Republicans: No Christmas for jobless

Local_Historian wrote:

JusSayin wrote:

Local_Historian wrote: Just sayin - you making a liveable income on $7.25 an hour?

If a person is making $7.25 an hour and wants/needs to make more, they have many choices.

Be the best $7.25 an hour worker and earn a promotion...maybe work your way up the company ladder--and pay scale--that way.

Go to night school and obtain training in areas that demand higher pay...increase your value.

Develop skills to provide needed products or services and start your own business.

If the person has no desire or initiative to increase their value in the workplace, they can start a commune with their other $7.25 an hour buddies. That was popular in the 60's; maybe its time has come again.

Maybe was the key word in your first statement.

Second statement - where do these people find the time and money to further education? Or are you saying more debt is the acceptable way of life? And how about those with college degrees, some rather advanced, who have been 'downsized' out of their industry and cannot get hired in it again because they are overqualified or too old?

Starting a business does take some money - which brings us back to the second one. And the average business does not run int he black for at least three years - some never do.

Not everything in the world is as black and white as you like to make it sound. But that something you understand when you find yourself downsized, over educated, underemployed and pretty much getting too old to be considered worth hiring.

That age, BTW, is 40.

AMEN!

Minimum wage laws should be abolished. The market will determine what wage will be paid for any particular task without any government "help" deciding the matter. An employer offering too low of a wage will not find any workers to perform the tasks that need doing for their business. The only noticeable affects of a government mandated minimum wage and government mandated benefits are an increase in the cost of goods and services to the consumer.

99 weeks of "Unemployment Insurance" is nothing more than a bad attempt at relabeling welfare at taxpayer expense. It should never have been extended to 99 weeks, let alone extended yet again. I don't care if they manage to find a way to pay for it with the money they have borrowed that has driven the deficit and the national debt to astronomical proportions, it should still not be extended beyond the 73 weeks of welfare and 26 weeks of unemployment insurance. In fact, the "insurance" should be returned to a maximum of 26 weeks to encourage those that are living on the public dole to get out and find whatever work is available at whatever wage they can earn. If we can't do that, we should at least limit the "benefits" of the "insurance" extension to the amount of money that someone could earn working part time at the minimum wage. When it is more profitable for the individual to work rather than collect an additional 76 weeks of "insurance benefits" the people will choose to work rather than remain on the public dole.

That's when you really get to sounding stupid...

"Minimum wage should be abolished."

"The 17th Amendment should be repealed."

"Social Security is unconstitutional."

...ad nauseum...

We get it... You don't like government...for anything. But since none of that is going to happen, (thank God), the more you spout that crap, the more I want to hand you a tissue to wipe the corners of your mouth. Thank God, you Libertarian-types are SO in the minority that you marginalize yourselves with this crap.

We can all fight over taxes....but the facts remain. American jobs are being removed from the US Treasury rolls on a daily basis.

Here are a few ways:

1) We have illegals working and paying no federal income taxes. They are taking low wage jobs that normally would be filled by young adults or labor jobs that normally would pay higher if they were not undercut by supply of cheap labor. Most of the monies earned in the US is exported to Mexico or South America.

2) Companies are employing Filipinos, Indians and Pakistanis via free lance and virtual assistant internet sites.

3) Companies like Convergys, Teletech, and others are exporting for Fortune 500 and other public US companies customer service jobs outside the US. They usually can save companies 30% - 50% over traditional US employees.

4) US companies are going overseas to conduct research and development because the workforces in India have been better trained in maths and sciences. Our workforce has been trained in sexual orientation and ethnic studies.

In many, if not most, American regulations, taxes, and etc are the causes of the exporting or importing of jobs.

SC,
If you need to see who's doing the construction work...you might visit who is building the new Target, Nordstrom Rack, and Best Buy in Lakewood.

Manufacturing has been rooted out of America. We could visit a hosts of manufacturing facilities in the US and see that illegals are occupying jobs. Many times they are placed into a manufacturing facility by a temp agency. I know the game. I have seen it played on a competitive field.

I will take a look at the job data. I am sure that part of the explanation is that many of the underemployed are quitting jobs to seek for higher pay. I know several individuals who are unemployed middle management who found a low paying job. Both quit so they could concentrate on finding a higher paying job. Their spouses were working so quiting made it an easy decision.

Getting cut from a middle management job and then taking an entry level job is the death to salary performance for an individual in their 40's and 50's. Most executive transition coaches tell their clients not to take entry level low paying jobs or any job less than 25% - 30% of what they were making pre-Great Recession.

