Keep the Cheap Jobs Here
by Morgan WarstlerArianna once again has her panties in a bunch, and I’m the libertarian brave enough to reach in and fix them.
Yes, it’ll drive Huffington into spastic frenzy. But, this is not a reason to subsidize the minimum wage. David Shuster will tunnel ever deeper into his rabbit hole of despair. Sadly, neither is this a reason to subsidize the minimum wage.
Unemployment is somewhere between 6.3-17.3%, and that is why we need to allow small businesses to pay employees a couple bucks an hour and have unemployment make up the difference.
Don’t jump to conclusions here, please read my plan through. This isn’t an off-the-wall proposal. Republicans can reach across the aisle to Obama with an idea Paul Krugman himself supports. Presenting this as a “no-cost jobs bill” and “free stimulus” is exactly the kind of reform judo conservatives need.
Overall, as Cato points out 6.3% – 17.3% of America is unemployed depending on your definition of unemployment. In December 2009:
- Unemployed from job loss is 6.3% (down from 6.7% in October)
- Discouraged (not looking because they think there are no jobs) pushes the number to 10.5%
- Add in 35 hour part time workers, and those who stopped looking for health reasons, school, family responsibilities and we get to 17.3%.
Using the middle number, we’re looking at about 10.5% unemployment. But it is much worse for unskilled workers. The NYT’s Bob Herbert points out 09/Q4 unemployment rates amongst the poor are 10x as high as the upper middle class:
- Unemployment in household incomes over $150,000: 3.1%
- Unemployment in household earning under $12,499: 30.8%
Meanwhile, many argue we are facing a “new normal,” that sans deficit spending, and sans market bubbles means higher productivity, thinner margins, and more unemployment (than in recent history with deficits and bubbles), even with GDP growth. Taking all these facts in together, the immediate need is millions of low cost jobs.
Let’s assume for a second Obama is right, that evil corporations are moving our jobs to other countries where the work is cheaper. Do we want to keep extending unemployment blindly? Is worker retraining really going to create millions of new green jobs immediately? Don’t be daft.
Here’s an immediate employment policy for Republicans to take to Obama: Keep the cheap jobs here.
Instead of some convoluted tax credit for new job creation…. let’s see what kind of new low-economy businesses blossom when:
- After 3 months of receiving unemployment insurance, a worker must be willing to work 30 hours a week at a wage-subsidized job.
- Unemployment insurance will make up for difference between what the employees earn and $300 per week. ($7.25 x 40 hours). This means the unemployed are earning $10 per hour ($300 for 30 hours work), and have 10 business hours left for job hunting.
- Employers will be be able to search through anonymous lists of local unemployed and hire these workers at a discount. Highest bids per hour win. Employers will have to hire the workers for at least two weeks time.
- To continue to receive federal aid, states must adopt this type of policy and platform.
We have a large supply of untrained & unemployed young workers & minority workers suffering disproportionately. The government is spending billions in unemployment insurance. Why not re-jigger the unemployment system to require work even if the real pay is low, and make up the difference?
Perhaps daycare will get cheaper. Perhaps housecleaning will get less expensive. Perhaps we’ll be able to compete with call centers in India. These are all services that would help single mom’s and poor people go back to work…. even to work from home. I suspect, like many credible economists, when subsidized labor is $3, $4, $5 per hour, shovel ready jobs will pop up.
What we do know is that if the unemployed have to work 30 hours per week to receive their benefits… they will have more reason to go looking for work and less reason to collect unemployment insurance.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. This plan is not far fetched, it simply applies Bill Clinton’s wildly successful Welfare to Workfare strategy to Unemployment and Minimum Wage.
Arianna, you owe me one.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
106 Comments
Nahhhhhhhhh it'll never work. The PROGRESSIVES won't allow it. They might lose their base if poorer folks actually had to work for a living! Could we extend this to all able bodied welfare leeches too?
"A new White House economic forecast showed Thursday the US economy is set to start producing job growth this year at a rate of 95,000 per month…"
We need 100,000-125,000 just to keep up with population growth–Mac Daddy has 9-10% unemployment baked into his November election cake. He's a lame duck as I type.
