has to happen.

Like I said...in order to receive UI you have to actively be seeking employment. I hope everyone on the "right" knows this because it's becoming increasing evident they might not. So people are on UI, they have to be looking for a job to get it, the money they receive goes right back into the local economy....and if you discontinue it...guess what...."they'll still be unemployed"....

No wonder the figures are so low, we pay people to not work.

Once again, and for the third time, no one is getting paid "not to work"....in order to get a check you have to be looking for a job.

Please read and share it with your fellow Republicans...because if you believe it's simply a stay at home and get paid check you and yours really need to educate yourselves....

Collecting Unemployment: Are You Able, Available, and Actively Seeking Work? | Nolo.com

the unemployment system requires workers to look for work -- and to be able and available to work, should a job turn up.

To qualify as "able" to work, an employee must be physically and mentally capable of work. If you are suffering from an illness or injury, you may not be eligible for unemployment benefits until you are once again able to work. However, an employee who has a disability and could work if provided a reasonable accommodation generally will be considered able to work.

To collect unemployment benefits, an employee must also be available to work. "Available to work" means there is nothing preventing the employee from accepting a new job, should one come along.

It isn't enough to be unemployed. You must also be looking for work in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits, and you must undertake an active job search. What constitutes an adequate job search depends on your field. If you were laid off from a minimum wage job at a fast-food franchise, for example, an active job search might consist of going to similar establishments, asking about job openings, and completing job applications. If you were laid off from a professional position, you might respond to job postings, send out cover letters and resumes, and attend any interviews you land for potential positions.

States verify your job search in different ways. Some may simply ask you to confirm, in your weekly benefits claim, that you are seeking work. Others may ask you to provide more detailed information about what you are doing to look for work, and may even ask you to list three companies you applied to recently.

You also may not turn down suitable work, if it's offered.

I'm serious...please pass this along to others in your party so that they don't get this misguided impression that those getting UI are getting a check for doing nothing....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think we had better do what we already agreed to do before we hammer anything else out. No new taxes, no additional spending.

Lets have a budget that spends within it's means. You want something new, lets cut something already in there. You can have anything you want, jus get rid of something else already there.

How hard can that be with all the fraud waste and abuse dripping from the current budget.

I swear, if we are not increasing the budget every year, you look at it like a cut.

I have no problem with that....which is why I said we can start with cutting off the tax expenditures provided to some of the wealthiest companies that have been reporting quarterly profits.....or the massive amount of subsidies found in the Farm Bill....and the wasteful spending on the Military Industrial Complex as well as the over blown Intelligence community....Do you think Republicans will agree with me here? Chuck Grassley stood on the floor talking about reducing/elimination various subsides in the Farm Bill...and he's a Republican. I don't normally agree with him but on this I agree...The question is..will his colleagues in the Senate and House agree. You first have to be able to compromise within your own party before you are "allowed" to compromise with Democrats.....

 

[esmith]

But I know what the Democrat's plans are. I don't have to wait til the elections to hear or see what they are. The various jobs bills I've outlined along with in depth information of their economic plan isn't in question. So I know what they had, have and what they're putting forth....I was looking for something you could point to that Republicans are offering other than a short list of bullet points I've seen at their site. From Democrats I've seen the what and how...but from the Republicans I've only seen a snippet of the what but not the how....Do you have any information about their current economic plans that go into detail to get America back to work?....

So, you are basically saying that all Democrats are in lock-step with their party, that there are no Democrats who may disagree with some parts of the party platform? Sounds like it; just mindless lemmings without regard to the final outcome of their journey.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So, you are basically saying that all Democrats are in lock-step with their party, that there are no Democrats who may disagree with some parts of the party platform? Sounds like it; just mindless lemmings without regard to the final outcome of their journey.

Not saying that at all. I just commented to Rev. Rick about Chained CPI and how most Dems didn't agree with that. There are many things we don't agree on but we eventually find common ground and move forward.......with that said...my question regarding the Republican economic plan in depth still stands....

 

[Reverend Rick]

Once again, and for the third time, no one is getting paid "not to work"....in order to get a check you have to be looking for a job.

Oh please DP, don't posture and act like this is what is really going on. You mean they list 2 or 4 places they suppose they looked for a job.

A person who made 40 bucks an hour will not take a 20 dollar an hour job because they draw a check and make the same money. Most likely they will not take a 25 dollar an hour job because tha would be like making 5 dollars an hour.

Now if you drop their unemployment, they will take the 25 dollar an hour job.

I will tell you what, anyone who has drawn 26 weeks and takes a poloygraph that they have actually searched for employment each and every week and passes can get 99 weeks, how about that?

I would say 95% of the people who draw unemployment lie.

