Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351356352' post='1174992'] Sorry but this is a false argument. The more people you have with more money in their pockets spending it produces a higher demand which creates more jobs. The population size is irrelevant. It's the population with less money in their pockets that matters. As far as your 2nd question. That's the point in spending on education in the long term, so that he can pave roads while going to school at night to learn something else to do when the roads are paved. [/quote] No, you are talking a bunch of wasted money. It's one thing for someone to get federal assistance for continuing education, but its a totally different thing to keep spending on continuing education when there are already people as part of the work force working jobs that they are over qualified for. The only way you are going to lower the unemployment rate is to have more jobs for college graduates so that they step up in the work force to a job they are more suited for. Then jobs like retail or hospitality, can be filled by people who didn't go to college but are more than fit to do it. I don't know how you can't see that giving more government jobs that don't have an infinite supply of work will only hurt in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I have no idea how that is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351356969' post='1174995'] No, you are talking a bunch of wasted money. It's one thing for someone to get federal assistance for continuing education, but its a totally different thing to keep spending on continuing education when there are already people as part of the work force working jobs that they are over qualified for. The only way you are going to lower the unemployment rate is to have more jobs for college graduates so that they step up in the work force to a job they are more suited for. Then jobs like retail or hospitality, can be filled by people who didn't go to college but are more than fit to do it. I don't know how you can't see that giving more government jobs that don't have an infinite supply of work will only hurt in the long run. [/quote] I dont know how you dont see it, especially when I was explicit in saying it, that I'm not talking about people keeping those jobs forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351356995' post='1174996'] I have no idea how that is relevant. [/quote] If you are talking about the electric chair story, here's why. It is a metaphor that being a part of progression, going from hanging someone, and progressing to an electric chair, can actually be a bad thing. Engineers can create things that are so good, that can actually hurt the individual who created it in the long run, because it can replace him. This guy was electrician who built this new more humane way for prisoners to die, and then that same creation killed him. I know it's only a movies, but it might be easier to understand the concept, "I-Robot" or "2001: A Space Odyssey." So many people are blinded by moving forward into new technology, and they aren't thinking about the people affected by it. Your idea on giving government jobs is outdated. There are only so many spaces for new businesses. There are only so many jobs within those businesses. You only have so many people that can fill those jobs. You are making an argument in a vacuum with no external factors. You have to be more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 But that's the point, society changes irregardless, people have to change with it, which is why the funding for education is so important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351357089' post='1174997'] I dont know how you dont see it, especially when I was explicit in saying it, that I'm not talking about people keeping those jobs forever. [/quote] What's the point in a job someone can't retire from? If there is no place for people step up in, or continue to work at, what is that going to solve? A person can eat steak for a week, get laid off and eat Raman noodles tomorrow? Go back and look back at all the Presidents that have done programs similar to FDR. Look at the $500 individual tax refunds. They stimulated the economy for a short period of time and then just like it came, it went. Not only did things go back to where they were, it got worse! Think about is this way. Draw a straight line like you are drawing a chart. Then start at zero and then draw a line going upward toward financial success, but before it gets there, it starts to go back down again. Only this time, the line doesn't stop at zero, it follows the momentum of the drop in the economy and doesn't stop until it hits recession. [quote] Every action has an equal and opposite reaction[/quote] . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351357818' post='1175001'] But that's the point, society changes irregardless, people have to change with it, which is why the funding for education is so important. [/quote] Your not understanding what I am saying. In this economy people are retiring later than sooner, because the rise in cost to live is making it near impossible for some people not to work. Because of this, the young generation is stuck in jobs that are low level, and very hard to get a promotion from. Literally some positions only become available if someone drops over dead. Because companies give yearly, quarterly, whatever type of raises, the older workforce is biting the company so hard that sometimes one old timer is getting paid what two new employees are. This along with all the other things I have pointed out in other posts, have made the economy a nightmare. Less businesses, less jobs, less people drawing a paycheck = unemployed people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 A person being out of work and on the government dole vs working for the government for