"he is trying and failing"

Post #310,684 by crazy 7/9/09 1:46:05 PM Reply	"he is trying and failing" Wow. What's the date? How long have you given to accomplish the goal? Ok, this comes down to: Holy shit, how dumb can you be if you expect much yet? On the other hand, stuff is happening that you don't like. He's not failing, he doing stuff. Whether or not that stuff will accomplish the final goal is unknown to most people. It'll take years, possibly a decade for this stuff to play out. For some reason, you feel you know. Wanna tell me who to bet on in the next superbowl while you're at it?
Post #310,686 by boxley 7/9/09 2:02:04 PM Reply	if you can get 3-1 or better patriots decades my ass. He used the financial crisis to push a social agenda, failure is measured by money expended versus financial results achieved measured not by dow jones but by demand and unemployment. So when do you expect the unemplyment rate to get to 6% decades? Hope not thanx, bill
Post #310,689 by crazy 7/9/09 2:15:04 PM Reply	6%? Decades? Maybe Go ahead box, give me a solution to put to work those people that are not part of the current recovery. And make sure you have it complete in 7 months. Don't forget to account for their salary loss and health care costs. Add in all those "discouraged" people who they don't count anymore. No, I'd say the world has changed, and the vast majority of the elder (40+) that are out of work due to economy shifts are not going back to work any time soon, and when they do, their salary will be far less than it was before. It is a new world, and those who can't shift with it are screwed. And it is not necessarily any fault of their own, but it doesn't matter. They are screwed. A combination of protectionist policies could have delayed it, but it was inevitable once we started trading internationally heavily and the internet allows a large portion of the activity to happen "unnattended", which means less grunt work, which means the jobs left have a higher demand.
Post #310,691 by boxley 7/9/09 2:27:29 PM Reply	so a much smaller population making less money to support a much larger percentage of the population to the same lifestyle that the working get? hmm, with those parameters it makes more sense to be a non worker, the rent food and bennies are the same but you get to sleep in somehow I dont think that is going to work Housing forclosures are going up but rental vacancies are also going up. Not good
Post #310,694 by crazy 7/9/09 2:49:40 PM Reply	For a while I'd expect more people to be living together, multiple generations in a household, just like the old days. That reduces cost of living for these groups. That will drive down housing prices as demand remains soft, as well as rental requirements. But that other comment was classic red-herring. Why should I work if these people who are not working get these benefits that I am paying for, and they live as good as me. Well, they won't. Not as good as you box, because you are well qualified to make far more than these people, and you know it. This issue is the part of the population that barely qualifies for a "joe-job", and the fact that most of them are going away based on the current scenarios of industrial implosion. What will there decision process be? Try to get the government to pay for their life, or get a job that barely allows them to get more than they'd get anyway? Which I say is also bullshit. You have visions of a sub-class of people living off of you, and this makes you annoyed. I have no idea how that will play out, and what requirements there might be to get benefits, or if a 70s style welfare state is coming back. I guess it is possible. The father of my grandson would do this. Or at least he'd try. He's a worst case stereotype. Which means I accept that you have a powerful emotional argument. Emotional arguments are worthless, except to and from true believers. But the next time you are making a standing rib roast (yum), enjoying your multiple houses (you just bought one for the kid, right? Cool), take a moment to think about that blameless kid standing outside the closed emergency room. There are many scenarios that come into mind, and they simply don't matter. The room is closed. So, do you fund the hospital or preventative care? Or do you ignore it until it goes away.
Post #310,696 by boxley 7/9/09 3:03:53 PM Reply	not really kid used his own money for the house and standing rib roast, a monthly thing is now twice yearly. Yeah I make but barely. Still shop at goodwill and food depot, IGA etc. without that I couldnt afford anything else where is the closed emergency room? the ones around here are standing room only and only a few have funds to pay. The working folks pay for the rest. Walk in any emergency room. They HAVE to treat you regardless. Lets change that. Unless you are in immediate need of crisis medical help you get steered to the equally long but cheaper line at the county health clinic, My one brother already has his daughter and husband plus gran moved in. More are angling for the spots on the living room floor. A subclass of people is when you have workers thrust into minimum wage from stimulous money grants that specify davis bacon but the non profs want more for administrative salaries so are fighting to get the laws changed. Greed of the mid level gummint apparatchiks is just as high an the mbas of wall street no different. I dont resent, I dislike true believers of all stripes whether its the mullahs, peta or obamaites. They all have one thing in common, let us prey (thanx ash)

Welcome to IWETHEY!