|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 19, 2013 15:28:47 GMT
Something that annoys me no end is who our government, both Democrats and Republicans, addresses this problem by distorting the truth. I was reading the recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information on unemployment.
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
When addressing the long term unemployed they refer to them as "Discouraged workers" because they're unemployment benefits have expired so they no longer show up on the "official unemployment" statistics. They act as if these people don't want to find work because they're "discouraged" and the state unemployment offices can no longer document that they're conducting an ongoing job search. These individuals are consistently looking for work and are willing to accept employment at a fraction of the wages they once received. Many of them have secured employment but it is "under-employment" or "part-time employment" because that's all they can find. The BLS also fundamentally ignores those that have entered the "workforce" but have yet to secure a job that would qualify them as "unemployed Americans" and they're simply listed as "Not In The Workforce" in the BLS tables.
We can note that the BLS tables do show the continued discrimination in employment for African-Americans where their unemployment rate remains almost twice that of white where whites with the same background and job knowledge are over twice as likely to secure employment when both a white and black person apply for the same job.
We need to demand that Congress address the problems of the long term unemployed as well as the unemployment of those entering the workforce that can't get a job and finally the discrimination in employment for African-Americans that results in them being unemployed far longer than a white person.
This is really something the House Republicans need to address because anything proposed by the President or the Democrats in the Senate will automatically be blocked by House Republicans. The House Republicans are going to need to propose and pass legislation that the Senate will also pass and that the President will sign. No playing political games trying to "defund Obamacare" agian on this issue because that's simply a way to ensure that the legislation will fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 19, 2013 18:23:44 GMT
So it's the REPs fault the economy is collapsing. And 'White discrimination' is to blame for endemic Black unemployment. And even if Obama tries to do anything to help America then Congress will block any all of Obama's best efforts right?
So now you'll explain what the hell Obama did in his first two years to, as you like to say "address", these problems when the LIBs controlled Congress AND the Senate AND the White house right?
I forgot. He was too busy signing off on his promised five million 'Green Jobs". Can you say Solyndra? Or maybe it was closing Gitmo right?
Your daily LIB 'talking points' are getting a bit old already. Ask them for something a bit 'fresher' tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2013 11:07:39 GMT
What was done or should have been done is moot. The problem is that right this minute there are roughly 1 million long term unemployed individuals that need assistance right this minute.
Can we review the past to see what has lead to this problem? Of course. We can look at Keynesian economic philosophy (that I personally oppose) as it has been the predominate economic policy of the United States government since at least the Nixon era. What did Keynes say? His proposition was that the government should accumulate assets during times of "prosperity" to spend during economic "downturn" on infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the downturn.
Between 2001-2007 the US economy was experiencing "prosperity" and former President Bush, in his 2001 State of the Union Address, promised to reduce the national debt. We can assume that if this promise had been carried out then the then national debt of about $5 trillion should have been around $2 trillion by 2007 but it wasn't. Instead of paying down the national debt the Bush administration fundamentally doubled it leaving the new Obama administration with about $10 trillion of debt making it virtually impossible to apply "Keynesian" economic philosophy to spend on infrastructure to mitigate the economic downturn from 2008.
Once again I don't support Keynesianism but the math alone indicates that if Bush would have left the national debt at $2 trillion as opposed to $10 trillion then $8 trillion could have been used on infrastructure in 2009 to mitigate the economic effects of the downturn without change the "bottom line" on the US national debt that we had in 2009. Instead of $8 trillion the "Stimulus" was limited to about $800 billions of which about 1/2 was in tax cuts.
Would $8 trillion in federal spending on the infrastructure (which desperately needs it) have made a difference? I don't really know but it certainly would have done more than the $450 billion that was spent.
Personally I opposed TARP that bailed out millionaire bankers and investors as well as the Stimulus because I believe we should have been paying for our infrastructure from the beginning and our government wasn't doing that. For example, as I recall, in 2007 the federal government spent $39 billion on highway improvements but only received $30 billion in federal fuel taxes to pay for these improvements. From my perspective the federal fuel tax, which is a user tax to pay for federal highway improvements, should have been increased enough to pay for the highway improvements instead of deficit spending of $9 billion that year for these improvements. Of note even that $39 billion wasn't enough to cover the necessary improvements.
Back to the point of the thread though. The long term unemployed need to be addressed by Congress and as of yesterday we know the House Republican position is to not help them. Yesterday the House GOP voted to cut off "food stamp" benefits to these long-term unemployed.
news.yahoo.com/house-approves-40-billion-cut-food-stamps-poor-222219735.html
These long-term unemployed have already expended all of their unemployment benefits and are not "entitled" to government funded vocational retraining anymore. They don't have a job and are not enrolled in vocational retraining because they'd have to pay for it themselves and can't afford it so they'll lose their food assistance. The House GOP is basically saying "Let 'Em Starve" by cutting food assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 20, 2013 13:19:14 GMT
There you go again. Your first sentence:"What was done or should have been done is moot". Then you go on a rant about what should have been done in the past.
