Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

[Vteckidd]

Granted this was a conservative group, but still the can match the "illegal" voters name with the public records of former felons. Thats pretty damn good proof IMO.


The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities.

That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.

Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been "stonewalled."

"We aren't trying to change the result of the last election. That legally can't be done," said Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority's executive director. "We are just trying to make sure the integrity of the next election isn't compromised."

He said his group was largely ignored when it turned over a list of hundreds of names to prosecutors in two of the state's largest counties, Ramsey and Hennepin, where fraud seemed to be the greatest.

A spokesman for both county attorneys' offices belittled the information, saying it was "just plain wrong" and full of errors, which prompted the group to go back and start an in-depth look at the records.

"What we did this time is irrefutable," McGrath said. "We took the voting lists and matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists, where voters sign in before walking to the voting booth, and matched them by hand.

"The only way we can be wrong is if someone with the same first, middle and last names, same year of birth as the felon, and living in the same community, has voted. And that isn't very likely."

The report said that in Hennepin County, which in includes Minneapolis, 899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far.

A representative of the Hennepin County attorney's office, who declined to give her name, said "there was no one in the office today to talk about the charges."

But the report got a far different review in Ramsey County, which contains St. Paul. Phil Carruthers of the Ramsey County attorney's office said his agency had taken the charges "very seriously" and found that the Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review."

The report says that in Ramsey, 460 names on voting records were matched with felon lists, and a further review found 52 were conclusive matches.

Carruthers attributed differences in the numbers to Minnesota Majority's lack of access to nonpublic information, such as exact birth dates and other court records. For example, he said, "public records might show a felon was given 10 years probation, but internal records the county attorney has might show that the probation period was cut to five and the felon was eligible to vote."

Carruthers said Ramsey County is still investigating all the names and has asked that 15 investigators be hired to complete the process. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers."

McGrath says the report shows that more still has to be done.

"Prosecutors have to act more swiftly in prosecuting cases from the 2008 election to deter fraud in the future," he said, "and the state has to make sure that existing system, that flags convicted felons so voting officials can challenge them at the ballot, is effective. In 90 percent of the cases we looked at, the felons weren't flagged."

"If the state had done that," he said, "things might be very different today."

[Total_Blender]

So instead of coming up with solutions for current problems, the Minnesota conservatives are looking into election records from 2 years ago?


Heres a thought... they say they have 899 suspected felon votes in total in Hennepin County (which includes MPLS, St Paul and their suburbs). Of those 899 votes they claim that 341 voted for Franken. Wouldn't that mean that the remaining 558 felons who voted for Coleman? So if they threw out ALL the felon votes, wouldn't that mean that mean that Franken just won by a wider margin of legal voters?

It seems like thats the strategy of the conservatives since the Clinton years... always looking for that intern hookup or Kenyan birth certificate or felon voter (excluding, of course, Florida, in which election results are never to be questioned).

[Vteckidd]

haha i knew you would respond like that.

I think you misread the article.


899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far.

that means 289 out of 899 were CONCLUSIVELY MATCHED. Out of those 289 only 3 were charged with voter fraud.

I think you are misreading the numbers they are quoting


That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

The point of the article isnt to turn over an election from 18 months ago (not 2 years), its to point out that in heavily democrat areas there was a huge amount of voter fraud specifically felons voting and not being caught. that is a MAJOR problem whether it was repbulican or democrat.

Florida really? Still pulling that card i see

[BanginJimmy]

Florida really? Still pulling that card i see


In case you havent been following recent events, every time dems and liberals get caught with their pants down, they immediately go to the blame Bush rhetoric.

[BanginJimmy]

So instead of coming up with solutions for current problems, the Minnesota conservatives are looking into election records from 2 years ago?

Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits is it?

Lets rehash a few important parts of the article you seemed to have missed.

"That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority,"

""We aren't trying to change the result of the last election. That legally can't be done," said Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority's executive director. "We are just trying to make sure the integrity of the next election isn't compromised." "

"Phil Carruthers of the Ramsey County attorney's office said his agency had taken the charges "very seriously" and found that the Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review."

"Carruthers said Ramsey County is still investigating all the names and has asked that 15 investigators be hired to complete the process. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers."

Any more questions on this part?



Of those 899 votes they claim that 341 voted for Franken.

Please point out the part of the article that says who those felons voted for.



Wouldn't that mean that the remaining 558 felons who voted for Coleman? So if they threw out ALL the felon votes, wouldn't that mean that mean that Franken just won by a wider margin of legal voters?

That damn comprehension thing again.


It seems like thats the strategy of the conservatives since the Clinton years... always looking for that intern hookup or Kenyan birth certificate or felon voter

Maybe because these are typical of dems? Except the birth certificate thing. Anyone with even a small slice of common sense would rather have Obama than Biden in the oval office. Would it be safe to say that the dems only strategy since 2006 was blame Bush? Cause I havent heard a single thing out of any of them but that for the last 4 years.



(excluding, of course, Florida, in which election results are never to be questioned).

You need to go back and do some research on the whole Florida thing. Gore was granted his recount, but only a full state recount, not one that was limited to largely democratic districts like he wanted.

[Total_Blender]

I think I did misread the article as having claimed a total of votes for Franken. The article made no claim of votes for either side. I think that the tone of the article does blame Franken for the voter fraud, but I am guessing this BS will die quietly if/when they find that the majority of felons voted for Coleman.

Its just the republican strategy of butt-biting at work here. They just can't accept that they lost the election because people didn't want to vote on the Mayor McCheese/Bible Barbie ticket that was tainted by 8 years of W(orthless). They can't accept that more and more minorities, feminists, and atheists (like Franken) are in positions of leadership.

As far as blaming Bush... all the shit we're dealing with now is his fault. He started the 2 wars that are bleeding our economy dry. He went into office with a surplus and came out 1.3 trillion in debt. The bank bailouts and acquisition of toxic assets were HIS policies. His tax cuts benefited the wealthy much, much more than they benefited the average citizen and stripped the gov't of funding it needs for things like fighting wars.

My main gripe with Obama is that he's too much like Bush. Obama has had ample time to shut down the wars. He blew the opportunity to do away with "no child left behind"... "Race to the Top" is just the same bullshit. It is doubtful he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. Most of his fiscal policies favor corporations over individuals. None of this is a surprise really, I knew from the start that Obama was a centrist. But things are definitely better than they would have been under McCheese. At least we're not at war with Russia and Iran, and at least we don't have Bible Barbie presiding over the senate.

