• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Latest update on the great Bush economy

Yahoo
The result of so many low-paying jobs is that nearly 39 million Americans, including 20 million children, are members of "low-income working families" ? with barely enough money to cover basic needs like housing, groceries and child care, the study found.
Granted, by definition if two of these people get married they would have a fighting chance . . . as long as they didn't have more than one kid . . . or tried to buy a house in the neighborhoods with good schools.

The report said federal and state lawmakers should put more money into adult education and job training programs, increase the minimum wage and expand subsidized child care for low-income parents. Doing so would create more skilled workers who will make more money and, in turn, increase the tax base, the study said.
Dude everybody knows that all you need are tax cuts for corporations, tax cuts for wealthy individuals, and subsidies for big campaign contributors to increase the tax base.

Besides child care, the report also suggested expansion of the federal earned income tax credit, as well as more incentives for states to offer similar refundable tax credits for such families.
No money for that crap . . . the Peoples Republic of WalMart needs subsidies.







 
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

Just because the job pays less than a poverty-level wage for a family of four, doesn't mean the wage earner HAS a family of four, or a family at all. These are entry leval jobs and most people who have them are either single, or not the primary wage earner in the family.

Answer is Simple:
Don't produce children that you can't afford to raise.

End of story.
 
I heard a lot about this on the news. It was 1992 and the new "Service Industry Economy" was the latest hot deal from the liberal side of the house. It was going to furnish multitudes of new jobs. My better and I discussed the fact then that all the multitudes of new jobs would be low paying. Anyone got any facts on the history of this?
 
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Half of those 39M working poor are conservatives. Ironic how they support Bush. What is this strange phenomenon called? Stockholm syndrome?

I think that was something like Stockhausen, the theory that Patti Hearst could never have seen the renevance of the points made by the SLA.

But from a personal standpoint, I have been waiting to get back my 'buying power' since Reagan took office. I am still waiting for some of that to trickle down to me. I have an intimate knowledge of having too much income to get help but not enough to help yourself when things go wrong. I can't see anything in Bush's economic policies that will help me.
 
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Half of those 39M working poor are conservatives. Ironic how they support Bush. What is this strange phenomenon called? Stockholm syndrome?

maybe they don't blame their situation on the govt and can take responsibility. All liberals do is blame blame blame for their poor circumstances, when they should be taking a better look inside. It's everyone else's fault, but not their own!
 
heard a lot about this on the news. It was 1992 and the new "Service Industry Economy" was the latest hot deal from the liberal side of the house. It was going to furnish multitudes of new jobs. My better and I discussed the fact then that all the multitudes of new jobs would be low paying. Anyone got any facts on the history of this?

actually it was reagan's administration taht wanted to switch the US economy rom manufacturing to service, not democrats.


Half of those 39M working poor are conservatives. Ironic how they support Bush

poverty breeds stupidity i guess, its really sad, cause they really are blinded to the fact that they are getting Fvcked by this administration. on top of this these are the type of people who are probably split by fringe issues, and would rather not see abortions be performed instead of eating, either that or they love their guns (also a fringe issue)

maybe they don't blame their situation on the govt and can take responsibility. All liberals do is blame blame blame for their poor circumstances, when they should be taking a better look inside. It's everyone else's fault, but not their own!

so its our fault that companies evade paying taxes by offshoring, it our fault that companies move jobs to china and mexico and leave us unemployed. SOUNDS LIKE GREED TO ME

like good book says "you can't serve two masters"


last i checked the government was "by the people, for the people" right now its by the corporations, for the corporations cause the republicans control congress and the white house, and they have been porking the bills that come through
 
Unfortunately, the story gives no reference for the results. Is this better than it was four years ago? I can't tell from that story. It just indicates that we could do better.
 
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

Just because the job pays less than a poverty-level wage for a family of four, doesn't mean the wage earner HAS a family of four, or a family at all. These are entry leval jobs and most people who have them are either single, or not the primary wage earner in the family.

Answer is Simple:
Don't produce children that you can't afford to raise.

End of story.

Logic and reasoned arguments are not wanted here. Nice post.

 
Facts and stats, facts and stats... Maybe what Bali says is true. Or maybe a lot of those poor people are teenagers working part time at the neighborhood Applebees. Who knows how people spin surveys, stats, and reports?

What I do know is this: Stats and numbers will not determine the election. We can be bombarded everyday with negative stats (or positive), but if it doesn't match the reality of our lives it means nothing. People tend to vote based on their personal context... what they see around them. In other words, a person can be told 1000 times how the unemployment rate is super low, but if everyone around him is out of work, that's what matters.

In my "world" I tend to see a pretty good economy and a lot of people working. I guess we'll find out what others think on Nov.2
 
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

Just because the job pays less than a poverty-level wage for a family of four, doesn't mean the wage earner HAS a family of four, or a family at all. These are entry leval jobs and most people who have them are either single, or not the primary wage earner in the family.