If all the illegal aliens were sent home, guess there would be a few jobs for legal citizens.
Great plan.
Morgan,
Any man willing to straighten out Huffingtons panties is risking life limb and a potential communicable disease; recommend a bath in hydrogen peroxide.
Joe
On the serious side; your plan is a good one, you could simplify it some and accomplish the same result. Read yesterday that 11 million people are on some sort of assistance from the government – 80% growth in the past 10 years.
Too many people receive something for nothing. It never ceases to amaze me how many people in line ahead of me at the store are paying for food with food stamps, only to go out and put the groceries into a nice new car that they are making payments on.
WTF?
I've always been a proponent that those receiving government subsidies (aka welfare) should be required to perform some kind of work and documentation of their employment searching. Welfare was supposed to be a handout to those who CANNOT work, not to those who WON"T work. Those who fall on hard times may receive it until they are able to find work to support themselves. It was never meant to be a sole source of income, but a souce of assistance.
The plan mentioned above sounds interesting and maybe it has merit. Should be at least worth exploring. It beats paying people to sit on their butts, doing nothing but having babies.
I agree Sunshine Connie, this makes to much sense and this administration doesnt like common sense, they like control, this now takes away the control because most people will have to work and rely on "The ONE" to step through and save day with tax payers dollars.
awesome idea though, as a small construction company owner I would buy into that system in a heart beat.
A disgusting little troll this Morgan Warstler is… But he has found the perfect place to spew his sexist nonsense.
It sounds like Section 8 for the jobs market – government subsidized wages. A real good way to get the government more deeply involved in all business.
No thank you.
I like it. Especially since self employed people can't get a dime, and if you're an employer you pay in for your employees.
If unemployment stays high, (and there doesn't appear to be a reason it won't) something will need to be done.
How bout the merits of the article.
I support any idea that translates free hands out to something that must be in at least a small way "earned". This plan could work but would have to be kept very simple in formula and execution. Would certainly be worth a try in isolated cases, like Detroit. Anything that helps people to get off the dole and away from liberal nanny statist control works for me. Of course though SEIU would want a piece of this action!!!
mik is just mad that Morgan isn't pulling on his (her?) panties.
How exactly is this sexist? I didn't see anything in this article that is the least bit in favor of one gender or the other. Is it sexist to want people who are getting our tax dollars out of the welfare and unemployment systems to have to do some work and contribute to society? If someone is unemployed and contributes nothing how is it not better to require them to work no matter what the wage paid by the employer if the government is going to make up the rest? For the employee they are taking home a minimum wage. It shoudn't matter to them where it comes from.
Couldn't get past the part about where our young friend put his hand in "Ariana's panties".
Man, I hate to keep pounding on you, but this is another bad idea from you. Your "fix" is to lower our standard of living to 3rd world levels in order to keep jobs in the US? There's one HUGE problem with that. The highest Corporate tax rate in the known galaxy will STILL be driving jobs overseas.
We can not, and I WILL not, compete with the entire 3rd world to see who can make the least money on the planet! We may all end up working for peanuts anyway, but I'll be damned if it will be because I endorsed the idea!
I think I see what your problem is, Morgan. You've got Clintonitis. You need to stop throwing random numbers around and start learning about macro economics, dude. You're buying in to a bunch of lies without researching any of it for yourself. Either that, or you just don't get it. Reaganomics is the answer – lower taxes, lower spending levels. Have you ever heard of the Laffer curve?
I am mixed on the idea. I see the possibility of for motivation but, like Comrade Terry stated, that would increase governments role in the private sector & as we all are aware, once the government gets their hands on something, it is nearly imposable to get them out.
One thing for sure, what D.C. is doing now isn't working.
That's the problem with you, Mickey, you never can get past the irrelevancies.
You're just ticked that someone dissed Zsa Zsa.
A more elegant solution is merely to raise tariffs. Tariffs actually paid for the operation of this country before the income tax and they encourage employment in the US. I love how the knee-jerks will give their programmed response that other countries will raise tariffs in retaliation and to that I say – "so what." They don't buy anything from us to speak of so it is a moot point.