[Vteckidd]

As far as blaming Bush... all the shit we're dealing with now is his fault. He started the 2 wars that are bleeding our economy dry. He went into office with a surplus and came out 1.3 trillion in debt. The bank bailouts and acquisition of toxic assets were HIS policies. His tax cuts benefited the wealthy much, much more than they benefited the average citizen and stripped the gov't of funding it needs for things like fighting wars.

My main gripe with Obama is that he's too much like Bush. Obama has had ample time to shut down the wars. He blew the opportunity to do away with "no child left behind"... "Race to the Top" is just the same bullshit. It is doubtful he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. Most of his fiscal policies favor corporations over individuals. None of this is a surprise really, I knew from the start that Obama was a centrist. But things are definitely better than they would have been under McCheese. At least we're not at war with Russia and Iran, and at least we don't have Bible Barbie presiding over the senate.

Sometimes i think you purposefully say this stuff just to see what our reaction is haha.

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show last night and i about fell out of my chair how unbelievable clueless the left is. She was arguing that the Republicans are not for cutting the deficit because they arent for raising taxes.

She honestly said that what the economy needs right now is "MORE STIMULUS". She said that Paying unemployment benefits is far more stimulative to the economy than cutting taxes. "We are paying money to people without a job who need money because they have to spend it on their bills, so its directly injected into the economy. Cutting taxes only favors the rich or people making over $200,000".

I was completely dumbfounded at that statement. That statment shows the huge difference in opinions right now. She wants a welfare state where people are DEPENDENT upon unemployment GOVT HANDOUTS for life to pay their bills. Forget that fact of ever finding them jobs, which is what a tax cut would do, lets get them hooked on free money, and lets base our entire economic growth off paying unemployment benefits ($300-350 per week max) to more than 10 million people who are unemployed.

SERIOUSLY??? Maybe the current economic system whose fault has reared its ugly head in the last 2 years isnt the greatest but its better than depending on the unemployed to collect govt handouts.

I put blame at 30% BUSH, 30% Clinton, 10% Carter, 30% Obama.......for now. It is not all BUSHs fault no matter how much you guys want it to be. This is OBAMAs presidency, a presidency where he will be remembered for slow to zero economic growth, stagnate double digit real unemployment, 4 times the amount of debt Bush brought us, 2 wars still unsolved.

So EVERYTHING BUSH left us with, Obama will leave us with, EVEN WORSE.

Again look at Bushs presidency.

Katrina wasnt such a fuck up after all after this BP Oil disaster huh? At least Bush was a leader, Obama tries to win the daily news cycle like a guy running for high school office.

Bush had HISTORICAL low unemployment.

Disagree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well Iraq was bush ill give you that, Afghanistan is ALL OBAMA and the Democrats. Guantanomo, all Obama he promised to close it and he wont.

Right now people want JOBS, and the only way to create jobs is to give people the Left HATE (even though most of the left is JUST AS RICH as the people they hate) Corporations and small businesses, INCENTIVE TO HIRE. How do you do that? You lower their expenditures, taxes, cost of operating so they can expand and hire more people.

If you think for one second jacking tax rates (by letting the bush tax cuts expire) is going to spur economic growth, go take Econ 101 again. Thats like asking someone that is living poay check to pay check to take on $200 more a month in bills for the hell of it.

Thats all this shit is about, CURB spending , lower taxes. The Left wants to spend MORE and raise taxes on the few remaining rich people in this country and destroy all wealth so the people become dependent on the people with the power to give them more handouts.

[BanginJimmy]

I actually think you are right. I really am starting to think Blender is just doing it to get a reaction. He never has anything useful to add and always runs back to blame bush. I'm surprised he didn't blame Bush for his lack of reading skills.

[Vteckidd]

"NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND MADE ME NOT READ GOOD"

[Total_Blender]

If you just give money to the CEO's there isn't any incentive to invest that money into the business. Most CEO's consider their compensation and the finances of their company to be separate. It would be foolish for them to invest into a business without an increase in demand. They will just hoard any increase in funds they receive into savings. Most CEO's are paid in such a manner that they are well insulated from the failures or sufferings of their companies. Their compensation is not dependent on success or failure. Also, given the piss-poor economy most companies are actually looking to shrink, even if they do get a large tax cut there's no use in paying employees to just stand around doing nothing or maintaining a lot of inventory that will just sit on the shelves.

Meanwhile, if you put money into the general population by economic stimulus, it will give consumers money to spend which will increase demand. This will make it necessary for businesses to hire more employees, expand facilities, etc. The unemployed and the poor have much more incentive to spend money (needs that are not met by wages) than the super-wealthy (who want for nothing even in the toughest times). Its a known fact that consumption drops as unemployment rises as people consume less when they are out of work and have more incentive to save when they fear losing their jobs.

I would even go as far as to say that extending unemployment benefits will keep people in the work force and searching for jobs instead of giving up. Remember that in order to qualify for unemployment benefits you have to prove that you are actually looking for a job. One who doesn't seek employment because he is "getting paid not to work" will lose benefits because they actually have quotas of jobs they apply for and interviews that they do every pay period. They monitor who is actively looking for work and who isn't.

[Total_Blender]

"NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND MADE ME NOT READ GOOD"

Franken is getting under the GOP's/Tea bag party's skin eh? I wonder if they can prove all the felon votes are for Franken? I wonder how many felons voted for Bachmann in her gerrymandered district? Her district is over-counted because in includes most of Minnesota's prisons, and prisoners are counted as residents of the communities where they are incarcerated rather than where they are from. So felons can throw elections even though they can't vote.

Anyway:

The GOP lost Franken's seat and theres nothing they can do about it.

neener neener neener "Get over it!!" lol.

http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/factsheets/mn/minnesota.pdf

[Vteckidd]

If you just give money to the CEO's there isn't any incentive to invest that money into the business. Most CEO's consider their compensation and the finances of their company to be separate. It would be foolish for them to invest into a business without an increase in demand. They will just hoard any increase in funds they receive into savings. Most CEO's are paid in such a manner that they are well insulated from the failures or sufferings of their companies. Their compensation is not dependent on success or failure. Also, given the piss-poor economy most companies are actually looking to shrink, even if they do get a large tax cut there's no use in paying employees to just stand around doing nothing or maintaining a lot of inventory that will just sit on the shelves.

