Speaking of JOBS II

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Name me one Democrat (or John Kerry) policy that would stimulate the creation of jobs that does not entail the addition of new federal employees. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the majority of voters who vote on the creation of jobs, expect the government to find them jobs, or at least gaurantee them job stability.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I'm a Democrat and take full responsibility for my success and failure. Fortunately, I have a job that would be very hard to export to India.

Sounds like a Republican self assessment. I can't believe that a true self respecting Democrat would take credit for his own success, I thought all you guys had to give credit to Bill Clinton's economic policies, or John Kerry's empty promises.

By the way if JK was such a great crusader for the unemployed, what the hell have him and Ted Kennedy been doing in the Senate for the past 20 or so years. Neither one has a stellar record as far as creating jobs is concerned.

[Tiger Al 0]

Name me one Democrat (or John Kerry) policy that would stimulate the creation of jobs that does not entail the addition of new federal employees. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the majority of voters who vote on the creation of jobs, expect the government to find them jobs, or at least gaurantee them job stability.

Making more money available for SBA loans might work. It did for you. How about contracting private companies to repair existing public schools or building new ones? Surely there are some roads and bridges that need repair. This just scratches the surface. See, the trick to creating jobs is to actually do something to create jobs. Trickle down economics failed the first time around and it's failing again.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Name me one Democrat (or John Kerry) policy that would stimulate the creation of jobs that does not entail the addition of new federal employees.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but the majority of voters who vote on the creation of jobs, expect the government to find them jobs, or at least gaurantee them job stability.

Making more money available for SBA loans might work. It did for you. How about contracting private companies to repair existing public schools or building new ones? Surely there are some roads and bridges that need repair. This just scratches the surface. See, the trick to creating jobs is to actually do something to create jobs. Trickle down economics failed the first time around and it's failing again.

First of all SBA loans are not free money, they have to be paid back just like regular bank loans (I'm still paying mine back as we speak). Second, the republicans have been trying for years to let private companies handle road work, school development, health insurance, retirement programs, and on and on and on. It is the Democrats who have been fighting us, and believe that only government workers and government contractors can do these jobs.

You are making the Republican arguement very well when you ask for more private companies to provide the work and services needed on a daily basis. If you want to know the difference between what government workers vs private industry can accomplish, look no further than the success of the repairs to "malfunction junction" in Birmingham. When we had a fatal and destructive tanker accident under the bridge at the junction of I-65 and I-59 , the governor of Alabama awarded the repair contract to a private firm. They finished the job in record time, did an outstanding job, and rewarded their hardworking employees with huge bonuses for getting the job done under budget and under time requirements.

If the Democrats would let the private sector handle more, we would be a much stronger economy. Therefore Tiger Al, I appreciate you understanding and preaching the "Republican Way"

Are you truely a Democrat, or is that just what your Mamma and Daddy told you that you should be?

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm a Democrat and take full responsibility for my success and failure. Fortunately, I have a job that would be very hard to export to India.

Sounds like a Republican self assessment. I can't believe that a true self respecting Democrat would take credit for his own success, I thought all you guys had to give credit to Bill Clinton's economic policies, or John Kerry's empty promises.

No, it just doesn't fit your stereotypical notion for Democrats. However, I must admit that as much as I'd like to take full credit for my successes, I can't. I'll gladly admit that I've had some government help along the way.

My parents met in the Navy, so that's pretty big gov't. help, for me anyway! Both of them also got student loans that were provided by the gov't. in addition to the GI Bill that they had for being veterans.

After graduation, my mom went to work as a social worker for the state. Lots of gov't. involvement there in many ways. At one point in our lives, we had to go on food stamps. The government (and you...Thanks!) provided that to us. I went to public school for twelve years thanks to the gov't. dole. When I graduated high school, I joined the Army. BIG gov't. help there!

Though the idea of driving a tank or firing artillary sounded fun, I didn't see much call for it in the civilian world and I wasn't sure I'd make a career out of the military, so I chose radiology. Lucky me, because the gov't. had gone to the trouble to get my training accredited from a real university!!! Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, in fact. What that meant for me was that after two years of training I could take a test and become registered in radiologic technology and get a job in the civilian world if I wanted to.

