:notworthy: You must be the man. :lol: So just how long have you been in the full-time workforce? Tell us champ.

 

Decades....people today don't know how to prepare for the future. The economy goes up and down. No need to have that huge car payment, huge house payment, etc. You can mock me all you want, but to have no debt is to be as free as you can be. The boss and job don't own you then. Google Dave Ramsey...if you can be serious it can change your life, and I am not affiliated with him in any way, but it is just good old fashioned common sense.

Decades....people today don't know how to prepare for the future. The economy goes up and down. No need to have that huge car payment, huge house payment, etc. You can mock me all you want, but to have no debt is to be as free as you can be. The boss and job don't own you then. Google Dave Ramsey...if you can be serious it can change your life, and I am not affiliated with him in any way, but it is just good old fashioned common sense.

 

This good friend of mine has in no way lived above his means. Put 2 kids through College, 100%. Worked his way up to the management level by results and work. No College himself and no degree. You have no idea.:walk:

This good friend of mine has in no way lived above his means. Put 2 kids through College, 100%. Worked his way up to the management level by results and work. No College himself and no degree. You have no idea.:walk:

 

Again-if he didn't have any debt-he wouldn't have to worry.

I know online it comes across as heartless, but I do have an idea. Maybe he can start his own company or buy a franchise-Subway, etc. I am through arguing about it. The bottom line is he is unemployed and I own a few companies. He is on the government teet, and although my life is no picnic, I am paying my own way. I don't have to worry about being unemployed.

Edited July 8, 201016 yr by History
spelling

Again-if he didn't have any debt-he wouldn't have to worry.

I know online it comes across as heartless, but I do have an idea. Maybe he can start his own company or buy a franchise-Subway, etc. I am through arguing about it. The bottom line is he is unemployed and I own a few companies. He is on the government teet, and although my life is no picnic, I am paying my own way. I don't have to worry about being unemployed.

 

A lot of people thought the same. No arguing here either. Be careful with Karma. It works in funny ways.

I just realized how I can enjoy the P&R forum a litle bit (I had grown very tired of the childish bantering back and forth by folks on both ends of the spectrum. Seriously those folks had taken the enjoyment out of this forum for me. I've just added them to my ignore list and like magic they are gone. They didn't have any credibility with me any way, so why take the time of even seeing and reading their posts. Life is a tad bit better.

They have been going since 2002, where are all of the jobs they created?

 

My point being that the expiration of the tax cuts will not do anything to stimulate an economy desperately struggling. And I've yet to see how the $787 billion stimulus has done anything close to what Obama promised regarding jobs. I've never defended the majority of Bush's economic policies--he was an economic mess, for the most part--particularly during his second term. But I don't see any improvement whatsoever from the man now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

As far as the original question regarding unemployment benefits, I don't have a sure-fire solution. On the one hand, I know the current benefits are rewarding laziness in the lives of some. I've seen it firsthand and it's appalling. On the other hand, I also know they have sustained so many people who genuinely need the assistance & who are sincerely diligent in trying to find work.

 

I've always tried to live by the approach that it's better to be taken advantage of than to overlook someone genuinely in need, so in this case, I would be in favor of some extension of the benefits. But as Voice Of Reason said, I'd also like to see some kind of part-time labor/work/public works required for someone to receive said benefits.

My point being that the expiration of the tax cuts will not do anything to stimulate an economy desperately struggling. And I've yet to see how the $787 billion stimulus has done anything close to what Obama promised regarding jobs. I've never defended the majority of Bush's economic policies--he was an economic mess, for the most part--particularly during his second term. But I don't see any improvement whatsoever from the man now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

As far as the original question regarding unemployment benefits, I don't have a sure-fire solution. On the one hand, I know the current benefits are rewarding laziness in the lives of some. I've seen it firsthand and it's appalling. On the other hand, I also know they have sustained so many people who genuinely need the assistance & who are sincerely diligent in trying to find work.

 

I've always tried to live by the approach that it's better to be taken advantage of than to overlook someone genuinely in need, so in this case, I would be in favor of some extension of the benefits. But as Voice Of Reason said, I'd also like to see some kind of part-time labor/work/public works required for someone to receive said benefits.