If not now, when?
Somehow the old failed 'workfare' idea seems like a part of this proposal. If memory serves, New Jersey started workfare back in the 80s, and the career entitlement fled to Pennsylvania. I would rather see any and all welfare benefits reduced by one third this year, another third the second year, and the last third the third year. That is time enough to get one's act together.
Wrong!!! This is a socialist progressive idea! No government intervention at all is the answer! That means NO minimum wage regulation, and no subsidies paid for by the tax-payers. Let the chips fall where they may – if the market rate for a job is $3 an hour, then let it be. Government intervention is the cause of all our problems in this economic downfall. If an employer can get two people to work full time for the $7.25 an hour, their output is increased, their profit goes up, and everyone that wants a job will get one. If I want to work 60 hours for $5 an hour, or work 12 hours a day for six days a week to make $360, that is my freedom of choice. Get the government out!
If he wants people to read his column he should be more respectful. It's bad enough we have to put up with that kind of nonsense form other readers… like yourself.
We also get to the questions about subsidy levels (matching funds? participation rates?) of various employee classes, industries, and regions (Congressional Districts). Upon whom is the clerical burden placed to track, report, and monitor all of this; and who pays for that? For whom does the employee work – a private employer, or Government? Are these employees at will? Are they members of unions? What about right to work states? How long does it last?
After more thought, I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole.
LOVE the idea. I just had a really interesting idea for a new small business today and this would really help as I see my self employing mainly stay-at home moms and college kids. It would certainly lower the overhead costs and make the idea much more possible
Obamanable – I agree should be all pure free market that is certainly the goal but we will never get that out of this administration. And, let's be honest Obama would NEVER even entertain Mr. Warstler's idea either…
Morgan makes several great points.
As a small business owner I will say that I will not hire any new employees until I know what my cost basis is. This basis includes healthcare, cap and tax, economic impact projection of our current federal spending, the new "jobs bill", etc…….
I am in the Industrial Petroleum and Chemical business. Refineries and Chemical plants.
If I could hire someone, on a probationary period arrangement (<$7.25/hr), I would, as long as they can produce more than they cost. This would allow me to evaluate their performance and allow them to decide if they want to work for my company.
However, if you (or the government) offered to pay me 80%, of my current salary, to do nothing – I would probably take you up on it because I would not have to risk my money to build my business. I'd just sit on my @ss and wait on the check to arrive.
Not a good plan! How is this good? More money from taxes to prop up businesses that should be allowed to fail on their own? This is more government intervention into the free-market. More bureaucracy to implement a subsidized program, implemented by the bureaucracy, with more government jobs needed to be paid for by the taxpayer.
Heh – It's a start. The government shouldn't be setting a minimum wage in the first place- if you're willing to work for it, and I'm willing to pay it (or vice versa), then that's what you should be getting paid.
That said, this plan will reduce unemployment expenditures, and promote wealth creation, particularly by small business. I'd vote for it.
Gentle Readers,
Only the HUFFPO could get this so terribly wrong! ( Ok, maybe the NYT )
People aren't unemployed because they are low-income, people are
low-income because they are unemployed!
Once we get rid of the ' wrong-direction Congress ' that has been
wrecking jobs since 2006 ( that's when the unemployment numbers
started going up ) the low income people will get jobs and have higher
incomes.
This will also solve the banking, housing, tax revenue & other problems.
Kindest Regards
John
Yes, but when a Progressive comes on here at BigGovernment.com and spouts more bigger government, where are all the screams of NOOOO! Bureaucracy is not the answer!
All of this is trumped by what took place in November/December of 1994. After the democrats were voted out of office, and before the republicans were sworn in, congress approved the following:
World Trade Organization
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
North American Free Trade Agreement
And since that time, a number of other western hemisphere trade agreements. We cannot protect any jobs in this country because under the WTO, for instance, a job is a commodity that can be bought and sold now and when members of congress in 2007 tried to sponsor and pass a jobs protection bill, India threatened to file a complaint with the WTO that it would be an infringement to trade. In 2002, 750,000 IT jobs went overseas instead of just being lost due to the recession and it has only gotten worse. These agreements were passed by liberal, progressives before they left office to screw the American people and before anything else is done, these agreements need to be declared null and void.