Youve never owned a business or known a business owner. Sure there are big huge multibillion dollar corporations where theres an evil CEO stroking a cat right now figuring out how he can buy another bugatti. But the VAST MAJORITY of business owners are not like that. Not every one is Enron or Authur Anderson. Most businessmen are ambitious and look for more wealth. IN a service based industry you only make as much money as how many people work for you. The economic climate right now is bad, not just from slow growth but something far worse.....CONFIDENCE. Many people dont want to hire right now and are hoarding all their money (me included) because we dont know if our taxes are going to go up (bush tax cuts expiring) , transaction tax, luxury tax etc all being thrown around congress right now, Health care costs going up due to obama care, its all a viscious circle. no one has jobs so no one has money to buy the things from which jobs are created.





Meanwhile, if you put money into the general population by economic stimulus, it will give consumers money to spend which will increase demand. This will make it necessary for businesses to hire more employees, expand facilities, etc. The unemployed and the poor have much more incentive to spend money (needs that are not met by wages) than the super-wealthy (who want for nothing even in the toughest times). Its a known fact that consumption drops as unemployment rises as people consume less when they are out of work and have more incentive to save when they fear losing their jobs.

one question, we put 780 BILLION into the economy in the form of stimulus alone (not counting the FEDs monies they have put in) where is this economic boom ? How can you say we need MORE stimulus when the first round didnt even work? Biden said they would be creating 500,000 jobs a month, where is that? The stim 1 FAILED miserably, the last thing we need is MORE. Im sure those 20 million dollar airports were really stimulating to the economy. Furthermore your logic is based on one event in our economic time you cant categorize every CEO or business owner into one area.




I would even go as far as to say that extending unemployment benefits will keep people in the work force and searching for jobs instead of giving up. Remember that in order to qualify for unemployment benefits you have to prove that you are actually looking for a job. One who doesn't seek employment because he is "getting paid not to work" will lose benefits because they actually have quotas of jobs they apply for and interviews that they do every pay period. They monitor who is actively looking for work and who isn't.

Ever been on unemployment? You dont have to prove anything. you turn in a sheet of where you went and "looked" for work. thats it. They dont check it, they dont call, they dont do anything with it. So yeah there is no incentive to go find work especially if the unemployment you are receiving is congruent to the SAME MONEY you would make in the work force. If you made $20,000 as a janitor and got laid off, wouldnt you want to make $20,000 a year doing NOTHING as long as you could?

The simple answer is unemployment needs to have a set time to encourage people to really get off it. the economy needs to have jobs available, and people need to want to take them.

period

[Total_Blender]

. So yeah there is no incentive to go find work especially if the unemployment you are receiving is congruent to the SAME MONEY you would make in the work force. If you made $20,000 as a janitor and got laid off, wouldnt you want to make $20,000 a year doing NOTHING as long as you could?

No, I would not want to stay on unemployment because there are no benefits other than temporary cash. Theres no retirement, you're not paying into social security, no insurance, etc.

As far as the 720B invested into the stimulus (most of which is yet to be spent)... what about the countless billions invested in Reaganomics? Wheres the trickle down? If Bush's tax cuts are so awesome and trickle down works so well... why is there such a gap between executive compensation and the wages of regular workers? We're now 30 years in to the "Reagan r3volution" and the money hasn't trickled down yet.



Many people dont want to hire right now and are hoarding all their money (me included) because we dont know if our taxes are going to go up

You just proved my point exactly. You are not going to grow your business because the economy is terrible and the demand for your products is down. Even if you got a further tax cut you would not invest in increasing production, hiring workers, purchasing inventory, etc. Until demand goes up you are going to hoard wealth. And thats a smart strategy for a business owner. But it doesn't put anybody to work.

I'll just leave this here:

http://mandatemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/19/median_by_administration.jpg

[bu villain]

I never knew we had so many civic minded felons who were willing to break the law in order to vote. That's encouraging ... I think. It would have been interesting to know if those votes actually did make a difference or not.

[Total_Blender]

Just because they have a felony on their record doesn't automatically mean they can't vote. Like if they have a felony and the sentence is commuted to probation. Or if they had their felony conviction overturned on appeal. In Minnesota they can also petition the state to restore their right to vote and even their right to own firearms.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

[BanginJimmy]

No, I would not want to stay on unemployment because there are no benefits other than temporary cash. Theres no retirement, you're not paying into social security, no insurance, etc.

So the only difference between an unemployment check and a check you work for is that more money is taken out of the one you actually work for and you wonder why people are happy to sit on unemployment? Are you really this dense?


As far as the 720B invested into the stimulus (most of which is yet to be spent).

So you will admit that it was simply a massive spending bill meant to give the appearance they are doing something, not to actually do anything meaningful.



.. what about the countless billions invested in Reaganomics? Wheres the trickle down? If Bush's tax cuts are so awesome and trickle down works so well... why is there such a gap between executive compensation and the wages of regular workers? We're now 30 years in to the "Reagan r3volution" and the money hasn't trickled down yet.

You really are this ignorant arent you? This really isnt an act. Executives at a fortune 500 corporation make FAR more than the building janitor because the CEO has a LOT more responsibility. How many multi billion dollar decisions do you think the receptionist at JP Morgan's building has? Now how many of those decisions do you think the CEO that sits 20 floors higher has?



You just proved my point exactly. You are not going to grow your business because the economy is terrible and the demand for your products is down. Even if you got a further tax cut you would not invest in increasing production, hiring workers, purchasing inventory, etc. Until demand goes up you are going to hoard wealth. And thats a smart strategy for a business owner. But it doesn't put anybody to work.

How did he prove any point you have made? He said uncertainty caused by the govt is holding businesses back from hiring and he is right if you want to believe Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal.

Lets use a VERY simple example. For simplicity we will ignore current taxes. You have $4000 a week to hire new employees. If you are to pay them $10/hr that comes out to 10 employees. Now all the sudden you are being told by the govt that a new set of taxes and requirements are coming, but you dont have any firm details for you to determine how much that will cost you. Are you going to invest the money today to hire, train, and equip these new workers only to find out that these new regulations are going to cost you 2k per week, thus requiring you to lay off 5 of those new workers? Of course not. You are going to wait until you know how the new regulations and taxes are going to affect you, then you will hire appropriately.

Now think about a multi-national fortune 500 corporation. They will have a huge tax increase, new costs associated with federal financial regulations, new costs from the health care overhaul and massive new compliance costs. None of these new laws have gone into affect yet so none of the corporations know exactly how they will be affected, therefore, they are going to stack cash or put it into investments that are safe from the govt.

