|
|
On September 14 2012 12:06 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 11:53 Defacer wrote:On September 14 2012 11:45 kmillz wrote:On September 14 2012 09:47 darthfoley wrote:
Romney was so stupid to attack Obama for "apologizing" in the middle of a crisis...sigh, he just really doesn't get it. Obama's failed foreign policies are really the only thing he should be apologizing for, not for our freedom of speech! What is your preferred policy? Seriously? Do you or any of you so-called patriots have an answer? Invade the entirety of the Middle East and take it over? Tell me. I'd really like to hear this. Careful! If you egg him on too much, he'll start quoting Jefferson again and get banned! Show nested quote + WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republicans used the Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of stimulus to blast President Obama, saying the lackluster economic recovery he's overseen is behind the central bank's "artificial" and "ineffective" move.
Most Republicans, including the campaign of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, used the Fed's move to tout their main campaign message going into the Nov. 6 elections, that Obama's economic stewardship has failed.
"The Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of quantitative easing is further confirmation that President Obama's policies have not worked," said Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign, in a statement Thursday. "We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars."
Republicans, including Romney, have criticized quantitative easing, the Fed's prime tool for juicing the economy by buying debt to increase the flow of money in the financial system. They say Fed is risking a run-up in inflation with the moves, which they dismiss as unhelpful.
Several Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, went so far as to blast the central bank's actions as "beginning to do serious damage to the Fed as an institution."
"Open-ended purchases of mortgage-backed securities will politicize the Fed and add substantially to its balance sheet risks, but it will not help our economy's long-term growth prospects," Corker said in a statement.
Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, accused the Fed of adding more uncertainty to the market.
"It's time for the Fed to stop," said Brady, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. "Chairman Bernanke should look President Obama and Congress in the eye and tell them the Fed has done all it can to boost the economy -- and perhaps too much."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defended against such criticism during a news conference Thursday, saying the central bank would continue monitoring the financial system for price stability. He added the Fed board sees no indication of unchecked inflation in the near future, but would keep an eye out.
Bernanke also dismissed any suggestion that the Fed's move might be seen in a political way to help Democrats.
"We have tried very, very hard, and I think we've been successful, to be nonpartisan and apolitical," Bernanke said . "We make our decisions entirely based on the state of the economy."
Last month, Romney said that, if elected, he would not renominate Ben Bernanke to a third term as the Federal Reserve Board chairman when Bernanke's term expires in January 2014. SourceLooks like Republicans have lost their minds. They're mad at Bernanke for not letting the economy burn down while they hold the lighter.
Must be getting hard keeping track of all those lies....
|
On September 14 2012 12:22 xDaunt wrote:The Jerusalem Post is now reporting that Egyptian intelligence warned the US of the attacks on September 4. Source.
Hmmm, that's interesting ... I wonder if there intelligence anticipated attacks in multiple cities.
|
On September 14 2012 06:55 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 06:52 kmillz wrote:
I don't like Mitt Romney very much, but I will vote for anyone that can unseat Obama..he is ruining this country. Money in politics ruins the US . Also the two party system is not very helpful but oh well. But you def. should somehow stop coorporations and people buying your politicians. There's only a handful of politics that aren't bought ( some are bought more some less ) from what i gather.
This a million times over. It is a sad reflection upon the state of the American populace when more foreigners than American citizens can correctly identify that it is the MONEY that is ruining politics in the U.S.
edit-had a much longer post, but didn't meet the mods requirement to stay on topic, so it has been shortened.
|
On September 14 2012 12:06 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 11:53 Defacer wrote:On September 14 2012 11:45 kmillz wrote:On September 14 2012 09:47 darthfoley wrote:
Romney was so stupid to attack Obama for "apologizing" in the middle of a crisis...sigh, he just really doesn't get it. Obama's failed foreign policies are really the only thing he should be apologizing for, not for our freedom of speech! What is your preferred policy? Seriously? Do you or any of you so-called patriots have an answer? Invade the entirety of the Middle East and take it over? Tell me. I'd really like to hear this. Careful! If you egg him on too much, he'll start quoting Jefferson again and get banned! Show nested quote + WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republicans used the Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of stimulus to blast President Obama, saying the lackluster economic recovery he's overseen is behind the central bank's "artificial" and "ineffective" move.
