310
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 199
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I tought the unemployment rate was lower now than it has beenin many, many years? Lower than when Clinton was in office I believe.
Caveman said:The unemployment rate is derived from the number of people receiving unemployment. Despite the fact that the period for drawing unemployment has been increased from 26 to 39 or even 52 weeks the number of people on it is still down.
Difference = 8,170,000 - 5,698,000 = 2,472,000 = 2.472 million MORE out of work today than when Bush took office. To his credit, I guess, the same figure in Jun 2003 was 9,245,000 - a net loss of 3.547 million jobs. Now, since I don't remember many jobs being added during this time, a lot of this decrease could be due to shrinking enterprises or outsourced jobs to foreign labor.
Caveman said:The only way you can't find decent work in the US is if you are are convcted felon (your fault), you are unskilled (your fault), or are uneducated (again, your fault). If you can't find work in your chosen field either start your own business or change careers.
Someone being unskilled or uneducated is NOT necessarily the fault of the individual. With the American insistence that higher education is limited to only those who can afford it, thousands, if not millions, of people are unable to gain the education and skills that they need to thrive today.
By limiting the exportation of jobs, by creating and funding new works programs and by developing a social platform of internal economic growth, the federal, state and local governments can stimulate growth. Despite conservative dogma, lower corporate taxes stimulate shareholder profit and executive bonuses, not job growth. The need for more product or service dictates job growth, not more money in the corporate coffers.
Someone being unskilled or uneducated is NOT necessarily the fault of the individual. With the American insistence that higher education is limited to only those who can afford it, thousands, if not millions, of people are unable to gain the education and skills that they need to thrive today.
And yes, I am a democratic socialist... All of Europe and Canada seem to make it work quite well.
What's wrong with following Christ's commandent to support our fellow man and not leave them to rot in the streets.
It's amazing how most American Christian Conservatives are the least Christian people when it comes to social welfare and corporate practices... Hypocrits and idolaters abound!
Ah, I don't agree with you, so I'm stupid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the RNC and Founder of the 700 Club.
And lastly, Heaven forbid that we should lift our brethen up. All wealth is of the Heavenly Father; we are simply given stewardship over it. Based on your remarks, I would think you fail to use yours righteously in the eyes of the Lord.
In the U.S., only the wealthy can afford higher education, adequate healthcare and a decent living after retirement; our cousins in Europe recognize these as univeral rights.
Actually, I drive an inexpensive, fuel-efficient subcompact vehicle and my wife drive a beat-up old minivan so that we can transport our daughter and others with ease. We own our own house, which is FAR from luxurious, but which we happily, humbly and gratefully call 'home.' And, I happily pay for our healthcare through the program provided by my employer.
wil said:Most of the successful people I know are biz owners with no college. I value an education but to tie a degree to financial success is class envy, liberal clap-trap.