Be honest, you know they lie about job searches.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh please DP, don't posture and act like this is what is really going on. You mean they list 2 or 4 places they suppose they looked for a job.
A person who made 40 bucks an hour will not take a 20 dollar an hour job because they draw a check and make the same money. Most likely they will not take a 25 dollar an hour job because tha would be like making 5 dollars an hour.
Now if you drop their unemployment, they will take the 25 dollar an hour job.
I will tell you what, anyone who has drawn 26 weeks and takes a poloygraph that they have actually searched for employment each and every week and passes can get 99 weeks, how about that?
I would say 95% of the people who draw unemployment lie.
Be honest, you know they lie about job searches.

This matches my experience as an employer, & knowing many on unemployment.
Far & away, most were working (under the table) or turning down work.
I once hired a guy who called just before he was to start, saying he decided
to continue not working til the unemployment ran out. I've reported such
people, & no adverse action was ever taken.

Unemployment insurance should be just that, ie, insurance against adversity.
Employees should co-pay the premiums, & their rate should be based upon
their record. This way it's not free, & they're not paid to not work.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh please DP, don't posture and act like this is what is really going on. You mean they list 2 or 4 places they suppose they looked for a job.

They list the place and phone number. In many cases they have to list additional information to satisfy the requirements.

See here: http://www.esd.wa.gov/uibenefits/formsandpubs/job-search-log.pdf

It's actually a lot of work to stay on UI and be subject to finding a job and logging that information weekly.

A person who made 40 bucks an hour will not take a 20 dollar an hour job because they draw a check and make the same money. Most likely they will not take a 25 dollar an hour job because tha would be like making 5 dollars an hour.

This is a gross over simplification of what people actually receive on UI. That "$40" per hour is severely reduced on UI.

Employment Security Department: Frequently asked questions

Q.
How are unemployment benefits calculated? What are the highest, lowest and average benefit amounts?
A.
Unemployment benefits are calculated based on earnings. To calculate the benefit amount:
1. Add the total wages for the two highest quarters in the past year*.
2. Divide the total by two.
3. Multiply by 0.0385.

This is the weekly benefit amount, up to a maximum that is established in state law.

For July 2013-June 2014 fiscal year, the weekly minimum and maximum for regular benefits are $148 and $624.

So take that regular $40 an hour and do the math and you'll quickly see that a person use to that kind of money per hour, per month per fiscal year will see that amount severely reduced under UI. At that reduced rate you clearly get a sense that one can not maintain their current standard of living. Most cut way back...sell or "lose" their home, car etc. because of their reduced income. And on and on. This is what we saw during the Great Recession.

Now if you drop their unemployment, they will take the 25 dollar an hour job.

Many will regardless. This happens more often than you think. Some people are actually willing to take a pay cut.

Willing to Take a 50% Pay Cut - Share Your Story: Share Your Unemployment Story

"I am willing to take 50% pay cut still having an issue to get a job in apparel industry. I am trying to change my career but no good luck."

Unemployed face a reduction in income - permanently - Oct. 6, 2011

It's common to take a pay cut after a job loss. But the reduced income is likely to be permanent for workers who become unemployed during an economic downturn, a new study from the Brookings Institution shows.

Taking a pay cut after being unemployed? - BabyCenter

So I've been unemployed for about 6 months and trying so very hard to find a good job, gone on countless interviews and gotten close to offers but I think I'm "too expensive" for these employers because I always hit a snag when they ask about my salary history.

I don't really mind taking a pay cut at this point in my life because it's better than the $0 I'm making right now......

So as you can see...people are definitely looking for employment and many either will accept a pay cut or don't have a choice but to take a pay cut. Since UI is designed to run out in normal circumstances...these people know that the UI won't last forever.

My wife was working for a telecom for well over 10 years and lost her job. She received a lucrative severance package so she didn't need to get UI. Her package afforded her the ability to not work for up to a year. She was out of work for 6 months. Within that six month window, from the time she was laid off until the time she found a new job, she was searching for a new job and going on interviews. Unlike UI her package was her full salary for one year. She understood it wouldn't last long and hit the pavement day one. The remaining 6 month salary she had coming in went to savings and other expenditures...and some toward a cruise we took this year.

I will tell you what, anyone who has drawn 26 weeks and takes a poloygraph that they have actually searched for employment each and every week and passes can get 99 weeks, how about that?

This is ridiculous. Like I said, you have to prove you're actively seeking employment. If you submit a log sheet with information that is false...you lose your benefits and in a lot of cases have to pay back the money you've received.

I would say 95% of the people who draw unemployment lie.

And you have "evidence" of this?

Be honest, you know they lie about job searches.

I never said some don't. I will say...not all do. ....:sad:

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet another news item which tells me that government has plenty of money....
Senators introduce bill to crack down on 'lavish' portrait expen - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

ABC News reported earlier this year that the Obama administration spent nearly $400,000 on paintings of officials in
just a two-year- period, and the Washington Post reported in 2008 each portrait can sometimes cost over $40,000.