[BanginJimmy]

Just because they have a felony on their record doesn't automatically mean they can't vote. Like if they have a felony and the sentence is commuted to probation. Or if they had their felony conviction overturned on appeal. In Minnesota they can also petition the state to restore their right to vote and even their right to own firearms.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

Ramsey County has already charged 28 people because of this review and has 199 more to go. Add to that the 1188 suspected in Hennepin County and things get interesting. Franken won by 312 votes so only 1 out of 3 suspected felons (471) needed to vote illegally for Coleman to have won even if Coleman got 1/3 of the illegal votes.

[Total_Blender]

So the only difference between an unemployment check and a check you work for is that more money is taken out of the one you actually work for and you wonder why people are happy to sit on unemployment? Are you really this dense?
.

The maximum draw of unemployment in GA is $230 a week. Even if you're making 6 figures, you're not getting more than that. Most people who draw unemployment actually get less. If you can "sit around and be happy" on > $230/wk. then more fucking power to you. The state probably spends more than that in a week to incarcerate an inmate.

[BanginJimmy]

The maximum draw of unemployment in GA is $230 a week. Even if you're making 6 figures, you're not getting more than that. Most people who draw unemployment actually get less. If you can "sit around and be happy" on > $230/wk. then more fucking power to you. The state probably spends more than that in a week to incarcerate an inmate.


Wrong again. My wife was getting about $350 a week last year when she got laid off. Generally an unemployment check is 50% of your weekly salary up to that $350 a week cap.


As to the second part of your statement, you are way off, but on the low side. It costs about 35k a year to house a prisoner in GA and a little more than that for a federal prisoner.

[Total_Blender]

Just looked it up, its $330 a week. Its been a while since I last researched it. But $330 a week is still piss poor. And in order to qualify you have to have worked and payed into the system for X $ amount and/or X time period. Also, in order to qualify one has to meet certain criteria as to how one was terminated. If you quit for no good reason, or if you were terminated for failure to perform your expected duties as an employee, you can't draw.

Its not like they are giving you free money... when you get unemployment its money YOU paid into the system when you were working.

[Vteckidd]

The maximum draw of unemployment in GA is $230 a week. Even if you're making 6 figures, you're not getting more than that. Most people who draw unemployment actually get less. If you can "sit around and be happy" on > $230/wk. then more fucking power to you. The state probably spends more than that in a week to incarcerate an inmate.

bullshit i got $300 a week 5 years ago when i was laid off

[Vteckidd]

Just looked it up, its $330 a week. Its been a while since I last researched it. But $330 a week is still piss poor. And in order to qualify you have to have worked and payed into the system for X $ amount and/or X time period. Also, in order to qualify one has to meet certain criteria as to how one was terminated. If you quit for no good reason, or if you were terminated for failure to perform your expected duties as an employee, you can't draw.

Its not like they are giving you free money... when you get unemployment its money YOU paid into the system when you were working.

HAHA then you believe Social Security is paid for too LOL

you realize that people like my dad who pay for UNEMPLOYMENT all their life and have NEVER collected it, their money isnt sitting in an account waiting on them. Its being used for other people who got laid off.

The problem is VASTLY more people collect or stay on unemployment than who pay into it. Just like Social Security

[Vteckidd]

and yes MANY people on unemployment make under $50,000 a year.

$330 a week=$16,000 roughly a year tax free. lets look at some numbers


Education pays. That's what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says. People with more education make more money. That's not a big surprise. But they also are less likely to be unemployed. Who has the highest unemployment rate and lowest pay rate? People without a high school diploma. When unemployment grows, those without a high school diploma suffer most. The GED is a chance to earn a high school diploma, but more than that, it opens doors to the higher education that's so valuable in today's job market.

Take a look at unemployment rates in 2008. No high school diploma? The unemployment rate was 9%. Among high school graduates, it was only 5.7%. That's lower by more than a third. What if you earned a 2-year Associate degree at a community college? The unemployment rate was only 3.7% among people with Associate degrees. The more education you earned, the lower your chances of being unemployed. That means education equates to jobs.


But what kind of jobs? That's where income comes in. Among people 25 and over who had full-time jobs, the median weekly income for people without a high school diploma was $426 in 2008. With a high school diploma, it jumped to $591 a week, an increase of nearly 40%. With that 2-year Associate degree, median income $736 a week. More education equates to better paying jobs.

According to 2008 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, adults with less than a high school diploma had a 9% unemployment rate, and earned a median income of $426, among those with jobs. High school graduates had only 5.7% unemployment, and earned $591. Those with some college who didn't graduate had 5.1% unemployment and earned $645. Those with an Associate degree had only 3.7% unemployment and earned $736. Those with a Bachelor's degree had 2.8% unemployment and $978 weekly earnings. A Master's degree? 2.4% unemployment and $1,228 weekly earnings. Those with a professional degree had the lowest unemployment, 1.7%, and weekly earnings of $1,522. Those with a Doctoral degree had 2.0% unemployment and the highest median earnings, at $1,555 per week.



Sure not EVERYONE wants to stay on unemployment, but many do because they can milk the govt cow AND do side work. its free money. and if yo uare used to making $400-500 a week WORKING, who wouldnt want to make 60-70% of your working salary to do NOTHING.

[Total_Blender]

You are wrong about unemployment benefits being "tax free," most recipients do have to pay taxes out of their benefits. The taxes are withheld from their checks just like a regular paycheck.

http://www.dol.state.ga.us/js/faq_js.htm

Also the $16k a year is false because the longest you can stay on UI currently is 26 weeks.

Are unemployment benefits taxable? back to top
Yes. Any unemployment insurance benefits you receive are fully taxable income if you are required to file a tax return. At the time you file your claim, you may elect to have the department withhold state and/or federal tax on the benefits you receive. You may change this withholding election one time during the year. The department will send you a 1099-G form at the end of the calendar year showing how much in benefits you received during the previous year. It also shows the amount of taxes, if any, that were withheld. You should use this form when you file your income taxes to report benefits received and any taxes withheld by the department. Questions about filing should be directed to the IRS, to the State Department of Revenue, or to a tax consultant.

Your article - the one you didn't post a source for but I traced back to a chap named Michael Ormsby, who seems to be a freelance journalist who covers issues concerning GED's and adult education... has nothing to do with the topic of unemployment abuse.

Of course the more education one has the less likely they are to be on unemployment. I wasn't aware that that was an issue of debate?

[Vteckidd]

i collected unemployment man, im telling you people DONT PAY TAXES on it. They dont get it taken out, i wonder if there is a govt statistic that tells you what percentage of UNEMPLOYMENT takers never pay taxes on their Unemployment wages. I bet its pretty high.