Most Republicans, including the campaign of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, used the Fed's move to tout their main campaign message going into the Nov. 6 elections, that Obama's economic stewardship has failed.
"The Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of quantitative easing is further confirmation that President Obama's policies have not worked," said Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign, in a statement Thursday. "We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars."
Republicans, including Romney, have criticized quantitative easing, the Fed's prime tool for juicing the economy by buying debt to increase the flow of money in the financial system. They say Fed is risking a run-up in inflation with the moves, which they dismiss as unhelpful.
Several Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, went so far as to blast the central bank's actions as "beginning to do serious damage to the Fed as an institution."
"Open-ended purchases of mortgage-backed securities will politicize the Fed and add substantially to its balance sheet risks, but it will not help our economy's long-term growth prospects," Corker said in a statement.
Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, accused the Fed of adding more uncertainty to the market.
"It's time for the Fed to stop," said Brady, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. "Chairman Bernanke should look President Obama and Congress in the eye and tell them the Fed has done all it can to boost the economy -- and perhaps too much."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defended against such criticism during a news conference Thursday, saying the central bank would continue monitoring the financial system for price stability. He added the Fed board sees no indication of unchecked inflation in the near future, but would keep an eye out.
Bernanke also dismissed any suggestion that the Fed's move might be seen in a political way to help Democrats.
"We have tried very, very hard, and I think we've been successful, to be nonpartisan and apolitical," Bernanke said . "We make our decisions entirely based on the state of the economy."
Last month, Romney said that, if elected, he would not renominate Ben Bernanke to a third term as the Federal Reserve Board chairman when Bernanke's term expires in January 2014. SourceLooks like Republicans have lost their minds. They're mad at Bernanke for not letting the economy burn down while they hold the lighter.
We're not allowed to criticize the Fed now? They hold a fair chunk of the blame for the housing bubble and there are some really smart people out there that think the QE programs aren't helping.
Fed is Harming, not Helping the Economy
|
On September 14 2012 12:34 Ldawg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 06:55 s3rp wrote:On September 14 2012 06:52 kmillz wrote:
I don't like Mitt Romney very much, but I will vote for anyone that can unseat Obama..he is ruining this country. Money in politics ruins the US . Also the two party system is not very helpful but oh well. But you def. should somehow stop coorporations and people buying your politicians. There's only a handful of politics that aren't bought ( some are bought more some less ) from what i gather. This a million times over. It is a sad reflection upon the state of the American populace when more foreigners than American citizens can correctly identify that it is the MONEY that is ruining politics in the U.S. edit-had a much longer post, but didn't meet the mods requirement to stay on topic, so it has been shortened.
Honestly, I wouldn't say that the money itself is ruining U.S. politics. If you take out the money from special interest, you still have to deal with post government jobs, spreading of information among the (HUGE) population you represent, and dealing with interest groups. Money makes all those problems easier to deal with. If you got rid of the private money without addressing those issues, it would just be replaced by unquantifiable favors.
|
On September 14 2012 12:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:06 aksfjh wrote:On September 14 2012 11:53 Defacer wrote:On September 14 2012 11:45 kmillz wrote:On September 14 2012 09:47 darthfoley wrote:
Romney was so stupid to attack Obama for "apologizing" in the middle of a crisis...sigh, he just really doesn't get it. Obama's failed foreign policies are really the only thing he should be apologizing for, not for our freedom of speech! What is your preferred policy? Seriously? Do you or any of you so-called patriots have an answer? Invade the entirety of the Middle East and take it over? Tell me. I'd really like to hear this. Careful! If you egg him on too much, he'll start quoting Jefferson again and get banned! WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republicans used the Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of stimulus to blast President Obama, saying the lackluster economic recovery he's overseen is behind the central bank's "artificial" and "ineffective" move.