a short time building roads ect while getting an education where the government helps with it. Simple math over the course of a lifetime for the person which one is more of a drain on the economy. And your wrong about FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351358181' post='1175004'] Your not understanding what I am saying. In this economy people are retiring later than sooner, because the rise in cost to live is making it near impossible for some people not to work. Because of this, the young generation is stuck in jobs that are low level, and very hard to get a promotion from. Literally some positions only become available if someone drops over dead. Because companies give yearly, quarterly, whatever type of raises, the older workforce is biting the company so hard that sometimes one old timer is getting paid what two new employees are. This along with all the other things I have pointed out in other posts, have made the economy a nightmare. Less businesses, less jobs, less people drawing a paycheck = unemployed people [/quote] Which again goes back to the point that population size is irrelevant, its about people having money in their pockets to spend to increase demand and the need to hire more people. When all the money is at the top you are not going to create much demand. The inflation argument goes to the fact that those at the top are keeping more for themselves and not paying people wages that keep up with inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote] [b]What is the Roosevelt Recession?[/b] The Roosevelt recession refers to a period from mid-1937 to 1938 when the economic recovery from the Great Depression temporarily stalled, lasting about 13 months. The unemployment rate jumped from 14.3% to 19.0%, the first increase since FDR took office, and manufacturing output fell by 37% to 1934 levels. In response, in April 1938 Roosevelt got $3.75 billion in new spending from Congress, which was split among various recovery agencies, and the economy once again began to recover. [/quote] [quote] [b]Who’s talking about it?[/b] Roosevelt historian David Woolner [url="http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/07/07/repeating-our-mistakes-the-roosevelt-recession-and-the-danger-of-austerity-14350/"]warns against[/url] repeating the mistakes of the Roosevelt recession by adopting austerity measures…Paul Greenberg of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [url="http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/year-89692-bodycopyrag-calendar.html"]worries[/url] that our policies are starting to look like 1937 all over again…Congressman Jim Hines of Connecticut [url="http://wilton.patch.com/articles/himes-brings-budget-message-to-the-region"]told voters[/url] “if we get too restrictive too quickly it will bring us to a repeat of 1937." [/quote] If a person works a 40 hour week at $20 an hour, that's $800 before taxes. Whereas a lot of people on unemployment, disability or welfare might get $800-$1,000 a MONTH. How is my math wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351358560' post='1175008'] If a person works a 40 hour week at $20 an hour, that's $800 before taxes. Whereas a lot of people on unemployment, disability or welfare might get $800-$1,000 a MONTH. How is my math wrong? [/quote] I feel like I'm repeating myself A person on a temporary basis works a 40 hour week at 20 dollars, then gets additional money in the form of a government grant for school that he goes to at night (or day if his job is at night) then gets completely off the government dole vs welfare he might otherwise have to take [b]OVER THE COURSE OF HIS LIFE[/b] Math is very simple which one costs less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351359132' post='1175011'] I feel like I'm repeating myself A person on a temporary basis works a 40 hour week at 20 dollars, then gets additional money in the form of a government grant for school that he goes to at night (or day if his job is at night) then gets completely off the government dole vs welfare he might otherwise have to take [b]OVER THE COURSE OF HIS LIFE[/b] Math is very simple which one costs less. [/quote] I hate that this getting more into an argument than a discussion. If someone was to enact your plan what are the Pros versus the Cons? Pros include fixing the infrastructure of the country. It includes good paying jobs to people who might otherwise be unemployed. It infuses more money in the economy that could potential creates even more jobs in the private sector. Cons include the fact that it would be temporary employment. There are already a lot of educated people in the work force fighting for jobs they are over qualified for. The jobs that are created can only be done by a small demographic of people. Wishing that people would work a 40 hour week and go to college at the same time is rough. Yes people out there do it, but not everyone can handle it. The government would have to buy a lot of new equipment to do the work, and then when things are completed, those same piece of equipment sit in a fenced in storage yard collecting rust. When the jobs are done, some of those temporary employees go back on unemployment getting larger checks than they got before they went back to work. Small businesses that expanded their business because of the surge in customers with money, now have to close doors because they can no longer afford the loans they took out to build things up. I'm sure I am missing some points but you get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 It's turning into an argument because despite history showing otherwise, you keep harping on it not being able to be done. And not just with FDR, but Reagan did it by taking on large deficits as well. (he just happened to make things worse over the long run with regard to inequality by busting the unions) The small demographic would be the 8% of unemployed (using government measure), you act like I'm talking about all of society. All of society doesnt need a new job. However most of it needs to be paid more in terms of wages, which is an entirely different argument than the notion that government cant create demand and thus jobs, I mean christ man government spending is in the damned GDP forumla!