Ok,
I agree, people receiving Welfare or unemployment over a period of time needs to do community work to clean up their cities (beautification of America is needed). Any betterment for any for-profit company must pay a competitive price for services received from these gov't workers to offset the unemployment paid.
But the fine line is, we don't need a system that will be like prisoners in jail making license plates (example), on the cheap, undermining a competitive market environment and stifling business development or entrepreneurial development.
Please tell me your kidding?!! Whens the last time you read a HuffPo column? There a hell of a lot more bashing on that site then there is here!! The articles here also back up the opinions in them with facts, unlike Arriana.
mik's side doesn't have to play by rules….they have devolved beyond that.
I'm not happy with government anywhere near my wages, but I do get a chuckle from anyone indebting Adrianna.
Its disgusting that if you employ people the govt. automatically turns you into a tax collector, its f-ing unbelieveable what the parasitic govt. class of people have turned our country into
Your argument opens the door for massive amounts of illegal, undocumented workers to take these jobs that you speak of!! If we prosecuted employers that hired illegals more there would be a hell of a lot more jobs now. Not only that but there would be more competition for these jobs because employers would actually have to try and retain the people that wanted to work these jobs because they couldn't just hire any bum off the street.
Morgan claims to be a libertarian but forgets that libertarians are for maximum liberty, not continued gov't involvement in our lives. Govt cannot produce anything. It only takes. This is an awful idea. How about eliminating unemployment insurance, soc. security, income tax, and minimum wage laws? Don't think "we" (read Feds) can pay for this? If "we" bring the troops home, we can. And we'd see an explosion of jobs, business, creativity. Free men & women have an unlimited ability to create.
I find myself in the unconfortable position of agreeing with Mr. Hasselhoff. I think too many countries put up prohibitve import regulations on our products but expect free reign for their imports here. It's not an original idea, but I think our import laws should mirror the import laws of the countries we are dealing with. I say that given an even playing field that American products and labor can compete with anyone in the world. In addition though, we will have to adress the hostage taking the labor unions are purpatrating (sp?) on American companies.
add to that the halt to importing legal workers via legal visas every month!!! halt all of it until every last American is employed…give the temp jobs the illegals fill to teenagers and those needing part time work….
There you go Dhaffy… see how easy it is…..
Just stay away from all things Science and Israel….
And just maybe you can help kick the can forward this time.
So let us have more of that which has taken you to where you are now.
The arson started the fire, so please do not look to him for help in putting out the fire.
There is a small business out there that is chomping at the bit to hire you…
If only he could use the little money he has to buy the needed equipment…
But instead he has to send it to Washington.
Good plan. I can't imagine the left every adopting it because it's not compassionate to give people an incentive to work. jerks.
WE SELL THEM ARMS AND BOMBS AND MILITARY EQUIPMENT.
Same with doing away with free public schooling. It is nothing but a mandatory social program anyway. There are cheaper and better ways to educate today than sitting in a smelly classroom with cretin schoolmarms worried more about the union and benefits that teaching. For the lowest class, it is merely subsidized day care. It was ALWAYS about the government MANAGING the lower social class anyway, starting with the establishment of Negro schools in the south after the civil war , going to the indian schools following the Indian Wars….always about imposing "assimilation and standardization" on the masses by the Northern elitists. Why do we need a Department of Education…what have they DONE for the last 50 years that amounted to anything better? We just integrated, included all sorts of handicapped kids and threw them into a classroom together like it was going to instantly fix the racial and ability wars…..and here we are. Home school the kids, and have mandatory technical schooling for kids that reach 14 and have not developed enough knowledge to advance beyond a trade education.
Get the Federal Government OUT OF IT ALL…and let the States and local communities deal with it….that is what the Constitution provides for in the first place.