Most Republicans, including the campaign of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, used the Fed's move to tout their main campaign message going into the Nov. 6 elections, that Obama's economic stewardship has failed.
"The Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of quantitative easing is further confirmation that President Obama's policies have not worked," said Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign, in a statement Thursday. "We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars."
Republicans, including Romney, have criticized quantitative easing, the Fed's prime tool for juicing the economy by buying debt to increase the flow of money in the financial system. They say Fed is risking a run-up in inflation with the moves, which they dismiss as unhelpful.
Several Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, went so far as to blast the central bank's actions as "beginning to do serious damage to the Fed as an institution."
"Open-ended purchases of mortgage-backed securities will politicize the Fed and add substantially to its balance sheet risks, but it will not help our economy's long-term growth prospects," Corker said in a statement.
Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, accused the Fed of adding more uncertainty to the market.
"It's time for the Fed to stop," said Brady, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. "Chairman Bernanke should look President Obama and Congress in the eye and tell them the Fed has done all it can to boost the economy -- and perhaps too much."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defended against such criticism during a news conference Thursday, saying the central bank would continue monitoring the financial system for price stability. He added the Fed board sees no indication of unchecked inflation in the near future, but would keep an eye out.
Bernanke also dismissed any suggestion that the Fed's move might be seen in a political way to help Democrats.
"We have tried very, very hard, and I think we've been successful, to be nonpartisan and apolitical," Bernanke said . "We make our decisions entirely based on the state of the economy."
Last month, Romney said that, if elected, he would not renominate Ben Bernanke to a third term as the Federal Reserve Board chairman when Bernanke's term expires in January 2014. SourceLooks like Republicans have lost their minds. They're mad at Bernanke for not letting the economy burn down while they hold the lighter. We're not allowed to criticize the Fed now? They hold a fair chunk of the blame for the housing bubble and there are some really smart people out there that think the QE programs aren't helping. Fed is Harming, not Helping the Economy
Well, if nothing else, Bernanke is going to inflate the shit out of my commodity stocks. =)
|
Their dual mandate has got to go. They need to focus only on stable prices...and not full employment.
Bernake was asked at the end of the presser...about labor participation & shrinking labor force.
He said... well it's a dip.. we saw it coming due to an aging population... but with the recession and people dropping out... we think it's cyclical. It was around 49:30 into the meeting.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ video replay is there.
Well the Richmond Fed published this a couple weeks ago "Where have all the workers gone?"
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focus/2012/q2-3/pdf/cover_story.pdf
If it's cyclical then they should know where the workers went and when they are coming back.
(And the Richmond Fed's Lacker was the only one to vote against QE3).
|
On September 14 2012 12:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:06 aksfjh wrote:On September 14 2012 11:53 Defacer wrote:On September 14 2012 11:45 kmillz wrote:On September 14 2012 09:47 darthfoley wrote:
Romney was so stupid to attack Obama for "apologizing" in the middle of a crisis...sigh, he just really doesn't get it. Obama's failed foreign policies are really the only thing he should be apologizing for, not for our freedom of speech! What is your preferred policy? Seriously? Do you or any of you so-called patriots have an answer? Invade the entirety of the Middle East and take it over? Tell me. I'd really like to hear this. Careful! If you egg him on too much, he'll start quoting Jefferson again and get banned! WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Republicans used the Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of stimulus to blast President Obama, saying the lackluster economic recovery he's overseen is behind the central bank's "artificial" and "ineffective" move.
Most Republicans, including the campaign of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, used the Fed's move to tout their main campaign message going into the Nov. 6 elections, that Obama's economic stewardship has failed.
"The Federal Reserve's announcement of a third round of quantitative easing is further confirmation that President Obama's policies have not worked," said Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign, in a statement Thursday. "We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars."
Republicans, including Romney, have criticized quantitative easing, the Fed's prime tool for juicing the economy by buying debt to increase the flow of money in the financial system. They say Fed is risking a run-up in inflation with the moves, which they dismiss as unhelpful.
Several Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, went so far as to blast the central bank's actions as "beginning to do serious damage to the Fed as an institution."
