14
   

UNEMPLOYMENT AT 10%

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 10:59 pm
@Miller,
I agree; Obama has not kept his campaign promises that also disappoints me. He knew what he was getting into to seek the presidency, so I have no sympathy for him. He was too sloppy in how he spent taxpayer monies, and helped wall street more than the middle class and the poor - who really needs jobs. They seem to miss that very basic necessity for our economy to grow; jobs, jobs, and more jobs. That will also help with tax revenue which in turn will help our economy to grow again after paying down the debt.

Also, I'm with the group that says we need health care reform, but not the way this administration is planning it. It misses out on savings while adding almost a trillion dollar to our deficit. When Obama said he's not going to add one dime to our deficit, he hasn't proved it yet as far as I'm concerned.

Another mistake Obama made was to add 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. How is their sacrifice and our treasure going to help that country when their government is corrupt, and Karzai has no control over his own country?

The conservatives are bitching that Obama gave an exit date that tells our enemy they can wait it out. Well, they are simply wrong on that score. If they wait it out, if gives us time to train the Afghans, and we can concentrate on fighting where they live in the mountains of the Afghan-Pakistan border. We must also limit the importation of weapons for the Taliban/al Qaida while we are at it.

I wouldn't be surprised if an American arms dealer is selling weapons to our enemy.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 11:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I agree with almost all of that. I do kind of doubt Obama was clear on what he was getting into. In general, yes, but the presidency has always been kind of On-The-Job-Training, and he was a very junior senator.

The troop surge in Afghanistan, I just don't know. I've always been somewhat more hawkish than you, and am inclined to reserve judgement. It is going to cost and hurt. So would getting out immediately, and I don't know which way the balance tips.

God forbid I sound like I'm defending the guy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:31 am
@roger,
On Afghanistan: It's closest neighbors are Europeans who should have engaged themselves more seriously into the Middle East problems. We are not the world's police. Our economy is in shambles with our deficit growing out of control; inflation is guaranteed, and our children and grandchildren will pay for this sloppy spending. How do they get involved in the responsibility for Afghanistan without their approval? Nobody has the ethical or political right to endanger their future as we are doing.

If Afghanistan is a problem, it's a problem for the world community to solve. We can't keep shifting this deficit onto our children when we have bigger problems at home.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:35 am
Here's what happened in Baghdad after we spent our military and treasure:
Quote:
Coordinated blasts hit Baghdad; kill at least 121 (AP)

Iraqi security forces and rescuers search for survivors at the site of a bomb attack near the new Finance Ministry in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009. An official at Iraq's Interior Ministry says dozens have been killed in a series of coordinated blasts around Baghdad. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)AP - A series of coordinated attacks struck Baghdad Tuesday, including two suicide car bombers and another vehicle that blew up near government sites. At least 121 were killed and hundreds wounded in the worst wave of violence in the capital in more than a month, authorities said.


We can't expect our involvement in Afghanistan is going to be any different. How much more must we sacrifice?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

Also, I'm with the group that says we need health care reform, but not the way this administration is planning it. It misses out on savings while adding almost a trillion dollar to our deficit. When Obama said he's not going to add one dime to our deficit, he hasn't proved it yet as far as I'm concerned.


On the contrary; the bill which passed the House, and which is being debated in the Senate, adds nothing to the deficit - and according to the CBO, actually reduces the deficit by a considerable amount over the next 20 years.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 12:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
What Does the Congressional Budget Office Say About Health Care Reform?

Peter Suderman | December 7, 2009

In a column on health care today, E.J. Dionne argues that the Congressional Budget Office has cleared the way for reform:

The core issues of this debate have been settled. The Congressional Budget Office has swept away the major arguments that opponents of reform have been trying to make. The bill before the Senate would cut the deficit, not increase it, and would stabilize or reduce health care premiums for most people, not raise them. The proposal contains serious cost-control measures that can be built on over time. Passing health care reform is thus not only morally necessary, but also fiscally responsible.

These are certainly the numbers that have gotten the most play in the press. But looking a little closer, I'm not sure CBO confirms any of this.

On deficit neutrality, the CBO has warned strongly on repeated occasions that there's a long history of Medicare reimbursement cuts not coming to pass, and that the bill's score would change substantially if that were to happen once again (which many believe is likely). The CBO has also explicitly stated that if you include the legislative fix to the last round of failed reimbursement cuts"as House Democrats did in their original bill"the total effect on the deficit is decidedly not neutral.

And while it's true that the CBO expects premiums for those who receive insurance through their employers to stay roughly flat, the CBO also expects premiums in the individual market"the market that this bill was primarily intended to reform"to jump significantly. Any premium reductions in that market would come through taxpayer-funded subsidies, not through reform's magical shrinking effect on premiums.