Answer is Simple:
Don't produce children that you can't afford to raise.

End of story.

Does not negate the fact that all the so called "jobs" pay mostly 9k a year and even as a single adult you can't live off 9k. Not in a way you would want to live anyhow. We need to start creating more technology jobs here in the U.S. instead of outsourcing them to god knows where, India for example, face it the Bush job record sucks.

End of story.
 
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

I lived off 12k last year, and I currently live off 8k, though I only care for my daughter part time. I've never made 30k, even with a family of 3. And we had a pretty good life overall on that.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

I lived off 12k last year, and I currently live off 8k, though I only care for my daughter part time. I've never made 30k, even with a family of 3. And we had a pretty good life overall on that.


Is the 8k before or after taxes?

The 9k quote is before taxes.. right? 9k before taxes = just over 6k total after taxes??? = $500 a month???
 
Can anyone tell me how this is Bush's fault? It is called fair market wage. The government shouldn't be involved in that beyond setting the minimum wage.

What did Bush do that caused this Fair Market Wage? What could any admin do to fix it besides over regulate all business in the US or raise minimum wage to rediculous levels?

Also... I might add that I have been getting refunds from the government except for the last 2 years. I am now making more money than I have since leaving the military in 96. I busted my butt to get where I am and I can say that hard work does pay off. Waiting for a good job just doesn't cut it anymore.

I left the military making 28K a year. I went to 2 minimum wage jobs for 3 years and worked my way up. My wife and I had a child while I was making min wage and she busted her butt making sure that we could afford food etc... I have been there and I know what it's like. Fact is though.... You bust your butt and you'll advance. If not, then you either need to find another job or look at yourself.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well, this administration needs to get off of the trickle-down tax theory and start using a trickle-up one...

LIke I said... these past 2 years I have to actually pay a little in. Up until then, I got refunds of nearly 100% of what I paid in. What more should the government do? Believe it or not, trickle down does work, it's just that it is a long term effect. You don't have to believe me or the people that have benefited from it (me).

"Trickle up" will never work since the people that would "trickle up" already get back nearly everything if not everything they pay in during the year.
 
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well, this administration needs to get off of the trickle-down tax theory and start using a trickle-up one...

LIke I said... these past 2 years I have to actually pay a little in. Up until then, I got refunds of nearly 100% of what I paid in. What more should the government do? Believe it or not, trickle down does work, it's just that it is a long term effect. You don't have to believe me or the people that have benefited from it (me).

"Trickle up" will never work since the people that would "trickle up" already get back nearly everything if not everything they pay in during the year.


I'm sorry, let me clarify a bit more.....

I did not mean trickle up as it refers to taxes directly... that's my fault. My statement was a bit confusing.

The government needs to reinvest in its population more than it is doing. They need to sponsor programs that help further educate adults and increase their chance of getting a better paying jobs. The government needs to encourage companies to keep their operations inside the country. They need to do more to help with daycare costs, for example. This is just a very small example of my point. I just wanted to illustrate that if the government looked at what it spends more as an investment, then the yields from that investment would greatly overshadow the simple trickle-down tax theory.

Although, I still might be clear as mud. I'm groggy and need some sleep.
:clock:
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Half of those 39M working poor are conservatives. Ironic how they support Bush. What is this strange phenomenon called? Stockholm syndrome?

maybe they don't blame their situation on the govt and can take responsibility. All liberals do is blame blame blame for their poor circumstances, when they should be taking a better look inside. It's everyone else's fault, but not their own!

No it's just alot cheaper living in a trailer.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

I lived off 12k last year, and I currently live off 8k, though I only care for my daughter part time. I've never made 30k, even with a family of 3. And we had a pretty good life overall on that.


You must be living with your parents, or sponging off of someone.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Well, this administration needs to get off of the trickle-down tax theory and start using a trickle-up one...

LIke I said... these past 2 years I have to actually pay a little in. Up until then, I got refunds of nearly 100% of what I paid in. What more should the government do? Believe it or not, trickle down does work, it's just that it is a long term effect. You don't have to believe me or the people that have benefited from it (me).

"Trickle up" will never work since the people that would "trickle up" already get back nearly everything if not everything they pay in during the year.


I'm sorry, let me clarify a bit more.....

I did not mean trickle up as it refers to taxes directly... that's my fault. My statement was a bit confusing.

The government needs to reinvest in its population more than it is doing. They need to sponsor programs that help further educate adults and increase their chance of getting a better paying jobs. The government needs to encourage companies to keep their operations inside the country. They need to do more to help with daycare costs, for example. This is just a very small example of my point. I just wanted to illustrate that if the government looked at what it spends more as an investment, then the yields from that investment would greatly overshadow the simple trickle-down tax theory.