Unfortunately, the IT jobs went overseas because the IT professionals in the USA bid their costs up too high during the infamous Y2K millineum bug hoax, where all businesses changed out all of their computer hardware and software in what was the commercial equivalent of the computing Batan Death March to completion before midnight Dec. 31, 1999 when the world was supposed to turn to pumpkins and airplanes all fall out of the sky.
With a scarcity of IT employees, there was a huge bidding war for employees..with huge bonuses and high salaries for any programmer with about 98.6 degree body heat and the ability to program in C or maybe anything.
So, the guys in Bombay, having nothing else to do in their own economy, contracted Indian programmers to come to the USA and do projects, rather than employment. The USA programmers were making $6k plus per month, and the Indian contractors were paying their slaves 1000 per month. They put them up 4 to a room, got them a honda beater to drive, and a microwave to cook the goat meat. These guys outproduced the Americans. So…at the end of the Y2K deal, the Americans OUTSOURCED ( they even created a nice sounding name for going for cheaper labor) the IT jobs to India, then other places including Isreal…where they had English speaking well educated IT folks that needed jobs despirately. That left all of the American IT guys who had rushed around arrogantly and stupidly bailing out on their American employer and picking up bonus checks so they could go buy houses and Porche autos….unfortunately, when they lost their jobs, and Ross Perot didn't hire them, they had to go write games or sell merchadise at Home Depot. Yep….mean old greedy businesses showed stupid little greedy technopunks how the cow bites the cabbage….and now….poor us….the jobs are all over in India….as it turns out the also took over the Customer services call centers as well….darn those telephone companies that sold all of that high tech switching and packet handling IT stuff that made it possible.
If an employer is willing to hire an illegal into a subsidized position like this, they're already breaking the law – why would they not just hire the illegals below minimum wage?
I agree immigration needs to be fixed, following immediately with deportation arrangements for illegals already in the country.
By the way…do you get the similarity to a "job" being a "commodity" and a "US HOME MORTGAGE" being packaged into a "commodized derivative investment vehicle"…and those got sold all over the world to investors who did not give a damn about home owners or banks…they just wanted yield and a risk covered by insurance and the backing of the US Federal Government.
Follow the money…..it is not greed when everyone is doing it all over the world…we may find it "appaling and reprehensible, evil, and disgusting"….but that is the global deal that we chose to enter, and where we are busted for having too many non skilled "eaters" and not enough highly skilled productive "workers" to use the nomenclature of the Nazi Concentration Camp inmates.
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that we did not arrive at the current state of affairs with the passage of a single, monolithic piece of legislation. The chains that have been placed upon us one link at a time, and the only way to remove them is to follow the same tact.
This idea is immoral, for several reasons. However, so is status quo. At least this idea results in a savings in terms of dollars spent, and gets otherwise unproductive people productive.
Yes, I realize that like every other government program, it would be corrupted and turned into something only vaguely resembling the mission.
Unemployment insurance should be just that — a company that accepts a premium in exchange for protecting you against job loss. It would be *much* more efficient than the current system, and eliminate the immoral aspect of the system – mandatory participation.
Rufus, this is not about the schools, it's about jobs. I understand about the intervention as related to schools, and agree with some of your points, but the school system and how to finance it is a whole different subject.
So we eat the Soilent Green to keep from loosing our belly fat?
Perhaps we could just get rid of the IRS, hire more ICE, and make the penalties damn tough and tougher. I suppose that is somewhat the idea you were getting at.
Tell it to Obama. He's the one trying to run our debt through the roof.
Enact this plan and put cheap prison labor out of work–NEVER!!
Of course the worst case of labor over-inflation is San Fran,CA which has the highest minimum wage in the nation.How people do business there is beyond me???
I don't dislike the plan I just have a better one.
You are able to work then you do not get government assistance.
I call this the git-ur-self-a-damn-job-or-go-hungry plan.
Yes but the real point is that this would be better than just paying unemployment benefits for nothing, which I can see.
But I prefer to just stop doing that (paying unemployment benes).