'The past is prolog'. Obama had two years to do anything he wanted and what did he do? He printed and borrowed a lot of money then poured it into economic 'Black holes' like Solyndra.
He ought to have spent that money on the national infrastructure. Now there's zero hope the million plus long term unemployed will EVER get a descent job and even the crappy minimum wage ones are getting harder to find unless you're an Hispanic woman. Who needs a chamber maid to make up rooms that the 'middle class' can't afford to stay in anymore?
You need to except the 'new normal' IE No one will EVER be able to resuscitate the Golden Goose Americans were raised to believe would keep laying those Golden eggs so any one with a grade nine education could get a 'good paying' life long 'union' secure job making car tires. Then you need to have a serious 'sit-down' and develop a plan to survive. That may mean moving from an area that is less expensive to live in to maybe a more rural area with less competition for jobs and a more modest lifestyle.
I met a young woman recently who had just quit her job. I thought that was pretty dumb. She explained that both her and her husband worked and commuted. They recently had a serious family 'business meeting'. They realized that running two cars with all the expenses totaled up was costing them her total paycheck. That wasn't including the cost of daycare etc. Now she's working a bicycle ride away at a part time minimum wage job and they have more money in their pockets at the end of the month than before.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2013 15:30:50 GMT
Still ignoring the issue?
We have about 1 million long term unemployed because of the economic collapse from the Bush Administration in 2008. They need help and they need it now. What are Republicans in the House, where spending bills originate, doing about it? Well currently the House GOP is proposing ending food stamps to these long term unemployed which appears to be counter productive. How is denying them food they need for their families going to help them?
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Sept 23, 2013 5:56:57 GMT
From your posts we can pretty much assume you are one of the long term unemployed.
Turn off the PC and go get some fresh air and while you're at it go find a job.
Or........you can spend your time whining about Bush
Wake up pal. Wait a minute!
How about you send out a few hundred job apps. and at the bottom make sure to tell the HR person the reason you don't have a job is because of 'Bush'. That for sure will get you noticed. 'File thirteen' baby!
You need to seriously grow up pal.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 28, 2013 15:14:43 GMT
It is perhaps time to readdress this issue and Congress has now abandoned the long term unemployed with the current budget deal between Democrats and Republicans.
Like millions of others classified as the "long term" unemployed the federal unemployment insurance provided small financial support but was often not enough to cover their normal expenditures. Personal savings and even retirement plans are often used to supplement the unemployment insurance and after a year much of those personal assets are already gone. So what happens to the 1.3 million that will lose their federal unemployment insurance on Saturday?
In addition to seeking federal and state welfare assistance, such as SNAP which is mentioned, those affected with also require numerous other "charity" services such as those that provide utility services to the poor in many communities. Some have managed to hang onto health insurance during unemployment and they will probably loose that coverage as well needing to go onto Medicaid. All-in-all the federal government, state government, and local charities are going to be hard pressed to meet the fundamental needs of these 1.3 million people what will increase to over 3 million within the next few months as others currently covered by State unemployment benefits will fall off the unemployment rolls.
As for those that through no fault of their own are still losing their jobs because of the 2008 recession their future becomes very bleak. Savings and retirement plans are consumed just to "keep on keeping on" as they try desperately to find work often at a small fraction of the wages they once received. If she's lucky Michelle Marshall will probably find employment but it will be for minimum wage (e.g. $15,080/yr for full time work in many states) as opposed to being able to find employment that would match the $44,000 she earned previously because those are the only jobs that are out there today. Welcome to the "World of Walmart" where they have to have food drives just to feed their own employees!!
In the end the US government will not save a dime and will actually lose revenue as well as spending just as much in providing welfare assistance to the millions that will lose coverage on Saturday as well as those that will have no federal unemployment benefits in the futures.
In the end this is what we need to address:
money.cnn.com/2013/12/27/news/economy/unemployment-benefits-expire/index.html
It was the failures of the US government that lead to the Great Recession of 2008 and millions of hard working Americans are paying the costs of the failure of our government. The layoffs didn't stop in 2009 and continue to this day as the economy is far from recovering. What little recovery there has been has all gone to the top 1% of income earners while the average American is stuck holding the bag. I don't care if a person is a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian our government and those in Congress need to take responsibility for their failures that are resulting in the destruction of the lives of millions of hard working American. It is not something that should be swept under the rug.
|
|