Although, I still might be clear as mud. I'm groggy and need some sleep.
:clock:

Help further educate adults and increase their chance of getting a better paying job
I have a high school diploma and the company I work for has an education assistance program. I am making more now than I ever have and the government has nothing to do with it. Welfare has proven that if the government "invests" it will just be abused in most cases.

The government needs to encourage companies to keep their operations inside the country
I think this is directly tied into the thought process of Americans. They think that they deserver everything right now. They need to earn what they want like I have, my parents and grandparents etc... did. When someone in the US demands (mostly due to unions) that they get $150+ an hour (includes benefits) to work on an assembly line, then the companies are going to find a less expensive place to do business. You can't blame the companies for that. Same goes for tech support but that isn't due to Unions, it is due to the .com pay scale stuck in some techs minds and the thought that they need to make enough to pay for that $2K gaming system, the cell phone, broadband, home theater system etc, etc, etc...

They need to do more to help with daycare costs.
How about one of the parents stay at home? Don't spend to the point where you have to have 2 people employed. It is best for the child anyway. That works for me and my family of 5. (another soapbox that I'll stay off of for now)
 
Originally posted by: KenSr
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
I heard a lot about this on the news not too long ago. Most jobs that Bush has created are paying 9k or less. How the hell can you live off 9k?

I lived off 12k last year, and I currently live off 8k, though I only care for my daughter part time. I've never made 30k, even with a family of 3. And we had a pretty good life overall on that.


You must be living with your parents, or sponging off of someone.

You must be an idiot

Because you don't have a clue how to manage your money, you assume that no one else does either... You just invalidated any possible point I read of yours in the future. My wife and I made it on less then 12K for a year for a family of 3. We rented our own home and only recieved WIC from the government. milk, Egg and cheese.

 
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: Maximilian Kolbe
Half of those 39M working poor are conservatives. Ironic how they support Bush. What is this strange phenomenon called? Stockholm syndrome?

I think that was something like Stockhausen, the theory that Patti Hearst could never have seen the renevance of the points made by the SLA.

But from a personal standpoint, I have been waiting to get back my 'buying power' since Reagan took office. I am still waiting for some of that to trickle down to me. I have an intimate knowledge of having too much income to get help but not enough to help yourself when things go wrong. I can't see anything in Bush's economic policies that will help me.

Stockholm Syndrome describes the behavior of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors. The name derives from a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims actually resisted rescue attempts, and afterwards refused to testify against their captors.
While some people are suggesting the recent Elizabeth Smart kidnapping sounds like a case of Stockholm Syndrome, the most famous incident in the U.S. involved the kidnapped heiress Patty Hearst. Captured by a radical political group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974, Ms. Hearst eventually became an accomplice of the group, taking on an assumed name and assisting them in several bank robberies. After her re-capture, she denounced the group and her involvement.

What causes Stockholm Syndrome? Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat, since it's likely the captive would be injured during such attempts.

It's important to note that these symptoms occur under tremendous emotional and often physical duress. The behavior is considered a common survival strategy for victims of interpersonal abuse, and has been observed in battered spouses, abused children, prisoners of war, and concentration camp survivors.

Link
The above explanation tries to explain the syndrome, but of course the explanation just runs in a circle since neither the authors nor anybody else but a few people know the real reason. The underlying mechanism is that, without any conscious knowledge at all, everybody hates themselves. The ego is our defense against that awareness. In other words the ego is already Stockholm Syndrome and it can and will take any form one wishes to manipulate it into to keep those feelings at bey. We have all been brutally abused, don't remember and don't want to. We adopted the roles of abusers, identified with the abusers to survive. It's called growing up and adjusting. It is the process by which we become monsters and think of ourselves as gods.

Remember though, this simple truth cannot be seen, taken in, or comprehended. One can only shine it on and maintain the pretense one is actually different. Complete identification with the false is what the syndrome is all about. The converted are really converted and only memory of the pain can undo it. That takes years of intense struggle. But the clues to this truth are out there. One of them is the Stockholm Syndrome.
 
I lived in a community that had quite a textile industry. The cost of living was very low. Typically you would find people making a decent wage making garments.

However, fellow Americans did not buy these more expensive garments. It is much cheaper to buy a pair of pants made by some one making $1 a day versus $9 and hour. So one by one these textile factories closed.

This all happened before Bush was elected and one of the last textile plants closed while Clinton was finishing has last few months as president. If you can link Bush as to the cause of these plants closing, I will vote for John Kerry.

So babybalidoc what is your solution? Give tax breaks to corporations so they may try to offer a more competitive product? Tax everyone more so we can subsidize these textile workers salaries making them more competitve with third world countries? Or do we accept the fact that we live in a global economy and integrating within that global marketplace is going to be painful?

Gone are the days of the union worker getting out of high school and getting $20 an hour to make washing machines.
 
Back
Top