AP: Old people "are stealing jobs from young people."

No, Iriemon, that is neither what I said, nor what I meant. In the heart of the recession I did not criticize extended unemployment benefits, and I didn't really start to do so until about two years after the Great Recession had ended. Here we are in January 2014... and according to every real economist who has weighed in on the issue, the Great Recession has been over for four and a half years!

More to the point, there's lots of jobs advertised all the internet and in the newspapers of towns and cities throughout the United States. What justification is there for continuing extended unemployment benefits? Like I said, I can only think of one: welfare slacker votes for Democrats! These people never vote for Republicans anyway, but more money from the government just cements the relationship between people with their hands out and Democrats who are only too happy to shovel out government money in exchange for votes. It's nothing new, Iriemon. Democrats have leveraged the welfare vote since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, over 80 years ago....

 

The jobs that older people have to take used to be reserved for the younger generation. It's not the older folks fault and it isn't the younger folks fault, either. It's a crappy situation all around.

 

That seems to be exactly what you are saying. The implication of your posts is that the reason we still have relatively high unemployment is not because of the aftermath of the worst recession in 80 years, but because of the lazy Johnny and Suzis who are in your view coddled by the leftists.

If that is not your point, they what was the reason for your diabtribe?

The recession is over, but the recession exists only when the GDP is going negative. When a recession is over it does not mean that the economy has recovered to where it was before the Recession. The Great Depression ended in 1933 but it took the best part of a decade to recover from the deep hole it created.

We certainly have made progress, but we also as certainly have not recovered from all the damage.

There are always millions of job vacancies at any moment in time. But right now we still have 11 million unemployed compared to about 3 million job vacancies. You can do the math.

 

Its not a link its a video.

Yes, we were promised jobs 5 years and over a trillion dollars ago, and all we got is a bunch of debt, and people with their hands out, begging for cash.

progressive policies of lies theft and deceit are to blame.

 

>>>Off Topic Removed<<<

Quit barfing up the same old RW propaganda BS. We weren't "promised" 5 million jobs. That is absolutely untrue. The Stimulus, which have about $450 billion in spending over two years, about 1.5% of GDP, was projected to create or save 2-4 million jobs, which is consistent with what several independent economic analyses found it did.

What a shocking opinion coming from you.

 

Why those dirty, over-educated/skilled SOBS!!!

Why won't they just do their "patriotic duty"...and die?

The above post brought to you by Soylent Green,and all of our Good Friends in Obamacare.....

 

Democrat housing policy and central planning probably have them underwater on their home.

 

Less employment after the stimulus then before or at the bottom of the recession. People now claim fry cook should be a career. All part of the plan?

 

An economy that was losing 700,000 jobs a month before the stimulus and was gaining jobs after it. And then the Republican Tea Party blocked all further efforts to create jobs.

All part of the plan.

 

Please cite the total number of months we were losing 700,000+ jobs BEFORE the Obama Adm. took office.

 

The only reason the left wants old people to retire is because most of them are white

 

The recession ended in June of 09. Usually employment recovers. Not tanks. It is going down ever since throughout the whole stimulus and you know it. Stimulus is the broken window fallacy on a massive scale.

 

Obama promised 3 to 4 million jobs for a trillion dollars, we got nothing but lies.

Lies are a common theme in the obama administration.

obama was against the surge and then made a surge in Afghanistan
obama was against getting involved in civil wars than created 2, one in libya, and one in syria.
obama was against FISA and the NSA, then supports FISA and the NSA
obama lied to the entire country to sell his socialistic healthcare nightmare, by saying, if you like your plan you can keep it, knowing full well his plan was going to force everyone out of their plan.
obama promised jobs for a trillion dollars of money we had to borrow, but produces no jobs

If obama didnt tell lies, he wouldnt have anything to say at all....

 

Thanks for the RW propaganda rant. I was wondering what Rush was telling the zombies these days.

- - - Updated - - -

Do your own research.

 

Rush Limbaugh didnt tell me that.

Obama told me he was gonna create 3 to 4 million jobs....
[video=youtube;s2MjQ17kDng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MjQ17kDng[/video]

but like everything obama says, its just another lie....

 

I don't usually have this much trouble expressing myself, but I did say clearly in my post #138: "The 10% unemployment you mention was caused by investment banker criminals and their bought-and-paid-for stooges in government -- in both political parties!" I have never postulated that the Great Recession was caused by anybody "laying around on their asses". What I am saying is that now that the unemployment rate has dropped considerably from that 10% level it is time to wean people off of these extended benefits.

What everyone, Left and Right is missing, IMHO, is that in the debris of this Great Recession there is now a New Normal, Iriemon. It is not a Liberal or a Conservative "thing" -- it is a combination of factors that have developed since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, but the Great Recession focused the quintessential elements, which include intense economic competition from emerging markets, offshoring, the enormous cost of a horribly mismanaged American foreign policy, and, the ongoing "dumbing-down" of the American worker, particularly the 20-somethings and 30-somethings. Listen to them, read what they write, speak with them, probe to gain an understanding of what they have been taught in our public schools and what they think as a result, Iriemon... makes your skin crawl, doesn't it...? Would you choose to hire them to work in your company...?