Well, that's what I did! But, you know what? The gov't. was THERE, too, in the form of patients who received Medicare, Medicaid and other gov't. health benefits. The hospitals I've worked for have received State and Federal funding. That helped me because without it, we would've been far less able to provide those people with the high-quality medical care they got and many of us would've been out of a job. Fewer patients=fewer techs needed.

When I go to work each day I drive on the interstate to get there. Guess who created it? The government!!! Now, there IS a 'privately owned' road that I can drive on to get there but it costs me 75 cents each way. That's $7.50 each week. While it's a pretty good road, I usually just stick to the one I've already helped pay for!

For my future, my hope is to open my own MRI center in a few years, and if I'm lucky, I may even do one of those gov't. sponsered SBA loans like you got. I'll also benefit from gov't. sponsored health insurances in the form of patients as well as other help from the gov't. Sure, there's all kinds of guidlines the gov't. will expect me to abide by, but I don't mind. They're just making sure I'm looking out for the welfare of my employees, customers and environment.

So, I can see why my initial response sounded a little republican to you, because it was. The thing is, none of us is an island and, despite what we may think, none of us ever succeeds all by ourselves or, often times, never fails by ourselves.

[Tiger Al 0]

Name me one Democrat (or John Kerry) policy that would stimulate the creation of jobs that does not entail the addition of new federal employees.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but the majority of voters who vote on the creation of jobs, expect the government to find them jobs, or at least gaurantee them job stability.

Making more money available for SBA loans might work. It did for you. How about contracting private companies to repair existing public schools or building new ones? Surely there are some roads and bridges that need repair. This just scratches the surface. See, the trick to creating jobs is to actually do something to create jobs. Trickle down economics failed the first time around and it's failing again.

First of all SBA loans are not free money, they have to be paid back just like regular bank loans (I'm still paying mine back as we speak). Second, the republicans have been trying for years to let private companies handle road work, school development, health insurance, retirement programs, and on and on and on. It is the Democrats who have been fighting us, and believe that only government workers and government contractors can do these jobs.

You are making the Republican arguement very well when you ask for more private companies to provide the work and services needed on a daily basis. If you want to know the difference between what government workers vs private industry can accomplish, look no further than the success of the repairs to "malfunction junction" in Birmingham. When we had a fatal and destructive tanker accident under the bridge at the junction of I-65 and I-59 , the governor of Alabama awarded the repair contract to a private firm. They finished the job in record time, did an outstanding job, and rewarded their hardworking employees with huge bonuses for getting the job done under budget and under time requirements.

If the Democrats would let the private sector handle more, we would be a much stronger economy. Therefore Tiger Al, I appreciate you understanding and preaching the "Republican Way"

Are you truely a Democrat, or is that just what your Mamma and Daddy told you that you should be?

Well, that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 90's. Remember all of that work that was, and is, being done to the interstates? That's right!!! Federal contracts did that.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I'm a Democrat and take full responsibility for my success and failure. Fortunately, I have a job that would be very hard to export to India.

I tell you what TigerAl, since you, John Kerry, and the rest of the democrats want to repeal the Bush tax cuts and require me to pay more in taxes each year, I say that we require you to take the money you make at that good job that can't be sent to India and give half of it to all the needy poor democrats you espouse to care about. I would venture to guess that if you indeed had to give half your salary to support someone you didn't know or that had no aspirations of their own, that you would not be very happy.

Well guess what, I'm not very happy that my hard earned money will be taxed at a criminal rate under a Kerry administration.

Tax relief for those who make enough money to actually create jobs will indeed spark economic growth!

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Well, that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 90's. Remember all of that work that was, and is, being done to the interstates? That's right!!! Federal contracts did that.

Are you talking about the unbelievably slow moving waste of money that was the I-65 project between Warrior and Cullman?(we really needed a 6 lane Interstate there) That had to be the biggest waste of money ever spent.

Or could you be talking about corridor X between B'ham and Memphis. This has been ongoing for 8-10 years and has cost untold millions over budget.

It is one thing to put out federal contracts, and another thing to make sure there is no waste involved. The Dems love to claim all the jobs from wasteful projects, The Republicans love to make sure the private sector can complete jobs and be profitable without unneeded waste.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm a Democrat and take full responsibility for my success and failure. Fortunately, I have a job that would be very hard to export to India.