Moreover, the CBO simply hasn't said that the bill's cost-control measures are likely to pay off. If anything, it's said the opposite. Over the summer, CBO chief Doug Elmendorf said he believed the reform bills he was seeing at the time would bend the cost curve in the wrong direction. Since then, the CBO has taken the official position that it can't evaluate one way or another. But given that 1) the major components of the bills are largely the same now as they were this summer and 2) Medicare's actuary has stated that reform is likely to increase costs, I think it's more than reasonable to be skeptical of any claims that the bill will reduce medical spending.
OGIONIK
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 04:15 pm
@tsarstepan,
yes. i had 3 interviews and my mom was supposed to give me a ride to take the drug test and she never showed up.

later she told me i couldnt pass it so she wasnt gonna waste her time.

i swear to god i wanted to sock her in the face.

havent been clean for any of my drug tests and i pass everytime. what a ******* dumbass.

ugh i dont think ima make it past december guys im sick and tired of being sick and tired man.

my friend sits around playing xbox and pinching our roomates change and weed and cigs and somehow i get blamed and i have strips of flesh falling off my feet from walking around puttin in apps, AND HE GETS JOBS! NOT ME!?!?!

hahaha.

aint what u know, its who.

true that.

i shoulda spent highschool learning how to manipulate people instead of learning, id be far better off.

sorta sad?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 04:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You're citing a CEI and Reason magazine hack in order to argue against the health care reform, CI?

When did you become allies with the Bushbots? It's troubling to see how quickly you are willing to look for support from the same idiots who stood behind every dumb decision that Bush and the Republicans in congress made.

Cycloptichorn
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 04:21 pm
@OGIONIK,
Aren't you a little old to be blaming mommy? Don't they have cabs in Las Vegas? Buses? Phones to call and reschedule? Really Og, take control, grow-up.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 04:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's not whether I became allies with Bushbots; it's about your ability to challenge what they said.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 04:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not whether I became allies with Bushbots; it's about your ability to challenge what they said.


Nah, it's about you turning to the Bushbots to support your argument. That's exactly what 'it' is about. YOu wouldn't have trusted these folks as far as you could throw them before; what has changed now?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 05:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Even murders tell the truth some times. That you negate everything someone or some group says in total shows your ignorance, and limited capacity to learn.

If you don't believe them, tell us why? Provide us with your "evidence or facts."
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 05:51 pm
@OGIONIK,
OGIONIK wrote:

yes. i had 3 interviews and my mom was supposed to give me a ride to take the drug test and she never showed up.

That's a heartbreaker! Ouch!! If you knew you could pass the drug test then that most likely meant you actually got the job. Employers don't give out drug tests to just potential candidates (or at least how I understand these things).

What kind of jobs are you looking into? Do you think this one bite is a fluke? Or is it a possible beginning trend for more potential job openings in your desired employment search?

Did you call this potential employer to appeal to their sensibilities and explain why you missed the drug test? Maybe they'll give you a second chance....
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Even murders tell the truth some times. That you negate everything someone or some group says in total shows your ignorance, and limited capacity to learn.

If you don't believe them, tell us why? Provide us with your "evidence or facts."


The piece you linked doesn't include any 'facts' either; just assertions. You should demand evidence from them if you are looking for evidence to back up positions in this argument.

But, I get the feeling that you are against the reform in general (affects your Medicare advantage, perhaps?) and you're not really interested in a factual debate on the issue, so I guess I'll just let it go with what I've said: you should examine your fellow travelers before trusting so heavily in their analysis.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm not afraid of any impact from our Medicare; we'll handle anything that comes up the pike; they've already covered much more expense than we've paid into the system, and that also goes for social security.

If they are "assertions," than you should be able to challenge them with some of your own evidence or reasons why.

Without credible challenge to those assertions, why should anybody believe you?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 06:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not afraid of any impact from our Medicare; we'll handle anything that comes up the pike; they've already covered much more expense than we've paid into the system, and that also goes for social security.

If they are "assertions," than you should be able to challenge them with some of your own evidence or reasons why.

Without credible challenge to those assertions, why should anybody believe you?


Why do you believe them? They didn't provide any evidence to back their assertions up. The person making an affirmative claim bears the responsibility to back up their assertions.

It's rather odd that you would demand evidence from one side, but accept the other side as valid without evidence. Is this the case?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 07:26 pm
@tsarstepan,
Technically, you have been hired at the time of the drug test, if the employer knows what they are doing. Refusal to take the test counts exactly the same as failing the test, which is very bad news for future employment in a field that actually requires testing, i.e. CDL drivers.

I know this from having been on the employer's side of the fence, at one time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 07:36 pm
@roger,
I've also been on the employer's side of the fence too, and we had drug tests on all applicants; it didn't mean they were automatically "hired" if they passed.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 07:44 pm
there is a brick and mortar joint just opened up not far from where gram lives.

All they sell is stuff to help pass drug tests.

(even advertise carefully on the radio, they do.)


our local adjusted unemployment rate was published at 18.5% this week...
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 09:55 pm
How serious are you, Ogoinik, about really wanting to get a job?
 

Related Topics

Where is the US economy headed? - Discussion by au1929
The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 03:25:13