There are waivers i know people that have been on unemployment for over a year.

[Total_Blender]

He said uncertainty caused by the govt is holding businesses back from hiring and he is right if you want to believe Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal.

Lets use a VERY simple example. For simplicity we will ignore current taxes. You have $4000 a week to hire new employees. If you are to pay them $10/hr that comes out to 10 employees. Now all the sudden you are being told by the govt that a new set of taxes and requirements are coming, but you dont have any firm details for you to determine how much that will cost you. Are you going to invest the money today to hire, train, and equip these new workers only to find out that these new regulations are going to cost you 2k per week, thus requiring you to lay off 5 of those new workers? Of course not. You are going to wait until you know how the new regulations and taxes are going to affect you, then you will hire appropriately.
t.


Many people dont want to hire right now and are hoarding all their money (me included) because we dont know if our taxes are going to go up (bush tax cuts expiring) , transaction tax, luxury tax etc all being thrown around congress right now, Health care costs going up due to obama care, its all a viscious circle. no one has jobs so no one has money to buy the things from which jobs are created.

So what you guys are saying is that the capitalist class is seeking a break from the gov't so that they can ride out the recession while the middle class covers the necessary expenses of running the country. Sounds a lot like gov't welfare to me, lol

Its funny how when the wealthy and corporations ask for help its ALL GOOD but when the little guy gets something the right wing gets its panties in a wad (or in the case of Sen.David Vitter (R-LA) (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56689/), it's diaper).

[bu villain]

Just because they have a felony on their record doesn't automatically mean they can't vote. Like if they have a felony and the sentence is commuted to probation. Or if they had their felony conviction overturned on appeal. In Minnesota they can also petition the state to restore their right to vote and even their right to own firearms.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

The article said they were referencing "illegal" felon voting.

[Vteckidd]

So what you guys are saying is that the capitalist class is seeking a break from the gov't so that they can ride out the recession while the middle class covers the necessary expenses of running the country. Sounds a lot like gov't welfare to me, lol

Its funny how when the wealthy and corporations ask for help its ALL GOOD but when the little guy gets something the right wing gets its panties in a wad (or in the case of Sen.David Vitter (R-LA) (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56689/), it's diaper).

i dont know if you simply dont understand the concept or if you are so rigid in your ideology you cant see the forest through the trees.

Which do you think jump starts hiring MORE........

Tax Cut for business owners

or

Increasing their taxes

In my mind, and im a business owner, you cant POSSIBLY think that raising a BUSINESSES EXPENSES (IE TAXES) will translate into creating jobs. Its simply stupid to think it will.

Capitalist society that you are making fun of isnt just the BP Oil Tycoons, AIG , etc. Its people like me . Its people that own the local ice cream parlor down the street, or the hair salon, or the repair shop, etc. I think they said the AVERAGE small business in America has 50 employees or less on their payroll. My main employer is a 10million a year business and theres prob 50 people employed here.

But this isnt an economics thread. The "poor middle class" on unemployment will never find employment if you plan on raising taxes on the "rich" IE BUSINESS owners. Thats a fact. We already tried it, look at Carter.

Trickle down HAS WORKED. ive already provided examples of how

[BanginJimmy]

So what you guys are saying is that the capitalist class is seeking a break from the gov't so that they can ride out the recession while the middle class covers the necessary expenses of running the country. Sounds a lot like gov't welfare to me, lol

Its funny how when the wealthy and corporations ask for help its ALL GOOD but when the little guy gets something the right wing gets its panties in a wad (or in the case of Sen.David Vitter (R-LA) (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56689/), it's diaper).


I had a nice long response all typed out but as usual I got the database error.

Simple jist of it, the Bush tax cuts did far more for middle and lower class than anyone else. If you werent so ideologically dependent you would already have done the research and known that. Here is a pretty good article about the cuts. You will notice that they favor the lower and middle class, but also contain provisions to spur investment and entrepreneurship also.


http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

[Total_Blender]

Simple jist of it, the Bush tax cuts did far more for middle and lower class than anyone else. If you werent so ideologically dependent you would already have done the research and known that. Here is a pretty good article about the cuts. You will notice that they favor the lower and middle class, but also contain provisions to spur investment and entrepreneurship also.

So if the Bush tax cuts are so good at creating job growth, where are all the jobs? Obama hasn't repealed them yet, and every day that goes by its less likely he will.

I'll tell you where the jobs are going... China. where they are using the money they are making off of us to build factories to produce cheap goods. social programs are a tiny piece of the deficit pie Bush left us with. The greatest portion of it was the 2 unnecessary wars and the tax cuts.

Oh, and Dick Cheney just got a pacemaker. I for one, choose to recognize his service to our country by using microwaves as much as possible. Anybody want a hot pocket?

[BanginJimmy]

So if the Bush tax cuts are so good at creating job growth, where are all the jobs?

In the same place as the jobs created by the stimulus.

Seriously though, the we are in the middle of a deep recession and because of several extremely far reaching pieces of legislation, along with the promise to raise taxes, businesses and individuals simply are not spending money. I did a quick search and couldnt find a decent source, but according to Clark Howard US savings rates are the highest they have been in a couple decades and individual debt is also coming down for the first time in a while.



Obama hasn't repealed them yet, and every day that goes by its less likely he will.

He has promised to repeal them since he was on the campaign trail. I see no reason that he would change that.


I'll tell you where the jobs are going... China. where they are using the money they are making off of us to build factories to produce cheap goods.

yes they are and every year more and more advanced products are being sent overseas to manufacture. One of the main culprits for that would be the insanely high corporate taxes in this country.



social programs are a tiny piece of the deficit pie Bush left us with.

If you include medicare/medicaid, then you are wrong.

How can you blame Bush for a deficit when he had no hand in writing the budget? Will you liberals ever stand on your own and stop with the blame game?



The greatest portion of it was the 2 unnecessary wars and the tax cuts.

Actually no, you are wrong again. The biggest portion is things like the stimulus. Obama's deficit for this year is nearly 3x the size of Bush's largest deficit.


Dont you ever get sick of being wrong?

[blaknoize]

So what I cant understand about all of this is... if taxes are cut and cut and cut, but never increased, where are the wage increases for the employees of large rich corporations? I'm obviously not an economics major or anything. But for states and cities and this country to generate income we have to tax something or someone right?