I tell you what TigerAl, since you, John Kerry, and the rest of the democrats want to repeal the Bush tax cuts and require me to pay more in taxes each year, I say that we require you to take the money you make at that good job that can't be sent to India and give half of it to all the needy poor democrats you espouse to care about. I would venture to guess that if you indeed had to give half your salary to support someone you didn't know or that had no aspirations of their own, that you would not be very happy.

Well guess what, I'm not very happy that my hard earned money will be taxed at a criminal rate under a Kerry administration.

Tax relief for those who make enough money to actually create jobs will indeed spark economic growth!

I think you're assuming that we're in the same economic class. If you're going to have your taxes raised under Kerry, then you are in the wealthiest 2% of tax payers. I'm not. Over Bush's time in office, I've seen about $1000 in tax 'relief'. See, I don't make enough to be able to qualify for cuts in capital gains taxes because after funding my 401k and paying my bills, there isn't very much left to play in the stock market. None of my rich relatives has died, leaving me their big estate, so that one doesn't help, either. The increase in the child credit is about the only thing that has helped me and that will remain under Kerry or Edwards. I'm lucky, though.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 90's. Remember all of that work that was, and is, being done to the interstates? That's right!!! Federal contracts did that.

Are you talking about the unbelievably slow moving waste of money that was the I-65 project between Warrior and Cullman?(we really needed a 6 lane Interstate there) That had to be the biggest waste of money ever spent.

Or could you be talking about corridor X between B'ham and Memphis. This has been ongoing for 8-10 years and has cost untold millions over budget.

It is one thing to put out federal contracts, and another thing to make sure there is no waste involved. The Dems love to claim all the jobs from wasteful projects...

Well, you just flip around like a fish on a pier!!! Any public building I've ever seen go up, any renovations I've seen done and most maintenance I've seen performed on public property has been done by private companies. The RSA Tower in Montgomery was designed and built by private contractors. The Robert Trent Jones golf trail surely wasn't created by the state golf pros!

The Republicans love to make sure the private sector can complete jobs and be profitable without unneeded waste.

Yeah, SDI certainly works well and it was on time and under budget, too!

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I think you're assuming that we're in the same economic class. If you're going to have your taxes raised under Kerry, then you are in the wealthiest 2% of tax payers. I'm not. Over Bush's time in office, I've seen about $1000 in tax 'relief'. See, I don't make enough to be able to qualify for cuts in capital gains taxes because after funding my 401k and paying my bills, there isn't very much left to play in the stock market. None of my rich relatives has died, leaving me their big estate, so that one doesn't help, either. The increase in the child credit is about the only thing that has helped me and that will remain under Kerry or Edwards. I'm lucky, though.

TigerAl, let me try to make you understand basic economics.

Numbers below for arguements sake only:

A family that makes $200,000 per year and is taxed at 35% would pay $70,000 in taxes

A family that makes $50,000 per year and is taxed at 35% would pay $17,500 in taxes

If each family were to receive a 10% tax break then:

Family # 1 would receive a $7,000 savings in taxes

Family # 2 would receive a $1,750 savings in taxes

now if all things were equal, and each family reinvested their tax savings into the economy (by buying goods from people who need jobs) which family would generate more economic impact.

Since all things are not equal you must understand a few basic things.

First, those in the top 2% buy a lot of the homes, cars, boats, clothes, carpets, gas.... that those who earn $50,000 a year or less produce. If you reduce the top 2%'s disposable income with higher taxes they will no longer purchase those goods and hence you will be out of a job.

Second, when you place a punitive tax liability on the top 2% you create a reluctance to expand their production which in turn will relate to a reduction in jobs

I may be in the top 2%, but my wife and I have earned every penny, and neither you, John Kerry, nor the democratic party have the right to tell me I owe more of my wages to anyone.

By the way, would you think the same if you made more money. If the answer is no, then I feel sorry for you

[Tiger Al 0]

By the way, would you think the same if you made more money. If the answer is no, then I feel sorry for you

Think the same as what?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

By the way, would you think the same if you made more money. If the answer is no, then I feel sorry for you

Think the same as what?

about tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%

[Tiger Al 0]

Of course I'd feel the same. It'd be kind of hypocritical to believe that once I got into the highest bracket I should not have to pay more taxes, wouldn't it?

This is my view on taxes:

"For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." (Lk 12:48)

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

That is why you will never reach the higher income bracket. You don't understand that for most of us, Nothing has been given to us, we have earned it through hard work.