They can't just take a photo for under $100?
No, they need paintings of themselves for tens of thousands of dollars.
These corrupt royal wannabes are so out of touch with the real world.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yet another news item which tells me that government has plenty of money....
Senators introduce bill to crack down on 'lavish' portrait expen - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
They can't just take a photo for under $100?
No, they need paintings of themselves for tens of thousands of dollars.
These corrupt royal wannabes are so out of touch with the real world.

I didn't read the article but I'm in full agreement with you here. I believe that every bit of government spending in a department's budget should be scrutinized and questioned....(rigorously).

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't read the article but I'm in full agreement with you here. I believe that every bit of government spending in a department's budget should be scrutinized and questioned....(rigorously).

What? Agreement?
We're now boring the peanut gallery.

 

[metis]

Oh please DP, don't posture and act like this is what is really going on. You mean they list 2 or 4 places they suppose they looked for a job.

A person who made 40 bucks an hour will not take a 20 dollar an hour job because they draw a check and make the same money. Most likely they will not take a 25 dollar an hour job because tha would be like making 5 dollars an hour.

Now if you drop their unemployment, they will take the 25 dollar an hour job.

I will tell you what, anyone who has drawn 26 weeks and takes a poloygraph that they have actually searched for employment each and every week and passes can get 99 weeks, how about that?

I would say 95% of the people who draw unemployment lie.

Be honest, you know they lie about job searches.

I simply cannot believe that you continue to stereotype the poor as you do. There is absolutely no way possible that you could verify that 95% figure for one, and then there's the issue of ignoring the plight of those who are not playing the system and are looking. Jesus went after the lost sheep, but it appears that your tact is to ignore them and let them and their children suffer.

We have always extended u.c. in a recession because it's pretty much common knowledge that finding a job at that time can be excruciatingly tough. Yes, some may game the system, but instead of cutting all of them off, maybe it's best to actually try and weed them out. Trouble is, that takes personnel in order to do that, which means we would have to hire more federal and state employees, which means that we would have to get the money from somewhere, which means that the Republicans would even have to agree to raise revenues, and exactly how is that gonna happen with so many of them who elevate money over the well-being of people, especially the poor? Gee, I wonder what Jesus would say about that, Rev?

And if you think I'm exaggerating, all one has to do is to go back through these threads and see the arguments posted by those on the right, and it almost always comes down to their preoccupation with $. Not fairness. Not helping the poor. Not compassion for those in need. Just $.

 

[mystic64]

What? Agreement?
We're now boring the peanut gallery.

Every bit of the money that the US government spends that puts somebody to work is a contribution to either the US economy or the world economy, none of it is actually wasted. If they were buying art from the rich so that the rich can get richer, then it would be a contribution to nothing constructive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every bit of the money that the US government spends that puts somebody to work is a contribution to either the US economy or the world economy, none of it is actually wasted. If they were buying art from the rich so that the rich can get richer, then it would be a contribution to nothing constructive.

No, tis not so simple that all money spent is productive. Money is all about resource allocation. Taxpayers work for money which the government takes in taxes. Gov then spends it, which directly benefits the recipients, but not necessarily the taxpayers who worked for it & paid it in the first place. And then, how the money is spent has great effect. If gov spends $1B to build a bridge to nowhere, is this as useful as spending it on science research & education?
These paintings contribute no real economic value. They're just politicians' vanity pieces.

 

[mystic64]

I simply cannot believe that you continue to stereotype the poor as you do. There is absolutely no way possible that you could verify that 95% figure for one, and then there's the issue of ignoring the plight of those who are not playing the system and are looking. Jesus went after the lost sheep, but it appears that your tact is to ignore them and let them and their children suffer.

And if you think I'm exaggerating, all one has to do is to go back through these threads and see the arguments posted by those on the right, and it almost always comes down to their preoccupation with $. Not fairness. Not helping the poor. Not compassion for those in need. Just $.

A plea of compassion to the selfish self interested world is an interesting approach to things Metis. The question should be, "How can you show them that they can make money off of helping the disadvantaged?"

 

[Willamena]

Yet another news item which tells me that government has plenty of money....
Senators introduce bill to crack down on 'lavish' portrait expen - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
They can't just take a photo for under $100?
No, they need paintings of themselves for tens of thousands of dollars.
These corrupt royal wannabes are so out of touch with the real world.

They didn't spend all that much. $400K is one senator's two or three month salary.

U.S. Senator Salaries - How Much Does a Senator Make? - TheRichest

 

[Revoltingest]

They didn't spend all that much. $400K is one senator's two or three month salary.
U.S. Senator Salaries - How Much Does a Senator Make? - TheRichest

Well, it's not much money to rich folk like you, but a couple hundred thousand per year is a lot to a lowly grounds keeper.
Even if the amount seems small to some, this smallness shouldn't justify it being wasted on vanity paintings.
There are better uses for it. Even this pittance could change the lives of many citizens for the better.