"Open-ended purchases of mortgage-backed securities will politicize the Fed and add substantially to its balance sheet risks, but it will not help our economy's long-term growth prospects," Corker said in a statement.
Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, accused the Fed of adding more uncertainty to the market.
"It's time for the Fed to stop," said Brady, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. "Chairman Bernanke should look President Obama and Congress in the eye and tell them the Fed has done all it can to boost the economy -- and perhaps too much."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke defended against such criticism during a news conference Thursday, saying the central bank would continue monitoring the financial system for price stability. He added the Fed board sees no indication of unchecked inflation in the near future, but would keep an eye out.
Bernanke also dismissed any suggestion that the Fed's move might be seen in a political way to help Democrats.
"We have tried very, very hard, and I think we've been successful, to be nonpartisan and apolitical," Bernanke said . "We make our decisions entirely based on the state of the economy."
Last month, Romney said that, if elected, he would not renominate Ben Bernanke to a third term as the Federal Reserve Board chairman when Bernanke's term expires in January 2014. SourceLooks like Republicans have lost their minds. They're mad at Bernanke for not letting the economy burn down while they hold the lighter. We're not allowed to criticize the Fed now? They hold a fair chunk of the blame for the housing bubble and there are some really smart people out there that think the QE programs aren't helping. Fed is Harming, not Helping the Economy
The logic doesn't follow. The problem the Fed has is that their 0% rates aren't low enough. There isn't enough room between the borrowing at 0%, charging interest for the overhead to the debtor, them charging interest to their debtor, and so on. By the time it exchanges all those hands and the risks are accounted for, there are too many hands in the pot. This is the problem, not that Fed rates are "depressing" the spread for investors, but because they can't lower their end of the spectrum any more.
Without the Fed being at 0% rates, the cost of borrowing goes up, and deleveraging is even harder, but the carry remains unchanged, or even becomes a bigger loss. If the Fed goes to 0.5%, or even 1%, we wouldn't see consumer loan or government bond rates go up by a mirrored 0.5-1% because of the huge amounts of capital we have in the system without Fed intervention. All that happens is that refinancing and deleveraging become even harder.
In reality, you have the bond manager pissed that so much money is in the system that it's impossible to make guaranteed returns against the risks, and instead are forced to take guaranteed net loss returns that are less than devaluation of liquid capital from inflation.
|
On September 14 2012 13:24 RCMDVA wrote:Their dual mandate has got to go. They need to focus only on stable prices...and not full employment. Bernake was asked at the end of the presser...about labor participation & shrinking labor force. He said... well it's a dip.. we saw it coming due to an aging population... but with the recession and people dropping out... we think it's cyclical. It was around 49:30 into the meeting. http://www.federalreserve.gov/ video replay is there. Well the Richmond Fed published this a couple weeks ago "Where have all the workers gone?" http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focus/2012/q2-3/pdf/cover_story.pdfIf it's cyclical then they should know where the workers went and when they are coming back. (And the Richmond Fed's Lacker was the only one to vote against QE3).
Prices are relatively stable already. If there's a problem with the Fed right now it's that they can't get enough traction with monetary policy alone to affect prices.
Otherwise, the workforce population stuff is up in the air right now. There's no real evidence either way that it is or isn't cyclical (for the most part). We'd have to get 10 years down the line and look at things like median household wages, labor participation rates, cost of living, and a few other factors to determine where it's all going and where we're "supposed" to be.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 14 2012 12:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:34 Ldawg wrote:On September 14 2012 06:55 s3rp wrote:On September 14 2012 06:52 kmillz wrote:
I don't like Mitt Romney very much, but I will vote for anyone that can unseat Obama..he is ruining this country. Money in politics ruins the US . Also the two party system is not very helpful but oh well. But you def. should somehow stop coorporations and people buying your politicians. There's only a handful of politics that aren't bought ( some are bought more some less ) from what i gather. This a million times over. It is a sad reflection upon the state of the American populace when more foreigners than American citizens can correctly identify that it is the MONEY that is ruining politics in the U.S. edit-had a much longer post, but didn't meet the mods requirement to stay on topic, so it has been shortened. Honestly, I wouldn't say that the money itself is ruining U.S. politics. If you take out the money from special interest, you still have to deal with post government jobs, spreading of information among the (HUGE) population you represent, and dealing with interest groups. Money makes all those problems easier to deal with. If you got rid of the private money without addressing those issues, it would just be replaced by unquantifiable favors.