BTW when you tax us more we can no longer afford to give as much to charity, who do think donates all this money to your favorite causes? It's not the poorest 2%, it's the wealthiest 2%.

WAKE UP and crawl out from under your hole.

[Tiger Al 0]

That is why you will never reach the higher income bracket. You don't understand that for most of us, Nothing has been given to us, we have earned it through hard work.

BTW when you tax us more we can no longer afford to give as much to charity, who do think donates all this money to your favorite causes? It's not the poorest 2%, it's the wealthiest 2%.

WAKE UP and crawl out from under your hole.

Well, I'll keep trying anyway, if it's all the same to you.

I'd say, however, you're fortunate that you weren't born into a family in the bottom 2%. If so, it's unlikely that you'd have been able to go to AU or any other college and get a degree. You're fortunate that you were given good prenatal care so that you weren't born with any birth defects. You're fortunate you were born in America instead of Zimbabwe, where your average life expectancy would be about 2. You're fortunate to be white because, otherwise, many doors would've been closed (and some still would be) to you growing up.

I realize that you didn't make these choices yourself. You're fortunate. You've also worked hard, as many less fortunate people do. They've started out a lot lower than you and I and have had many more obstacles to overcome. Sure, there are those who, for whatever reason, don't see or believe that there are options available to them other than poverty. We shouldn't give up on them, though, because maybe we can show some of them a better way. Some won't. The alternative is still another form of public assistance called prison. There is very little bang for the buck there, though.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

That is why you will never reach the higher income bracket.  You don't understand that for most of us, Nothing has been given to us, we have earned it through hard work.

BTW when you tax us more we can no longer afford to give as much to charity,  who do think donates all this money to your favorite causes?  It's not the poorest 2%, it's the wealthiest 2%.

WAKE UP and crawl out from under your hole.

Well, I'll keep trying anyway, if it's all the same to you.

I'd say, however, you're fortunate that you weren't born into a family in the bottom 2%. If so, it's unlikely that you'd have been able to go to AU or any other college and get a degree. You're fortunate that you were given good prenatal care so that you weren't born with any birth defects. You're fortunate you were born in America instead of Zimbabwe, where your average life expectancy would be about 2. You're fortunate to be white because, otherwise, many doors would've been closed (and some still would be) to you growing up.

I realize that you didn't make these choices yourself. You're fortunate. You've also worked hard, as many less fortunate people do. They've started out a lot lower than you and I and have had many more obstacles to overcome. Sure, there are those who, for whatever reason, don't see or believe that there are options available to them other than poverty. We shouldn't give up on them, though, because maybe we can show some of them a better way. Some won't. The alternative is still another form of public assistance called prison. There is very little bang for the buck there, though.

I will assume that because I am a republican, that is why you assume I am white (and you think the republicans are racist).

Not to blame my mother, but she smoked like a chimney when she was pregnant with me. (they didn't know any better in the late 60's)

Let me give you a little background. My father is the reason I am an Auburn man, he did attend school for 1 year before having to return home to help his poor (in the bottom 2%) family pay the bills (no lie). Even without a degree he was able to create a successful life for himself and our family. I tell you this to let you know that I had no silver spoon in my crib when I was born. I was raised to believe that hard work will get you anything you set your mind to. I was a republican even when I only made $25,000 a year way back in 1989. As far as being born in America vs Zimbabwe, I don't pay taxes in Zimbabwe and neither do you so find another arguement.

Even being white, I have had many doors closed in my face. Not every company or employer that I wanted to work for wanted to hire me. However when one door was closed, I went out and found another that would remain open.

On another rant, Why are the majority of African Americans democrats? Please tell me how the democratic party has made them better off over the past 10 - 15 years.

[eibua12 81]

Well this was a jobs thread so..

Greenspan on Jobs

I will respond to the last few posts when I have time (do find the thread interesting and feel the subject could be expand [would we be discussing this if it wasn't and election year?])... I am in the process of training myself so when my orginal skill set is sent to India (last company it was) I can still have a job (not joke in training today).

Sorry thought about it for a second, items to discuss

Top 2% tax incentives and tax cuts, are they really getting a break?

Why Captial gain taxes can stop money flow into the economy?

401k and the top 2% (don't get to use it also leads back to capital gains tax)?

Open and closed doors no matter who or what you are?