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351360311' post='1175013'] It's turning into an argument because despite history showing otherwise, you keep harping on it not being able to be done. And not just with FDR, but Reagan did it by taking on large deficits as well. (he just happened to make things worse over the long run with regard to inequality by busting the unions) The small demographic would be the 8% of unemployed (using government measure), you act like I'm talking about all of society. All of society doesnt need a new job. However most of it needs to be paid more in terms of wages, which is an entirely different argument than the notion that government cant create demand and thus jobs, I mean christ man government spending is in the damned GDP forumla!! [/quote] The problem is, you are pointing at a surge in the economy and screaming success, and ignoring the fact that the after glow was actually recession. Recessions are the same part of history, as The New Deal and Reganomics. How can you seriously stand by a plan to offer government jobs to such a small group of people? How do you expect a government that has laws against unequal rights of employment with private sector businesses, and not adhere to them itself? So you want to offer basically manual labor construction jobs to the unemployed people knowing the only people who can do it are strong young to middle-aged people? How many people fit that profile? You have to understand that if someone is unemployed, disabled, or on welfare an extended period of time, that they have something preventing them to work in the first place. There are soooo many logistical things you are glossing over. Its not as easy to just make a statement and its done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351360805' post='1175014'] The problem is, you are pointing at a surge in the economy and screaming success, and ignoring the fact that the after glow was actually recession. Recessions are the same part of history, as The New Deal and Reganomics. How can you seriously stand by a plan to offer government jobs to such a small group of people? How do you expect a government that has laws against unequal rights of employment with private sector businesses, and not adhere to them itself? So you want to offer basically manual labor construction jobs to the unemployed people knowing the only people who can do it are strong young to middle-aged people? How many people fit that profile? You have to understand that if someone is unemployed, disabled, or on welfare an extended period of time, that they have something preventing them to work in the first place. There are soooo many logistical things you are glossing over. Its not as easy to just make a statement and its done. [/quote] Recessions happen when there is less demand in the marketplace, in both FDR and Reagans cases it never went back down to the levels it was before the depression/Reagan, it may have dipped but people were not standing in food lines after the parts of the New Deal that put money into the system were done. Because it has worked before? Unequal rights of employment, in what manner are you talking about? Didnt you just tell me that there are alot of unemployed young people because old people arent retiring? (which again doesnt matter, its about demand and wages) sounds like alot of people fit that profile. Not everyone is on disability or have something preventing them from working, there are a good amount of people that simply cant find work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1351361526' post='1175016'] Recessions happen when there is less demand in the marketplace, in both FDR and Reagans cases it never went back down to the levels it was before the depression/Reagan, it may have dipped but people were not standing in food lines after the parts of the New Deal that put money into the system were done. Because it has worked before? Unequal rights of employment, in what manner are you talking about? Didnt you just tell me that there are alot of unemployed young people because old people arent retiring? (which again doesnt matter, its about demand and wages) sounds like alot of people fit that profile. Not everyone is on disability or have something preventing them from working, there are a good amount of people that simply cant find work. [/quote] Jamie you know as well as I do, that many Presidents blame the previous administration for down turns in the economy. Truman followed FDR and some people rank him near the bottom of all Presidents. When he was in office, WWII concluded, and somehow the economy dropped instead of growing. Historically the year after a large War/Conflict more money is brought into the economy, but then as things calm down and people are being discharged from the military, there ends up being too many people for the number of jobs out there. The same thing happened with Reagan. I loved Reagan, the way he talked, the way he could joke every now and then, and he was the first president I could understand (I was born in 1976). So each bump to the economy would follow with a slip. No, what I told you was there are a bunch of young college students out there asking if you want fries with that. I'm just not following you on this whole deal. You've admitted that your new government infrastructure is meant for only a small group of people. If you are starting a government program to give unemployed people a job, and then you don't have jobs for other unemployed