I suppose no one in here plays SimCity to even have an idea of how taxes work. You cant grow without a tax base and if your city (in this case) is strapped for $$ but needs to expand and your capital is low. The best way to stimulate your simulation city is to tax, slightly, on a curve over a couple yrs. The businesses and citizens will hate it, but at one point in time u will have enough capital to continue your growth and give the citizens greater opportunites, increase your cities size and create a larger tax base so then taxes can be lowered.

These are just my thoughts based off a simulation game, but it is very hard for any new businesses to crop up or incentives for currently existing business to be made without someone taking it on. The job growth wont happen instantly, but it will eventually pay great dividends in respect to the citizens and your overall city growth.

[BanginJimmy]

if taxes are cut and cut and cut, but never increased, where are the wage increases for the employees of large rich corporations?

Just because a company grows, it doesnt automaticly mean that a $10/hr job is now worth $12/hr. It may simply mean you need more people to do that $10/hr job.


I suppose no one in here plays SimCity to even have an idea of how taxes work. You cant grow without a tax base and if your city (in this case) is strapped for $$ but needs to expand and your capital is low. The best way to stimulate your simulation city is to tax, slightly, on a curve over a couple yrs. The businesses and citizens will hate it, but at one point in time u will have enough capital to continue your growth and give the citizens greater opportunites, increase your cities size and create a larger tax base so then taxes can be lowered.

Sim City is a game and in no way reflects real life. In the real world the 'city' would be a company. The company needs access to cash to finance an expansion, they dont have access to that cash if they have increased taxes or operating costs and unlike a city, raising more revenue means cutting overhead or raising prices, not just demanding money from its citizens.


These are just my thoughts based off a simulation game, but it is very hard for any new businesses to crop up or incentives for currently existing business to be made without someone taking it on. The job growth wont happen instantly, but it will eventually pay great dividends in respect to the citizens and your overall city growth.

Right now businesses are afraid to expand further because of all the uncertainty coming from Washington.

Think of it this way. I work at Lockheed. Its a major multi-national fortune 500 corporation. We currently have a pretty good profit margin on the c-130 but at the same time, we have very serious competition from an airbus product. Imagine if cap and trade was to pass this month and went into effect next year. Because power companies, and probably lockheed itself, will be forced to buy carbon credits the costs of producing electricity will go up. That means the lockheed's overhead costs for electricity will go up, cutting into the profit margin. This also means that all domesticly produced components' prices will go up, further cutting into the profit margin. Before long lockheed has to make a decision:

A. Raise the price of their product and possibly price themselves out of competition with Airbus.
B. Reduce the dividend payed to stock holders and possibly reduce investments.
C. Reduce payroll and possibly fall behind schedule projections.

Of those 3, which do you think they are going to do?

Today, every company, from the mom and pop ice cream joint with 2 employees to fortune 500 corporations with 10's of thousands of employees is faced with that exact decision on several issues. How will financial reform affect lending to small and major corporations? How will heath care reform affect everyone? How much more will they need to budget to pay increased utility costs if cap and trade passes. For companies like Lockheed and Chase, the answers to each of those questions affects millions of dollars.

[Total_Blender]

How do you all feel about tarriffs ? Like if we were to charge a 10% tax on goods from China? Seems like that would curb outsourcing because it would price Chinese goods out of competition with American goods.

Of course I know that won't go over well with the Chinese since they hold so much of our debt.

[Vteckidd]

How do you all feel about tarriffs ? Like if we were to charge a 10% tax on goods from China? Seems like that would curb outsourcing because it would price Chinese goods out of competition with American goods.

Of course I know that won't go over well with the Chinese since they hold so much of our debt.


It's kind of a shitty situation. We can't charge them tariffs they hold to much of our debt.

IMO the time for America producing anything is long gone. What we need to do is make it affordable for companies to want to come here, realize that we are not a manufacturing country anymore and focus on more skilled and technical jobs, interest rates need to rise along with inflation to force people to stop consuming

[bafbrian]

I put blame at 30% BUSH, 30% Clinton, 10% Carter, 30% Obama.......for now.

Katrina wasnt such a fuck up after all after this BP Oil disaster huh? At least Bush was a leader, Obama tries to win the daily news cycle like a guy running for high school office.

If you think for one second jacking tax rates (by letting the bush tax cuts expire) is going to spur economic growth, go take Econ 101 again. Thats like asking someone that is living poay check to pay check to take on $200 more a month in bills for the hell of it.

Thats all this shit is about, CURB spending , lower taxes. The Left wants to spend MORE and raise taxes on the few remaining rich people in this country and destroy all wealth so the people become dependent on the people with the power to give them more handouts.

I think you missed a pair of presidents in your percentage of blame. With regards to the Katrina and BP Oil Spill, both are disasters; I only had the opportunity to experience the Katrina Aftermath first hand with the military, trust me, it was bad and it hasn't gotten much better. Concurrently, the same goes for the BP Oil Spill. I agree with you Mike in that raising taxes is not the answer, but at the same time, lower taxes for businesses and corporations does not guarantee that they will hire more people, that is purely an assumption.


If you just give money to the CEO's there isn't any incentive to invest that money into the business. Most CEO's consider their compensation and the finances of their company to be separate. It would be foolish for them to invest into a business without an increase in demand. They will just hoard any increase in funds they receive into savings. Most CEO's are paid in such a manner that they are well insulated from the failures or sufferings of their companies. Their compensation is not dependent on success or failure. Also, given the piss-poor economy most companies are actually looking to shrink, even if they do get a large tax cut there's no use in paying employees to just stand around doing nothing or maintaining a lot of inventory that will just sit on the shelves.

Meanwhile, if you put money into the general population by economic stimulus, it will give consumers money to spend which will increase demand. This will make it necessary for businesses to hire more employees, expand facilities, etc. The unemployed and the poor have much more incentive to spend money (needs that are not met by wages) than the super-wealthy (who want for nothing even in the toughest times). Its a known fact that consumption drops as unemployment rises as people consume less when they are out of work and have more incentive to save when they fear losing their jobs.

Why demonize a CEO for making money? Don't group them all together and make assumptions as to what they all will do. I agree with your opinion that putting money into the population gives people money, but that doesn't give them an incentive to spend. Simply spending our way out is not going to solve anything either.


The problem is VASTLY more people collect or stay on unemployment than who pay into it. Just like Social Security

I would love to see some facts on that because this point is irrelevant without them. But for the sake of argument, lets take the numbers so far and give an estimation. Unemployment rate 9.3% (US BLS) x $330 per week (US DOL) x 52 weeks (Benefits with Extension) Equals - $497,640,000,000 is what is spent on unemployment benefits. Now, this number is not scientific, merely a collection of numbers from the US Govt', meaning it could be right or wrong, do your own research and decide for yourself. What is drawn from the Employment Tax? I don't know, but I would hope more than that amount above.