 

That's my philosophy as well. In addition, I believe there are more that are genuinely in need than are taking advantage of the system. It's easy to point out the worst case scenarios and use them to justify a harsh position on programs like aid and benefits. The harshest reality is that there are more people unemployed and underemployed now than in most of our recent memories. I remember when my dad was without work in the 70's after the bakery he worked at closed. He had 3 kids, a wife, and assorted relatives to care for, and he went on unemployment. There wasn't a choice. There weren't any jobs out there for a middle aged man without even a high school education. He tried getting on at GE, as a driver for another bakery, did odd jobs for my uncle who worked for Jim Walter homes (but had no full time jobs available), and anything he could. He eventually did find a job doing something no one else would do, and he worked there for 20 years. But it dang near killed him...literally. There are people out there who are looking for work but can't get hired doing even the most basic of jobs like flipping burgers. I see it everyday where I work. They're the "over qualified". They're managers who were let go last year in our industry and are willing to work for $9 an hour as a line level staff member, or as an assistant manager making less than half what they were making. But our HR guy won't hire them. He says they'd be bored, that it's better for them if he doesn't hire them. He'd rather hire someone with no experience he thinks will fit the "image" he wants to present...ie young and attractive. I don't get it, because in our industry, it's terribly hard to train someone to "get it". It's more than just technical skills and customer service skills. You spend years learning to "get it". We have a huge resource of people who have already "gotten it" and just need to be taught the system. But, we'll spend more time training a college student who'll work part time, doesn't need benefits and will be leaving as soon as they graduate and find a job in their field.

 

As much as everyone says there are jobs out there, they aren't. Employers have the edge and can (and do) turn people down for the most arbitrary of reasons, whether it's official or not. It's an employers market, not a job seekers. You can't just walk into McDonald's and get a job flipping burgers anymore. McDonald's can take their time hiring because they know they'll get 10-20 applications on any given day.

I see no problem with extending benefits as long as we're not going deeper in debt doing it. Find some money that's being grossly wasted by our bloated government and use it instead of going deeper and deeper in debt. It's GOT to end!

Extending the unemployment adds less than 1% - LESS THAN 1% - to the debt.

 

How much did the tax cuts - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt.

 

Lost revenue is lost revenue.

 

Oh boy. It's the dreaded it's only 1% argument. It's not that it's 1%. It's that it's 1 additional percent on top of an already bloated government spending. Our government is so far in debt. Every 1% is just more debt.

 

According to the CBO 54% of government spending goes to "Mandatory Spending". I have always found it odd that entitlement programs fall under mandatory spending and defense of the national is discretionary.

 

I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I have no problem helping people up who need a hand up, but that is not what we are doing.

 

This perpetual creation of more and more government dependent people has got to stop. Generational dependency is killing this country.

 

 

That's my philosophy as well. In addition, I believe there are more that are genuinely in need than are taking advantage of the system. It's easy to point out the worst case scenarios and use them to justify a harsh position on programs like aid and benefits. The harshest reality is that there are more people unemployed and underemployed now than in most of our recent memories. I remember when my dad was without work in the 70's after the bakery he worked at closed. He had 3 kids, a wife, and assorted relatives to care for, and he went on unemployment. There wasn't a choice. There weren't any jobs out there for a middle aged man without even a high school education. He tried getting on at GE, as a driver for another bakery, did odd jobs for my uncle who worked for Jim Walter homes (but had no full time jobs available), and anything he could. He eventually did find a job doing something no one else would do, and he worked there for 20 years. But it dang near killed him...literally. There are people out there who are looking for work but can't get hired doing even the most basic of jobs like flipping burgers. I see it everyday where I work. They're the "over qualified". They're managers who were let go last year in our industry and are willing to work for $9 an hour as a line level staff member, or as an assistant manager making less than half what they were making. But our HR guy won't hire them. He says they'd be bored, that it's better for them if he doesn't hire them. He'd rather hire someone with no experience he thinks will fit the "image" he wants to present...ie young and attractive. I don't get it, because in our industry, it's terribly hard to train someone to "get it". It's more than just technical skills and customer service skills. You spend years learning to "get it". We have a huge resource of people who have already "gotten it" and just need to be taught the system. But, we'll spend more time training a college student who'll work part time, doesn't need benefits and will be leaving as soon as they graduate and find a job in their field.

 

As much as everyone says there are jobs out there, they aren't. Employers have the edge and can (and do) turn people down for the most arbitrary of reasons, whether it's official or not. It's an employers market, not a job seekers. You can't just walk into McDonald's and get a job flipping burgers anymore. McDonald's can take their time hiring because they know they'll get 10-20 applications on any given day.

 

So true, and a great post RM.