If you can work then work. Period.
Agreed. Government is not the solution, government is the problem.
I'm liking on Morgan!
Almost all folks who pay taxes like the idea. The leeches just like the ride!
No. Its a bad idea because it would be one step toward the "guaranteed minimum income".
Some things are better done in other countries.
It will lead to the leftist idea of a guaranteed income. Guess who pays for that?
It sounds like a good idea, but so did the current administration! I understand unemployment, I had to use it once. I did not like it, I am very used to working for my dime. Be careful what you ask for though because the Progressive's would/could turn this into the "STATE RUN JOB MARKET" it could also be used for "WELFARE TO WORK" and suddenly it's state run slavery. I don't see "THE CHOSEN ONE" screwing his base that hard, but you can't predict what he will do.
Your dancing on the Progressive floor when you agree with is government intervention, even partially.
I don't disagree that if businesses had more capital things would improve for the rest of us. However, I paid into unemployment insurance for 26 years without ever taking a dime, so I'll be damned if I'm going to agree to go homeless because it might lead to improved job opportunities in a few months. Although not the dumbest column I've read here, this is definitely in the top 5.
Unemployment should be assistance, not a salary. If I work a part time job, I'm only allowed to make a certain amount of money before it cuts into my unemployment check. That gives me a disinsentive to work more hours (unless I can find a good job that approaches what I made before). Instead of some moronic minimum wage plan (did I mention this is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen?), how about the state let's me work and helps make up the difference between my job until I can find something better (or until my compensation runs out. If I could work 30 hours a week and still get $150 or so from IDES, I'd be taking less and making a living while I wait for things to get better. Instead, my options are to stay on unemployment for as long as possible and hope the economy changes, or work 40 hours for less than I'm making on unemployment right now (which is stupid beyond words).
It should be set up to transition you back to work, but instead it's set up to almost get you enough to survive, then punish you if you try to make up the difference.
Sadly, you're not wrong.
Wow, $300 a week? Generous, aren't you? Since you can't rent a room in someone's house in this area for less than $500 a month (and since my court ordered child support is $700 a month) I guess your option calls for people to be homeless as well. {sigh}
I am on unemployment and work part time as well. I've applied to something in the vicinity of 1000 jobs since the company I worked for went bankrupt and have received a grand total of 0 offers (despite having a tech degree and a decade of experience). So the problem must surely be that I'm too lazy to job hunt.
No worries, I hear the courts usually say not to sweat it if you don't pay your child support (and really, those kids shouldn't need stuff like food and housing).
I agree with you! i am all for helping those in true need..but let's define need! Is a cell phone, internet, flat screen tv need? are we adding them to our definition of rights?
Personally, as a first step, i'd like to eliminate the IRS and *all forms* of federally mandated welfare via a Constitutional Amendment – set up a flat income tax rate – say, 20% – and a flat tax credit – $10,000. Yes, I realize this is immoral, but it is more efficient than our current system while remaining marginally palatable to the left.
The gut the IRS, kill TANF, and rejoice. Anyone under $50k pays no federal taxes, and if you make no money you get a $10k check. Once you hit $50k, you are penalized, but after that there is no further progressive tax increases to discourage growth. Finally, give Congress control over only two elements, by amendment: the flat tax rate, and the size of the credit. This would simplify the tax code to the point that a third-grader could understand it.
As for immigration — inact and *enforce* stiff penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, both for the business and for the individual who makes the hiring decision. Deport all illegals caught in the country, after taking and cataloging a DNA sample. If they return and are caught again, mandatory 1 year imprisonment at hard labor. Third offense gets 10 years.
There would be no need to catch and deport millions of illegals – take away their incentive for coming here illegally, and they won't stay. Furthermore, the immigration process should be reformed. Put a border station every few miles on both borders, and anyone who walk up gets to enter the citizenship process. Costs should be no more than required to sustain the system, and resident alien status should be granted within 24 hours. Afterwards, you have 1 year to learn basic English, American history, and to get a job. At one year, you're tested, and if you pass – boom, citizenship. if you fail, you have 30 days to study and get to take the test again. Fail that one, and you apply to stay a resident alien or leave the country. You may re-enter the process after 1 year.