We should never totally get rid of private money, but there is always a limit, which has been well-crossed. While the nature of elections always makes money a factor, politicians should never pander to the money before they pander to their constituents. Constituents first, money second would be ideal.
|
Navy Seal dies in combat, family gets a form letter informing of their son's death. Rapper Heavy D dies, family gets a PERSONAL letter from Obama. Nice to see the POTUS has his priorities in order.
|
If a single mother in Wisconsin has 2 children and makes 15,000$ a year, but then gets 3x pay increase or marries a man who makes 30,000$ she will now be making 45,000$ a year. 30,000$ more than what she was making right? Wrong. The benefits she loses by having more household income adds up to 38,036$, therefore actually LOSING money for making more money. It is absolutely insane and it encourages people NOT to work hard. Why would you want to make more money when it really means you get less? But Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, ESPECIALLY on those who make more (WAY more than Bill Clinton did) and increase the handouts.
Not too long ago, the Detroit News ran a story about how landscaping companies in Michigan can't find employees, because job applicants aren't really interested in work.
Keep in mind: This story ran while the state of Michigan had the nation's highest jobless rate.
So what's going on here?
Well, Amy Frankmann, who heads up the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, told the paper that members of her organization, "have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out they're on unemployment and not looking for work. It's starting to make things difficult."
In other words, the unemployment benefits are so great—it no longer makes sense for many of these folks to work!
It isn't just single mothers who have an incentive to simply not work..
In Michigan, the average landscape worker earns $12 an hour, according to the local Department of Labor. So a full-time landscaping employee makes about $225 more per week then he would get if he chose not to work and simply collected unemployment.
But by the time you factor in federal and state taxes, working full time as a landscaper only nets you about $95 more than an unemployment check. And that doesn't factor in money for gas, lunch, and any other expenses you might incur.
So, in other words...
You have to work 40 hours a week in the heat and the dirt, doing backbreaking work... digging, laying stone on your hands and knees... for an extra measly $95.
Does that sound worth it?
Barack Obama's socialist economics for you folks.
|
On September 14 2012 18:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 14 2012 12:34 Ldawg wrote:On September 14 2012 06:55 s3rp wrote:On September 14 2012 06:52 kmillz wrote:
I don't like Mitt Romney very much, but I will vote for anyone that can unseat Obama..he is ruining this country. Money in politics ruins the US . Also the two party system is not very helpful but oh well. But you def. should somehow stop coorporations and people buying your politicians. There's only a handful of politics that aren't bought ( some are bought more some less ) from what i gather. This a million times over. It is a sad reflection upon the state of the American populace when more foreigners than American citizens can correctly identify that it is the MONEY that is ruining politics in the U.S. edit-had a much longer post, but didn't meet the mods requirement to stay on topic, so it has been shortened. Honestly, I wouldn't say that the money itself is ruining U.S. politics. If you take out the money from special interest, you still have to deal with post government jobs, spreading of information among the (HUGE) population you represent, and dealing with interest groups. Money makes all those problems easier to deal with. If you got rid of the private money without addressing those issues, it would just be replaced by unquantifiable favors. We should never totally get rid of private money, but there is always a limit, which has been well-crossed. While the nature of elections always makes money a factor, politicians should never pander to the money before they pander to their constituents. Constituents first, money second would be ideal.
Thing is, if you do not have money for campaign, you`re screwed anyway.
Then, in US, it is not all that bad. At least a significant part of funding of campaigns comes from public fund rasing.
In other parts of the world, eastern europe(and probably western) included, politicans do not directly rise funds from population, but run not much less expencive campaigns.
No need to be a genious to figure out where the money come from, and why do outsiders of US politics speak about money in politics way, way more.