Now a question, please. You can always be depended upon to provide proof when you make statements like, "But right now we still have 11 million unemployed compared to about 3 million job vacancies. You can do the math." Where did those numbers come from, please? I stand by what I said, that there are jobs in abundance, advertised in websites and newspapers all over the United States, for everything from burger-flippers to software architects. Unless a person is afflicted with a genuine physical or mental disease/disability I cannot imagine why anyone needs to be *idle* for years on end....

 

Taxcutter says;
Once people have looked at these costs (considering we are in a political forum) we need to look at what government can do to minimize these costs and give the US worker a chance to be competitive.

Maybe we never get the apparel industry back. It is labor-intensive and is resistant to productivity enhancement. The US apparel industry flourished as long as there was lots of cheap (immigrant) labor in major US cities. When those labor costs went up, the job moved offshore.

On the other hand, the loss of the Portland cement business to China has to be a poster child for the government doing something wrong. The process is not labor intensive at all - maybe 2 minutes direct labor in an 80 lb sack of Portland. The raw materials - limestone, scrap metal (<1% by weight) and energy - are easily supplied by US. Chinese manufacturers gain maybe a 50 cent per sack direct labor cost advantage over the US. Buth they have to pay to ship this heavy commodity to the US. That wipes out the labor advantage. So where's the difference. Taxation, litigation and regulation.

I do agree that the US needs to become more export oriented. To some extent Hussein Obama, by debasing the currency, makes US stuff cost competitive on foreign markets. Caterpillar construction equipment - the world standard for quality for such machinery - whips the socks off Komatsu and others for price. This is why Caterpillar felt they could afford to ignore the large US commercial truck engine business. Caterpillar had spent decades becoming one of the big boys in the truck engine field, but the latest regulations on US truck engines was the straw that broke the camel's back. Caterpillar got completely out of the new truck engine biz (they retained the lucrative parts market) and put their formidable engineering expertise into stuff that can be sold offshore.

The US is the world's No. 3 exporter - mostly in high-value stuff like airliners. It could improve but there is a downside to an overly export-driven economy. The Germans thrive on the weak euro keeping their stuff competitive and on export subsidies where the average Fritz' taxes go to Siemens to sell electrical apparatus overseas. German taxpayers are beginning to grumble about the tax load they have to bear to keep the euro afloat despite the lethargy of southern Europe. Likewise, China export dominance has to temper their aggression in foreign affairs because their market is so US-dominated. If the US were aggravated enough, all sorts of governmental impediments to Chinese imports could be put in place in retaliation. This is why I completely discount any tales of the Chinese trying to use US debt instruments. Just a 10% reduction in exports to the US could have serious ramifications in China.

 

It was also supposedly, according to the administration itself, going to lower unemployment to six percent or lower by 2012.
"Funny" how you never fail to omit that part of the story Mod edit,,,flounder

 

Fifty years of an inadequest retirement system in a place where the libs want it to become an advanced civilization, whereas the cons want it to be a wide-open place for everyone to spread out to set up their own little kingdoms.

 

The recession is measured by GDP, not employment. Employment is always a lagging indicator. Within a few months of the Stimulus, GDP stopped tanking, employment losses started shrinking, and employment started growing just a few months later and private sector jobs have been growing for something like 47 months straight.

Sorry the facts don't fit your ideology.

- - - Updated - - -

Forecasts of the economy in December 2008 underestimated the severity of the recession, but their prediction as to the effect of the modest stimulus spending was pretty accurate.

 

There are 11 million unemployed people in this country and only 3 million job openings.

What do you propose to wean them too? Begging at stoplights (if they aren't already)?

I can't relate. Both my daughters went to public school, got a good education, and are studying at the university.

If you want to rant that some people don't have the desired level of motivation, that has always been the case. Why are you lecturing me about it?

The number of positions waiting to be filled rose by 42,000 to 3.93 million, the most since May 2008, the Labor Department reported today in Washington
https://www.google.com/#q=job+openings+u.s.

Unemployed as of Nov 2013: 10.907 million
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

The number of jobs available has improved since I last saw the number, that's a good sign. But I stand by what I said: We are still in a situation where the number of people who want a job is well more than double the number of jobs available.

 

Thanks for the RW propaganda rant. I was wondering what Rush was telling the zombies these days.

 

I hope your children are studying something useful at college. Some people are simply unemployable, even after graduating from college.

Hipsters On Food Stamps

- - - Updated - - -

Thats freakn hilarious. No seriously..

Theres not a single republican in the video, just obama spewing lies.

 

Promoting the general welfare implies Pareto Optimality, not just bailing out the wealthiest and calling it a general economic stimulus.

 

Classic 1% apologist post.

We don't have unemployment because of the GR. It's just that 8 million Americans all got lazy and became "hipsters" and decided to live off those generous unemployment benefits at the same time.

Conservatives make sense. If you ignore reality.