No, Soylent Green is people.
GUESS WHAT….WITH OUR GOVERNMENT DEBT, OUR DEVALUED DOLLAR, AND OUR UNEMPLOYMENT…WE ARE ABOUT TO BECOME A 3RD WORLD NATION. MOVE TO AFRICA, LAND OF OPPORTUNITY…THE FOLKS THERE ARE NOT AS SMART AS WE ARE AND THEY ARE NATURALLY LAZY AND LIKE TO DANCE ALL THE TIME.
Best plan…do a crime, go to jail, preferable a white collar crime one…free housing, free food and clothes, free healthcare, free workout rooms and color TV, maybe even learn a skill…..beats paying child support to someone that is going to spend it on her nails and hair products instead of the kids…heck..they get free meals and daycare at public schools…and if they pretend not to speak English..they can go to Head Start at age four.
"compassionate" is a word not found in the IRS policy and procedure manuals.
I know what you mean! I was in line at Wal-Mart the other night behind a Mexican woman and her 4 kids. They were all dressed in nicer clothes than I can afford. The oldest girl was on talking on an Iphone, the Momma had lots of gold and a big diamond ring on her hand. The 3 boys were in what looked like designer jeans and a Tommy Hilfinger shirt on one of them. They were loaded down with all the best cuts of steak and roasts, deli meats, desserts, a variety of fruits and produce and all the better brand name items. When they got done it was $362.00 and wouldn't you know it, she whipped out that Food Stamp debit card and was out the door. Didn't even have to pay a dime.
I know people that get the stamps every month and sell most of them at half price to pay for their drugs and others that work under the table and still draws stamps. I wish they would go back to the old commodity system and give out the surplus food like they did years ago. I bet there wouldn't be near as many people getting them as there is now.
Now I really get bent out of shape over this. I have worked 52 years, since I was 10, and have never asked or gotten a dime of assistance. I have lived on beans, taters and cornbead for weeks at a time in the past. Even now I can't afford to buy the all meat Bologna or Hot Dogs, I get the mixed chicken, pork and beef because they are about 1/4 of the cost. I shop for store brands and and compare the cost per ounce on the price listing. I still eat what I need but I work for what we have and don't ask for handouts from the government. It's just the way I was raised, work hard and live within your means is what my Dad always said.
Ragtop
Good for you.
When the system fails, because the pyramid is inverted, you will know how to survive.
they don`t have to be able bodied – ones that cannot leave the house(that we pay for) to work can damn well watch the kids(that we pay for) for the ones that are able. on a bright note, what the progressives will, or will not allow is about to be a moot point.
tariffs enrich the government – government is the problem.starve the government of funding and it must conform to the will of the people. my guess is you will disagree with this.
Amen to that. Now we know what rape victims must feel like.
Oh, because government has no other means to raise money? LOL!
What you say underscores how far more invasive and egregious INCOME TAX has been used to fund it since tariffs went away.
Good time to point out that Palosi got a waiver for a cannary in her didtrict. They don't have to follow federal min. wage law.
They also cann for a company they she owns MILLIONS in stock!
It's all about the environment, stupid! Seriously, no really, beware of anything having to do with environment, especially with "green" in it!
That was on a previous question wasn't it? Actually, I think it's about illegal voting if "they" have to have a 2010 election, although I doubt that there will be one!!
All said here is true, true, true!
Sounds like a plan to me and I bet it would really lower the welfare payouts!
That's true! It always has been, is, and most likely will continue to be only about power and control by evil people in a pack with the "God" of this world, "Lucifer!" You know, the one our true "SAVIOR" spoke about coming in his own name that the people would believe!
And what do we now have to replace these "value added" jobs or do you know what that is? For those who don't know, a value added job is one that creates other jobs to provide goods and services to the holder of that job. I will not defend those that took advantage of the Y2K mess, they were greedy idiots. But, as we now have seen, China has bought up so much debt that in years before the 1970's, US business bought and the Chinese military is now wanting to use it as a weapon against us. If the koolaid drinkers in the white house really wanted to turn America around, those agreements would be declared null and void. What say you to that "put up or shut up" set of points?