On September 14 2012 19:32 kmillz wrote:
If a single mother in Wisconsin has 2 children and makes 15,000$ a year, but then gets 3x pay increase or marries a man who makes 30,000$ she will now be making 45,000$ a year. 30,000$ more than what she was making right? Wrong. The benefits she loses by having more household income adds up to 38,036$, therefore actually LOSING money for making more money. It is absolutely insane and it encourages people NOT to work hard. Why would you want to make more money when it really means you get less? But Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, ESPECIALLY on those who make more (WAY more than Bill Clinton did) and increase the handouts.
Not too long ago, the Detroit News ran a story about how landscaping companies in Michigan can't find employees, because job applicants aren't really interested in work.
Keep in mind: This story ran while the state of Michigan had the nation's highest jobless rate.
So what's going on here?
Well, Amy Frankmann, who heads up the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, told the paper that members of her organization, "have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out they're on unemployment and not looking for work. It's starting to make things difficult."
In other words, the unemployment benefits are so great—it no longer makes sense for many of these folks to work!
It isn't just single mothers who have an incentive to simply not work..
In Michigan, the average landscape worker earns $12 an hour, according to the local Department of Labor. So a full-time landscaping employee makes about $225 more per week then he would get if he chose not to work and simply collected unemployment.
But by the time you factor in federal and state taxes, working full time as a landscaper only nets you about $95 more than an unemployment check. And that doesn't factor in money for gas, lunch, and any other expenses you might incur.
So, in other words...
You have to work 40 hours a week in the heat and the dirt, doing backbreaking work... digging, laying stone on your hands and knees... for an extra measly $95.
Does that sound worth it?
Barack Obama's socialist economics for you folks.
True, and it all streams from basically 2 problems:
1. there is a lot of agancies that give benefits, that often do not coordinate.
2. wellfare rates are made to allow people "sustain themselves on benefits", while, what they actually should do, is to make sure that people reciving benefits do not loose their ability to live fast, can not actually sustain themselves on unemployment benefits, in particular, they should be capable of getting food, housing bills and, probably healthcare, but not close, entertaiment, and all the rest.
So that the live on benefits should not lead to your death, but should be really bad and miserable, so people actually seek employment.
|
On September 14 2012 19:32 kmillz wrote:
If a single mother in Wisconsin has 2 children and makes 15,000$ a year, but then gets 3x pay increase or marries a man who makes 30,000$ she will now be making 45,000$ a year. 30,000$ more than what she was making right? Wrong. The benefits she loses by having more household income adds up to 38,036$, therefore actually LOSING money for making more money. It is absolutely insane and it encourages people NOT to work hard. Why would you want to make more money when it really means you get less? But Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, ESPECIALLY on those who make more (WAY more than Bill Clinton did) and increase the handouts.
Not too long ago, the Detroit News ran a story about how landscaping companies in Michigan can't find employees, because job applicants aren't really interested in work.
Keep in mind: This story ran while the state of Michigan had the nation's highest jobless rate.
So what's going on here?
Well, Amy Frankmann, who heads up the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, told the paper that members of her organization, "have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out they're on unemployment and not looking for work. It's starting to make things difficult."
In other words, the unemployment benefits are so great—it no longer makes sense for many of these folks to work!
It isn't just single mothers who have an incentive to simply not work..
In Michigan, the average landscape worker earns $12 an hour, according to the local Department of Labor. So a full-time landscaping employee makes about $225 more per week then he would get if he chose not to work and simply collected unemployment.
But by the time you factor in federal and state taxes, working full time as a landscaper only nets you about $95 more than an unemployment check. And that doesn't factor in money for gas, lunch, and any other expenses you might incur.
So, in other words...
You have to work 40 hours a week in the heat and the dirt, doing backbreaking work... digging, laying stone on your hands and knees... for an extra measly $95.
Does that sound worth it?
Barack Obama's socialist economics for you folks.