people to do, that's now going to fly. Its federally enforced: [quote] The EEOC must work diligently to ensure equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants for employment with the agency. EEOC employees are protected by federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age, disability, family medical history, or genetic information. Moreover, consistent with Presidential Executive Orders and other laws designed to protect federal employees, we must vigilantly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, military service, or any other non-merit based factor. These commitments must be exemplified in all of our management practices and decisions, including recruitment and hiring practices, appraisal systems, promotions, and training and career development programs. [/quote] http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/internal/eeo_policy_statement.cfm How can you possibly make an argument for the government to not follow it's very own policies. There is even woman on the front lines now, and Jim Neighbors could really join the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Also, I made an argument earlier on, that as the troops are coming home, instead of them being discharged, they could be utilized working on the roads, highways, bridges etc like Eisenhower did. That way the government would be paying their wages, minus combat and hazardous Duty pay, doing something that helps us all. This will actually save the U.S. money because they wouldn't have to pay them reservist pay on top of their private sector job. This seems more feasible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I feel like I have an opinion on this debate but it keeps going in circles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1351366123' post='1175021'] I feel like I have an opinion on this debate but it keeps going in circles [/quote] It's a discussion about politics, were you expecting us to be sitting by a camp fire singing 'kumbaya?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1351093990' post='1174245'] Again, at what point does Obama shoulder ANY blame for the lack of anything... you keep saying "he's created x number of jobs"... 2 questions for you - in that same time how many have been lost, what is the net number? And, how many of these "jobs" were funded entirely by government and are / were only short term start up jobs?[/quote] Let's get something straight. Did Obama have anything to do with the Economy going bad? The answer is NO. It was horrible before he was even elected. And 1 year after he was elected the hemorrhaging finally stopped and a recovery has been happening since. Yet, you want to blame him for jobs being lost? It's was like a run away train. He jumped on and got it on the right track. Period. [quote]Gotcha - so when a Democratic talking point is brought up it is relevant but when any other party talking point is mentioned it is irrelevant... understood.[/quote] I never said anything about talking points. You did. I never said they are irrelevant. You did. Dude. I am not a Democrat. I am an American. Party lines piss me off. That is why I jumped in here. "Obviously I am voting for Romney. Who cares what he says. Who cares that he keeps switching positions. Who cares that he is obviously a snake in the grass. He's a Republican!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can verify for a fact that Old is not a Democrat, or even a liberal.. He used to get in big arguments because he liked Bush and defended the Iraq war. I give him a lot of credit actually. He walks the walk about not holding to party lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1351473563' post='1175295'] I can verify for a fact that Old is not a Democrat, or even a liberal.. He used to get in big arguments because he liked Bush and defended the Iraq war. I give him a lot of credit actually. He walks the walk about not holding to party lines. [/quote] I'll second that thought. I hammered Old hard on the war--sometimes unfairly and as a prick. But don't tell him I said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 [quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1351474248' post='1175299'] [s]I'll [/s] Someone second that thought. [s]I [/s] They hammered Old hard on the war--sometimes unfairly and as a prick. But don't tell him I said that. [/quote] Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1351474406' post='1175300'] Fixed. [/quote] Dude. Unlike you, I am a generally careful composer of my words. So, while I appreciate the attempt at humor here, I would prefer it if you didn't reinterpret what I say by modifying what I say. If you want to do something like that, do it outside the quote function. And Old, I do owe you an apology for being a prick sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1351429795' post='1175137'] Dude. I am not a Democrat. I am an American. Party lines piss me off. That is why I jumped in here. "Obviously I am voting for Romney. Who cares what he says. Who cares that he keeps switching positions. Who cares that he is obviously a snake in the grass. He's a Republican!" [/quote] Great. That is great that it pisses you off. But you can't make a declarative statement that anybody that votes for Romney is an idiot (there are lots and lots of folks that are voting for him with legitimate reason, not just R and white). That is only your opinion. But, again... just like you have people vote for Romney because he's got an R next to his name or is white you have voters vote for Obama because he has a D and is black, or Clinton because D and he's southern, Reagan because of an R and he's charismatic, etc., etc., etc. You act like only those folks that vote for Romney, in this one election, are a first time occurrence. It happens with EVERY election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.