I have to submit to drug testing at MY JOB – how about that idea for welfare folks. can`t pass – no money, no money- got to rob folks, rob the wrong one – shot dead, problem solved one parasite at a time.
If you read my post, I made sure that the democrats got their fair share of blame. I don't like any of the politicians in congress or the white house and haven’t for a long time. They are all cut from the same cloth. I think we should renegotiate all trade agreements and they should be on a nation by nation basis, not like the debacle that is the UN. In that environment such as the WTO, we are always the loser regardless because we are the only ones that will abide by the rulings and we need to say Americans, first, last and always.
Gentle Readers,
Dear Old Vet,
Trouble is, Free Trade has worked, except for OPEC, Communist China & Japan. You cite 1994, but in 2005 unemployment was 4 1/2 %. I've had lots of gripes with Republicans, but for freedom, jobs & prosperity, they're
better than the Democrats right now!
Our trade deficit is OPEC, Communist China & Japan: Why beat up the other countries that are fair to us?
Under Reagan, 1980 – 1988 our economy doubled from $3 Trillion – $6 Trillion GDP. Don't blame Republicans
& Free Trade, blame Democrats, Communists & OPEC.
Kindest Regards,
John
Dear Old Vet,
That all sounds good, but again, we really don't have an ongoing trade deficit with anyone except Japan, China
and OPEC countries with oil.
The Japanese protect their market, China is Communist and OPEC is a cartel. Why take it out on Argentina,
Latvia, Indonesia and Rwanda? Not on a day to day, month by month accounting, but generally, year by year,
most countries really do treat us fairly. There are really just 3 bad, long time exceptions. For some reason,
trade policy debate always ignores those 3 bad actors. And those bad actors hurt the other countries too!
Kindest Regards,
John
Actually, this is not too different from the idea put forward by Milton Friedman a few decades ago called the Negative Income Tax. Recently Charles Murray has published his support for the negative income tax. The starting point for the concept cedes a lot of ground to the lefties in that America needs to provide some safety net. Once you accept that, then the question is, how best to administer that safety net. And this is where Friedman comes in with, let the individual decide how to spend the money and dismantle all of the government agencies who employ people to subsidize, housing, food, education, and student loans, and eliminates the need for a minimum wage law.
The general idea is to guarantee everyone over the age of 18, a minimum income of say $15,000 per year. Then gradually remove the subsidy, the higher up the income scale they travel and completely eliminate it at around $25,000-$30,000 per year. By doing this, you solve a wide range of social problems that are caused by many issues including unemployment, you eliminate the lack of jobs, below the minimum wage level, and you provide an income to people just getting started. You also remove some of the incentives to join the underground and/or criminal economy. And best of all, you simplify all of the federal governments subsidy programs into a single payment stream administered by one agency, the treasury.
I am a staunch conservative and have become convinced that this might well be the political idea that can be sold to generate a majority of support. Both Friedman and Murray have done the math and it would cost a lot less than the way we provide handouts today with the bloated bureaucracies at the federal and state levels.
I am not talking about trade deficits. I am talking about jobs being sent overseas. You cannot sell goods and services to people who do not have any money! Why can’t anyone understand that? People are talking about all of the jobs that will be created by “green technology” for example. But the leading company in wind mill technology is sending jobs overseas because they can get them made in china cheaper. And there may be a government program that will make it possible for us taxpayers to pay them to do it. Just like other companies have in the past. Chrysler built an assembly line for their minivan in 1995 that employed over 100 people. IN CHINA! How much longer and how many times do you people have to be beat over the head before you get this and put a stop to it?
[...] a recent post, I posited unemployment insurance should be reformed to offset the minimum wage for new small [...]
I had sex for the first time after a total hysterectomy, and he went too deep and I had a sharp pain and some bleeding. I am still spotting and I have alot of pain. Is this normal?
You must be logged in to post a comment.