Sure not EVERYONE wants to stay on unemployment, but many do because they can milk the govt cow AND do side work. its free money. and if yo uare used to making $400-500 a week WORKING, who wouldnt want to make 60-70% of your working salary to do NOTHING.

Again, do you have facts to support that because without facts, that is purely assumption.


Simple jist of it, the Bush tax cuts did far more for middle and lower class than anyone else. Here is a pretty good article about the cuts. You will notice that they favor the lower and middle class, but also contain provisions to spur investment and entrepreneurship also.

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

That article is good, but skewed, it doesn't list all the provisions of the bill, which can found on the Library of Congress website. I agree that it helped a lot of people, but be honest, it helped some considerably more than others based of the tax cut.


Seriously though, the we are in the middle of a deep recession and because of several extremely far reaching pieces of legislation, along with the promise to raise taxes, businesses and individuals simply are not spending money. I did a quick search and couldnt find a decent source, but according to Clark Howard US savings rates are the highest they have been in a couple decades and individual debt is also coming down for the first time in a while.

You are correct that we are in a recession, but a recession is not created overnight. As you say, its because of several extremely far reaching pieces of legislation, meaning that it started before Pres. Obama, before Pres. Bush, this is a recession nearly 40 years in the making, look at the legislation around those years via the Library of Congress.

Second, you proved that point with the Clark Howard piece that many Americans are saving more for the first time in decade, thus giving the answer to Total Blender's assumption that just giving people money doesn't guarantee they will spend it.


Just because a company grows, it doesnt automaticly mean that a $10/hr job is now worth $12/hr. It may simply mean you need more people to do that $10/hr job.

Right now businesses are afraid to expand further because of all the uncertainty coming from Washington.

Think of it this way. I work at Lockheed. Its a major multi-national fortune 500 corporation. We currently have a pretty good profit margin on the c-130 but at the same time, we have very serious competition from an airbus product. Imagine if cap and trade was to pass this month and went into effect next year. Because power companies, and probably lockheed itself, will be forced to buy carbon credits the costs of producing electricity will go up. That means the lockheed's overhead costs for electricity will go up, cutting into the profit margin. This also means that all domesticly produced components' prices will go up, further cutting into the profit margin. Before long lockheed has to make a decision:

A. Raise the price of their product and possibly price themselves out of competition with Airbus.
B. Reduce the dividend payed to stock holders and possibly reduce investments.
C. Reduce payroll and possibly fall behind schedule projections.

Of those 3, which do you think they are going to do?

Today, every company, from the mom and pop ice cream joint with 2 employees to fortune 500 corporations with 10's of thousands of employees is faced with that exact decision on several issues. How will financial reform affect lending to small and major corporations? How will heath care reform affect everyone? How much more will they need to budget to pay increased utility costs if cap and trade passes. For companies like Lockheed and Chase, the answers to each of those questions affects millions of dollars.

Concurrent to the first sentence, a company's growth will not guarantee they will hire more individuals either, that is purely speculation based on ideas from Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations".

You are right about company's being afraid to hire because of the uncertainty, but when you allocute that belief to a company's decision based upon legislation, why do you think a company willreduce payroll at the lowest instead of at the highest? Based upon the business practices within the country over the last few decades, there are very few businesses who have executives willing to take a pay cut to save jobs within their company.

If you were faced as an executive ($9.25mil per year) with a payroll decision, let's say you have to fire 10 workers who work in the mail room, whose combined salary ($20k per year per individual) would equal $200k, would you fire them or would you take a pay cut to save their jobs? How about 100 workers ($2mil)? How many CEO's and/or executives would be willing to take a pay cut to save their employees? There are a few. Would you be one of them? Does that mean a CEO or executive is bad for not taking the pay cut? IMO, no. But, if I were in that position, I would take the pay cut because it would hurt me less as opposed to the low income worker living paycheck to paycheck. As you asked Mike and I will invert your question, in this case, who stands to lose more, the CEO or the mail room worker?

[bu villain]

I don't think tax cuts or raises are going to change hiring much either way. Demand is what drives hiring. If I am a business owner I will hire as many people as I need to meet the orders that are coming in. I'm not gonna just start hiring tons of people because I have extra cash sitting around.

[Vteckidd]

I would love to see some facts on that because this point is irrelevant without them. But for the sake of argument, lets take the numbers so far and give an estimation. Unemployment rate 9.3% (US BLS) x $330 per week (US DOL) x 52 weeks (Benefits with Extension) Equals - $497,640,000,000 is what is spent on unemployment benefits. Now, this number is not scientific, merely a collection of numbers from the US Govt', meaning it could be right or wrong, do your own research and decide for yourself. What is drawn from the Employment Tax? I don't know, but I would hope more than that amount above.

If unemployment benefits were "paid for" meaning the amount of money TAKEN IN directly matches the money TAKEN OUT, then Congress wouldnt need to be extending benefits and adding to the deficit to pay for them. Why do you think there is a shortfall on unemployment benefits? Why do you think the republicans are pissed at the Dems for wanting to expand and extend the benefits? Its because they ARENT PAID FOR. They are merely adding it to the already rediculous deficit. ALl the republicans are saying is cut something before you spend another dime.

As far as cutting taxes spurs hiring and economic growth, 1 word, Reaganomics.



This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10


The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990

Now granted its a more conservative site, but feel free to fact check me. Bottom line is this country endured an incredible boom economically while cutting the income tax rates and the corporate.

The left will spread this lie how it only benefited the rich, and how people havent gotten any more wealthy, but its all bullshit thats fed to them.

If you take a snap shot of the last 20 years, people have increased their wealth, its the people that are replacing them in their relative area that are making less and thats largely due to illegal immigrants , outsourcing of jobs, less education, etc. I already posted the exact figures in a thread like 8 months ago im not gonna go dig it up but Dick Morris talks about it in Catastrophe

[Vteckidd]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

[bafbrian]

If unemployment benefits were "paid for" meaning the amount of money TAKEN IN directly matches the money TAKEN OUT, then Congress wouldnt need to be extending benefits and adding to the deficit to pay for them. Why do you think there is a shortfall on unemployment benefits? Why do you think the republicans are pissed at the Dems for wanting to expand and extend the benefits? Its because they ARENT PAID FOR. They are merely adding it to the already rediculous deficit. ALl the republicans are saying is cut something before you spend another dime.