Hard Work starts early good schooling gets you in I don't care if you are in the bottom 2% (how environment leads to opportunities or hinders them). I had to pay for school no grants, schollies, special assitantce for me (probaly should have looked harder)

Be back soon everyone have fun today...

[Tigermike 3,715]

Well this was a jobs thread so..

Greenspan on Jobs

Ohhhhh Lord you have done it now!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

"For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." (Lk 12:48)

aside from the 'given' vs. 'earned' stuff,

herein lies one issue:

is "much" defined in an absolute or relevant manner?

[rexbo 104]

Numbers below for arguements sake only:

A family that makes $200,000 per year and is taxed at 35% would pay $70,000 in taxes

A family that makes $50,000 per year and is taxed at 35% would pay $17,500 in taxes

You make a great point here showing the difference in taxes, and the effect of a 10% tax cut. But, it is even more pronounced than this when you throw in deductions and credits. Someone making $50,000 per year, is really only going to pay taxes on like $30,000, and then most of that is at the lower rate. Their tax bill would be more like $3000-4000, not $17,500.

What most people, especially democrats, do not understand is that the average working family pays a pretty small price for the benefits gained from the Federal govt. Whereas a 'rich' family is paying many times over what value they receive. They drive on the same interstates, and get the same security from the defense department.

[jaydubb121 22]

Nice thread y'all. Even though it was kind of hijacked from jobs to taxes, it is great to see differing opinions articulated so well. Especially in an election year where you have a lot of "information" forced upon you by the media and the individual campaigns. This seems much more informative here. Seeing both sides of the story. Keep up the good talk. Us lurkers really enjoy it.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Nice thread y'all. Even though it was kind of hijacked from jobs to taxes, it is great to see differing opinions articulated so well. Especially in an election year where you have a lot of "information" forced upon you by the media and the individual campaigns. This seems much more informative here. Seeing both sides of the story. Keep up the good talk. Us lurkers really enjoy it.

The point in moving this thread to a talk on taxes is that....

Lower taxes will in the long run create many more jobs than higher taxes.

When you give the entrepreneur and the corporation a lower tax burden they will in turn reinvest this money into growing their respective businesses and therefore create jobs.

When you raise taxes so that the fed. government can have more money to spend in increased social programs and more entitlements, you take money out of the hands of those able to create jobs!!!

It's not that difficult to understand.

[eibua12 81]

Well more on jobs again going to plan in traffic but will return later with taxes and such...

Education may not be the answer! Yeah right still need to learn a new skill

Oh yeah from a post on another thread

eibua12 said:

"Hmmm just a thought the greed has trickled down to the workers who got overpriced jobs during the run up (I remember P/E ratios of 1500 (YAHOO) and they weren't even turning a profit geeez) and are too lazy to go out and actually take a job for less money and maybe do something that is beneath them."

I also know all jobs lost aren't from the IT sector but all of it is related..

I would amend that to say "that they beleive is beneath them or would require them to move".

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

"I think we're probably more adaptable now than we were in the past," Harris said. "Education is the key to that -- it makes you flexible."

It may already be helping -- according to the latest Labor Department data, among people 25 years of age or older, the unemployment rate for people with at least some college is just 3.7 percent, while the rate for people with a high school degree or less is 5.9 percent.

This quote from the eibua12 link is valuable information that all should be taught an an early age. While an unemployment rate of 5.9% is certainly low by most industrialized society's standards, the chances of being successful are almost twice as great if an individual takes the initiative to pursue at least some "higher education. Moral of the story GO TO, AND FINISH SCHOOL!!

Basically what a 5.9% unemployment rate means is that if you took a room of 100 people, 94 of them would be employed, while only 6 would be unemployed. With just some college only 4 of them would be unemployed. (this rate goes down even lowere with a JUCO or College degree)

Nowhere in our constitution do we quarantee everyone a job. It is each individual's responsibilty to aquire the knowledge and work ethic that will make one "employable".

If you sit around and wait for the Fed. Government (or the democrats) to create a job for you, then I have no sympathy for you. Take responsibility for yourself, take a lesser job (wait tables, work at McD's, work construction, etc) while you retrain yourself or find another job in your field. It is much better (and more profitable) to work in a "lesser" job than to accept the paltry amount of money the government gives you for unemployment.

There have been plenty of times in my life that I was grossly underemployed while looking for a job, but it beat the hell out of relying on the government.