Maybe they should increase wages for hard backbreaking work then .... The money you recieve at jobs like that is a joke . Barely enough to get by . The problem isn't that wellfare pays too much but that jobs don't pay enough. If you don't get people to work for the slave labor money you offer you probsbly should increase your wages. Supply and demand isn't that like it should be ? You offer something nobody wants then maybe make it more attractive ? But NOOOO thats outlandish.
|
On September 14 2012 19:32 kmillz wrote:
If a single mother in Wisconsin has 2 children and makes 15,000$ a year, but then gets 3x pay increase or marries a man who makes 30,000$ she will now be making 45,000$ a year. 30,000$ more than what she was making right? Wrong. The benefits she loses by having more household income adds up to 38,036$, therefore actually LOSING money for making more money. It is absolutely insane and it encourages people NOT to work hard. Why would you want to make more money when it really means you get less? But Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, ESPECIALLY on those who make more (WAY more than Bill Clinton did) and increase the handouts.
Not too long ago, the Detroit News ran a story about how landscaping companies in Michigan can't find employees, because job applicants aren't really interested in work.
Keep in mind: This story ran while the state of Michigan had the nation's highest jobless rate.
So what's going on here?
Well, Amy Frankmann, who heads up the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, told the paper that members of her organization, "have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out they're on unemployment and not looking for work. It's starting to make things difficult."
In other words, the unemployment benefits are so great—it no longer makes sense for many of these folks to work!
It isn't just single mothers who have an incentive to simply not work..
In Michigan, the average landscape worker earns $12 an hour, according to the local Department of Labor. So a full-time landscaping employee makes about $225 more per week then he would get if he chose not to work and simply collected unemployment.
But by the time you factor in federal and state taxes, working full time as a landscaper only nets you about $95 more than an unemployment check. And that doesn't factor in money for gas, lunch, and any other expenses you might incur.
So, in other words...
You have to work 40 hours a week in the heat and the dirt, doing backbreaking work... digging, laying stone on your hands and knees... for an extra measly $95.
Does that sound worth it?
Barack Obama's socialist economics for you folks.
Just want to point out that the average wage of a job means nothing when your being hired. What is the average starting wage? $10 per hour?
|
On September 14 2012 19:43 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 18:49 Souma wrote:On September 14 2012 12:55 aksfjh wrote:On September 14 2012 12:34 Ldawg wrote:On September 14 2012 06:55 s3rp wrote:On September 14 2012 06:52 kmillz wrote:
I don't like Mitt Romney very much, but I will vote for anyone that can unseat Obama..he is ruining this country. Money in politics ruins the US . Also the two party system is not very helpful but oh well. But you def. should somehow stop coorporations and people buying your politicians. There's only a handful of politics that aren't bought ( some are bought more some less ) from what i gather. This a million times over. It is a sad reflection upon the state of the American populace when more foreigners than American citizens can correctly identify that it is the MONEY that is ruining politics in the U.S. edit-had a much longer post, but didn't meet the mods requirement to stay on topic, so it has been shortened. Honestly, I wouldn't say that the money itself is ruining U.S. politics. If you take out the money from special interest, you still have to deal with post government jobs, spreading of information among the (HUGE) population you represent, and dealing with interest groups. Money makes all those problems easier to deal with. If you got rid of the private money without addressing those issues, it would just be replaced by unquantifiable favors. We should never totally get rid of private money, but there is always a limit, which has been well-crossed. While the nature of elections always makes money a factor, politicians should never pander to the money before they pander to their constituents. Constituents first, money second would be ideal. Thing is, if you do not have money for campaign, you`re screwed anyway. Then, in US, it is not all that bad. At least a significant part of funding of campaigns comes from public fund rasing. In other parts of the world, eastern europe(and probably western) included, politicans do not directly rise funds from population, but run not much less expencive campaigns. No need to be a genious to figure out where the money come from, and why do outsiders of US politics speak about money in politics way, way more.
In europe we have unions controlling a very large piece of the economy in elections. As far as I know it is not unusual to see the workers union supporting one side of politics and employer unions supporting the other side. They both spit in a very significant part of the money used in elections. In Denmark we have also got a post-election state-support to the parties that is proportional to the number of votes they got and that support is also pretty significant.