LadyJazzer wrote: We get it... You don't like government...for anything. But since none of that is going to happen, (thank God), the more you spout that crap, the more I want to hand you a tissue to wipe the corners of your mouth. Thank God, you Libertarian-types are SO in the minority that you marginalize yourselves with this crap.

Well what do you know. I made it out of the class labeled as neo-con into the one labeled Libertarian, and all without changing my mind on a single issue. Tell me LJ, do progressives ever tire of trying to pigeon-hole those with whom they disagree?

I have never said that the Social Security Ponzi scheme is unconstitutional. I have ventured the opinion that without the threat of a packed court by the progressive icon FDR and his cabal of progressives holding a supermajority in both houses of Congress, the infamous "Switch in time that saved nine", that it likely would have been ruled unconstitutional given that it has the same vehicle of funding that caused an earlier part of FDR's Raw Deal to be ruled unconstitutional. I have pointed out that even FDR knew that this program was a financial disaster in the making but he did it anyway because of politics.

I have challenged the progressive invention of the ability to legislate for the individual welfare of the individual citizen by redefining "general welfare" of the union of the states to include this power by recalling the numerous instances, much closer to the founding of the nation, where such a power was specifically excluded from the powers granted to the Congress.

I have pointed out that the progressive era has incorporated many things into our laws and our Constitution which have been implemented with the intention of eroding freedom and liberty and creating a dependence of the citizen upon the general government for that which the government was never intended to provide.

And I find it extremely interesting that what you attempt to label as "marginalizing crap" is really nothing more than a restatement of the principles held by such marginalized historical figures as Thomas Jefferson (who constantly referred to setting this nation back on her natural republican tack in his letters), James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), Grover Cleveland (the only President elected to 2 non-consecutive terms) and others who held these "minority" opinions.

Interesting as well that the very man whose threats against another co-equal branch of government, who is supposed to have saved us all with his brilliant alphabet soup of Raw Deal legislation, was the catalyst for an amendment to the Constitution to ensure that never again could someone amass that much power or approach becoming a democratically elected dictator for life in this nation. There is a reason that the Constitution was changed so that no President is eligible to serve for more than two terms in their lifetime. That reason is FDR. Less than 2 years after his death, Congress had passed the 22nd Amendment and sent it out to the states to ratify, which they did in 1951, with nearly 3 years remaining of the 7 year window to ratify contained within the amendment.

Regarding the 17th Amendment, I think it obvious, based on the debates during the Philadelphia Convention, that the framers intended the Senate to be a national legislative body representing the sovereign states and their legislatures and not one linked directly to the people, which was the purvue of the House of Representatives. All the 17th Amendment has truly done is to silence the sovereignty of the states in the general government to the detriment of liberty and freedom of the citizens of those sovereign states.

I do like government for many things LJ. Our national government was constituted to protect our liberty and freedom from force and fraud, not to be the instrument of force and fraud upon us. When the government employs force and fraud upon the people, it is justly labeled tyranny. The founders knew that democracies always resulted in tyranny. One need look no further than the democratically elected heads of the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or Nazi Germany, or Saddam's Iraq, or the current democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, to understand the wisdom of their thinking. Every step taken away from the republican foundation of the Constitution and the nation and towards a social democracy is one step closer to the United States of America devolving into one more democracy that ends in tyranny.

Well said PS, thanks!

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: We get it... You don't like government...for anything. But since none of that is going to happen, (thank God), the more you spout that crap, the more I want to hand you a tissue to wipe the corners of your mouth. Thank God, you Libertarian-types are SO in the minority that you marginalize yourselves with this crap.

Well what do you know. I made it out of the class labeled as neo-con into the one labeled Libertarian, and all without changing my mind on a single issue. Tell me LJ, do progressives ever tire of trying to pigeon-hole those with whom they disagree?

Not nearly as much as the paleocons/neocons/RepTards/Fascists/TeaBaggers/RightWingers/Wingnuts tire of pigeon-holing those with whom THEY disagree.

Continually debating what your opinion of what the "founding fathers wanted" in the face of the fact that the Constitution is a living document that has been amended 27 times, grows more tiresome by the day. You don't like the 17th? Good luck with repealing it. You don't like parts of the 14th? Good luck with repealing parts of it. You don't like the 1st? Good luck with repealing parts of it....ad nauseum.

[Sqawk!]