As far as cutting taxes spurs hiring and economic growth, 1 word, Reaganomics.

Now granted its a more conservative site, but feel free to fact check me. Bottom line is this country endured an incredible boom economically while cutting the income tax rates and the corporate.

The left will spread this lie how it only benefited the rich, and how people havent gotten any more wealthy, but its all bullshit thats fed to them.

If you take a snap shot of the last 20 years, people have increased their wealth, its the people that are replacing them in their relative area that are making less and thats largely due to illegal immigrants , outsourcing of jobs, less education, etc. I already posted the exact figures in a thread like 8 months ago im not gonna go dig it up but Dick Morris talks about it in Catastrophe

I won't deny the economic boom, but, it was attributed not solely to cutting taxes and business expanding. You forgot to mention to aspect of the Cold War and what role it played in helping the economy boom. By utilizing the notion of keeping America safe, it worked to the advantage of his presidency quite well, and frankly, would have worked to the advantage of any Conservative at the time. I won't say it would have helped his opponent, which he "destroyed" in his reelection campaign (49-1), because the country was considered to be very conservative at the time. In the case of Reagan, he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. The Cold War Era under Pres. Reagan spurred the belief that we must protect ourselves, regardless of the cost. It was a trend that was already seen in the US circa World War II. While cutting taxes helped, it was only a small piece of the pie.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

I am surprised you would use the Cato Institute given the stance of various issues, especially since they are considered to be a libertarian think tank, not to mention the fact that they are funded primarily via corporate donations; not to mention the fact that I have read alot of the material in this section and find your beliefs disjointed from this organization. Either way, I do not think much of the their publications, although I did read this, it is to skewed. One example is that it talks about the pre- and post- Reagan Era, but it only compares against a few presidencies, last time I checked, economy growth didn't start during the time of Pres. Reagan nor did not stop after his terms.

IMO, not a very good source for information due to their biased nature.

[Vteckidd]

you should read more closely then i guess. They were comparing Ford/Carter with Bush/Clinton (2 presidents before 2 presidents after.)

i challenge anyone to refute the information, regardless of who reports it

[Vteckidd]

i would say follow your own advice and show me where the cold war really contributed to our economic expansion

[BanginJimmy]

You are correct that we are in a recession, but a recession is not created overnight. As you say, its because of several extremely far reaching pieces of legislation, meaning that it started before Pres. Obama, before Pres. Bush, this is a recession nearly 40 years in the making, look at the legislation around those years via the Library of Congress.

I didnt mean that Obama was the only president or this congress was the only congress to pass far reaching legislation. I meant only that with the 3 major pieces of legislation, cap and trade, financial reform, health care reform, are as of yet undefined. Until business learns exactly what these laws will entail and how it will affect them, they will be hesitant to expand.

I believe the factors that caused the recession have been corrected for over a year now. What is driving the current soft economy and job market is the fear of the unknown.


Second, you proved that point with the Clark Howard piece that many Americans are saving more for the first time in decade, thus giving the answer to Total Blender's assumption that just giving people money doesn't guarantee they will spend it.

Again, I attribute that to uncertainty. Most people that have attained any measure of success in life are expecting their taxes to go up. Most people are now expecting their health insurance premiums to go up. They are watching climate legislation and expecting their utility rates to go up. Add to those factors and there are a great many people that learned the lessons of this recession and are simply getting rid of debt and/or increasing savings to be better prepared in case things take a turn for the worse.




Concurrent to the first sentence, a company's growth will not guarantee they will hire more individuals either, that is purely speculation based on ideas from Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations".

I understand that. I have also seen companies that contract out increased labor needs if they dont believe those needs will be long term.


You are right about company's being afraid to hire because of the uncertainty, but when you allocute that belief to a company's decision based upon legislation, why do you think a company willreduce payroll at the lowest instead of at the highest? Based upon the business practices within the country over the last few decades, there are very few businesses who have executives willing to take a pay cut to save jobs within their company.

A company's payroll structure is like a pyramid. The far larger base, typically hourly workers, are much easier to hire and fire than a mid to high level executive. There are also far more of them so an increased workload can be spread over a much larger pool than at the upper levels. Now if a company eliminates an entire line or division, then you can expect layoffs among executives also.


If you were faced as an executive ($9.25mil per year) with a payroll decision, let's say you have to fire 10 workers who work in the mail room, whose combined salary ($20k per year per individual) would equal $200k, would you fire them or would you take a pay cut to save their jobs? How about 100 workers ($2mil)? How many CEO's and/or executives would be willing to take a pay cut to save their employees? There are a few. Would you be one of them? Does that mean a CEO or executive is bad for not taking the pay cut? IMO, no. But, if I were in that position, I would take the pay cut because it would hurt me less as opposed to the low income worker living paycheck to paycheck. As you asked Mike and I will invert your question, in this case, who stands to lose more, the CEO or the mail room worker?

I cant say whether I would be willing to take the cut or not. I guess it would depend on company needs. If a company truely needs that 100 workers then maybe they find other areas to make the cuts. Maybe offer early retirement and bring in younger, lower paid employees or work a 4 day, 10hr work schedule to save 10% or so on utility costs.

[bafbrian]

you should read more closely then i guess. They were comparing Ford/Carter with Bush/Clinton (2 presidents before 2 presidents after.)

i challenge anyone to refute the information, regardless of who reports it

I am not denying they compared presidencies, but let's be realistic, 3 years for Pres. Ford , 4 years for Pres. Carter, 4 years for Pres. Bush versus 8 years for Pres. Reagan. In all honesty, one can only truly compare Reagan vs Clinton. They are the only two amongst that comparison who served two terms. Furthermore, I don't think anyone will deny the fact that one can accomplish more tasks in two terms as opposed to one. Otherwise, the comparison needs to include more data from more presidencies.


i would say follow your own advice and show me where the cold war really contributed to our economic expansion

As far as sources, A Rendezvous with Destiny, The Reagan Diaries, Reagan In His Own Hand, and several other books in which it is chronicled that the Cold War helped the economy. I got a million books as they relate to policy, economics, various presidencies, and such, including a sizable number on Reagan if you want me to name more, give me enough time, I will whip a thesis I wrote to give you page numbers for faster, easier searches. I personally liked Pres. Reagan and think he did a lot of good for the country, but he was not without his faults. Like was said with cutting taxes and business expansion, the same follows suit for the Cold War, it is a small piece of the pie as it relates to the economy growth under Pres. Reagan.