Money from companies are broader distributed or candidate-specific since the contribution-laws are pretty strict on national level.
Company-pressure seems to be more about having solid "scientific" figures to show the politicians, since it will affect all parties. 3 Parties are very special in terms of having more opportunities to meet and greet the politicians. One is having meetings on the hush with people and especially companies willing to pay for meeting the politicians. Another has an open committee for companies only. The last party has a single significant corporate sugar-daddy. They have also embraced a new way of doing politilcs in letting a farmer-society set their environmental policy.
All of these things can be potentially problematic in the future, but I do not think it will happen for quite some time.
The real home of political corruption in europe is 100% EU parliament and EU commission. Both are getting flooded so hard with lobbyists that the politicians flee from Bruxelles/Strassbourg as soon as they can to get away from the constant nagging. Campaign contributions on EU-level is only really starting to affect the elections.
|
On September 14 2012 20:21 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 19:32 kmillz wrote:
If a single mother in Wisconsin has 2 children and makes 15,000$ a year, but then gets 3x pay increase or marries a man who makes 30,000$ she will now be making 45,000$ a year. 30,000$ more than what she was making right? Wrong. The benefits she loses by having more household income adds up to 38,036$, therefore actually LOSING money for making more money. It is absolutely insane and it encourages people NOT to work hard. Why would you want to make more money when it really means you get less? But Obama wants to raise taxes across the board, ESPECIALLY on those who make more (WAY more than Bill Clinton did) and increase the handouts.
Not too long ago, the Detroit News ran a story about how landscaping companies in Michigan can't find employees, because job applicants aren't really interested in work.
Keep in mind: This story ran while the state of Michigan had the nation's highest jobless rate.
So what's going on here?
Well, Amy Frankmann, who heads up the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, told the paper that members of her organization, "have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out they're on unemployment and not looking for work. It's starting to make things difficult."
In other words, the unemployment benefits are so great—it no longer makes sense for many of these folks to work!
It isn't just single mothers who have an incentive to simply not work..
In Michigan, the average landscape worker earns $12 an hour, according to the local Department of Labor. So a full-time landscaping employee makes about $225 more per week then he would get if he chose not to work and simply collected unemployment.
But by the time you factor in federal and state taxes, working full time as a landscaper only nets you about $95 more than an unemployment check. And that doesn't factor in money for gas, lunch, and any other expenses you might incur.
So, in other words...
You have to work 40 hours a week in the heat and the dirt, doing backbreaking work... digging, laying stone on your hands and knees... for an extra measly $95.
Does that sound worth it?
Barack Obama's socialist economics for you folks. Just want to point out that the average wage of a job means nothing when you are being hired. What is the average starting wage? $10 per hour?
You are absolutely right, the average wage of a job does mean nothing when your being hired, in my area it varies from 9-12$ per hour (starting) for landscaping, roofing, flooring, painting, etc... most contruction type jobs (for general labor) and I live in Ohio. I absolutely refuse to do roofing anymore unless the pay is crazy good, it is way too dangerous (especially the steep roofs in my city) to take 10$ an hour for a job. I have worked every one of the jobs I just mentioned for 10$ an hour, also worked some for 12.
|
@kmillz you are throwing a lot of numbers around, and I would appreciate a source. In particular for the single mother living in Wisconsin.
|
On September 14 2012 12:22 xDaunt wrote:The Jerusalem Post is now reporting that Egyptian intelligence warned the US of the attacks on September 4. Source.
Uh, you might want to read the article carefully. It warned of organized Global Jihadist Cairo attacks, not Bengazi Ansar Al-Sharia militant ones.
|
On September 14 2012 23:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 12:22 xDaunt wrote:The Jerusalem Post is now reporting that Egyptian intelligence warned the US of the attacks on September 4. Source. Uh, you might want to read the article carefully. It warned of organized Global Jihadist Cairo attacks, not Bengazi Ansar Al-Sharia militant ones.
The two attacks are believed to have been coordinated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
