Reply #51 January 23, 2006 1:21 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

When we passed tax changes that shift the tax burden from those that CAN afford to pay to those that can not, who do we blame?

Poor people don't pay much in taxes col. Bush increased tax credits for lower income families so they more back.

I see you keep ignoring the posts made to you col. Why don't you address them? Is it because it shows something you don't want to hear?

Reply #52 January 23, 2006 1:25 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Tell us your definition of a "reasonable" life?

Big screen TV, three game systems, DVD/VCR, brand new comfort foam mattresses, you know...just the BASICS.

As far as living expenses, I'm sorry, but for one's physical survival, I consider shelter with food, heat, running water and electricity to be a "reasonable" life...especially since the VAST MAJORITY of the world's population cannot even HOPE to expect those things.

COL won't answer me directly because he CAN'T. I've given the numbers; I've researched and analyzed them, and, perhaps more compellingly, I've LIVED them. I have given a credible, intelligent answer to EVERY one of COL's charges of doom and despair for the working class, from a firsthand perspective, and he has responded by virtually ignoring me, or making statements like the one I quoted in my above response.

I repeat what I said earlier, though: in 1900, if you were part of a working class family, EVERY capable member of the household worked: mother, father and children, and boarders were taken in for extra income. A high school education, now guaranteed for every US citizen that wants one, was a luxury, and unemployment, welfare, and housing subsidies were completely unheard of. In Carnegie's steel mills, if you were disabled on the job, there was no workman's comp, but the benevolent Mr. Carnegie (whose workplace conditions, I might add, were FAR better than those of his competitors) would allow you to beg at the facotry gates on paydays for loose coins that your former coworkers could offer. Carnegie's workers worked 12 hours a day, Monday through Saturday, and had every alternate Sunday off in turn for working a 24 hour shift on the other Sundays, for a total average of 84 hour weeks. There was no OSHA or air conditioning, and fatality rates were high. It was truly a pitiful existence.

Now being "poor" in America for many means living in a government subsidized apartment (that often gets trashed because a family used to living on handouts rarely understands the concept of "stewardship"); many of them less than five years old, with central heat/air, cable TV and pay laundry facilities on premises. Pools and hot tubs in club rooms in these facilities are not unheard of. A TV is almost universal in these households, usually on a screen larger than 25 inches, and furniture is often rented from rent to own companies because the families understand that when the dog pees on the sofa one too many times, they can just rent a new living room suite and the company will professionally clean the old one and sell it used for a well below market price, having already made their money on it. Budgeting is not a concern; why budget for food or medical expenses when there's a separate program for each, and many of these individuals sell their food stamps and patronize a different food bank in the city each day of the week with the same sad tale of woe that, amazingly, resurrects itself on a weekly basis. We are enabling the cult of victimhood, COL.

There are, of course, a VERY small percentage of Americans who live in truly impoverished regions of America. They don't have access to public transportation, running water, or often, utilities. And private groups have worked hard to help their plight with privately donated money because the government is too busy funding inner city projects for people who simply don't care about them to be concerned about a bunch of hillbillies in Virginia. But those aren't the people you profile in your Bush bashing posts, Col.

Reply #53 January 23, 2006 1:59 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Fact - over 1 million MORE workers entered the work force since 2001 then jobs created.

About 5% DO NOT HAVE A JOB!

Many of the jobs created during the past five years pay LESS then the jobs that were lost in 2001-2003 and have fewer benefits!

There are not enough hours of work of the non-living wage jobs to allow low income workers to work over 40 hours. If they did for the same employer you have the 1.5 factor for over 40 Hours worked. If Bush enforced the immigration laws we would have a lot more jobs and hours of work for LEGAL residents. WHY IS BUSH NOT ENFORCING OUR LAWS?

Reply #54 January 23, 2006 2:10 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

If they did for the same employer you have the 1.5 factor for over 40 Hours worked.

That's why my figures were based on "straight time" averages, Col. I am completely aware of this (remember, I have LIVED in this reality my entire life; you've just condescended to postulate on it, a VAST difference there!)

About 5% DO NOT HAVE A JOB!

The 5% unemployment includes workers who refuse to enter the workforce at a lower wage than they want to accept, instead opting for unemployment benefits. Those illegal immigrants you cite aren't taking accounting and IP jobs, Col. They are taking landscaping jobs, housekeeping jobs, and many other jobs those 5% unemployed consider "beneath them".

Consider this: I have no college degree, and there are NO jobs in our immediate area to match my resume. And yet, I'm still able to get by. Must be because I sold out to the conservatives, eh? (wink!)

You still have not addressed the meat of my lengthy rebuttal, Col. Not by a long shot!

Reply #55 January 23, 2006 2:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Data Series Back
Data July
2005 Aug
2005 Sept
2005 Oct
2005 Nov
2005 Dec
2005
Unemployment Rate (1) 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9
Change in Payroll Employment (2) 277 148 17 25 305 (P) 108 (P)
Average Hourly Earnings (3) 16.14 16.17 16.19 16.28 16.29 (P) 16.34 (P)
Consumer Price Index (4) 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.1
Producer Price Index (5) 1.0 0.6 1.7 (P) 0.7 (P) -0.7 (P) 0.9 (P)
U.S. Import Price Index (6) 1.2 1.4 2.1 0.1 -1.8 -0.2
Employment Cost Index (7) 0.8
Productivity (8) 4.7

from the dept of labor. aS USUAL GENE YOU HAVE IT WRONG AGAIN.

Reply #56 January 23, 2006 2:35 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

from the dept of labor.

You should know better than to make conclusions based on FACTS, MM!

Reply #57 January 23, 2006 3:05 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

No so! The Average weekly wage (Dept. of Labor) has gone DOWN for the past two years. That is what people have to spend! People have turned more and more to financing their purchases with Credit cards and the average credit card balance is at an ALL TIME HIGH. The savings rate is at an ALL TIME LOW. This shows the impact on the average family. GDP growth and corporate profit only impact a some of the population. Things like the GM and Ford cuts 60,000 of the best paying jobs. The impending cars from China at $10,000 per car.

Reply #58 January 23, 2006 3:10 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Come one fellas, give the guy a break. I mean what does Col know about living average? He was a soldier once, now he gets money from the Govt, well actually since he became a soldier he has always gotten money from the Govt. So he's use to the Govt giving money away just for the hell of it.

I bet Col has at least 2 DVDs, 1 13 inch TV, 1 32 or more TV and probably on 19 inch. I bet he drives a new expensive car, not the cheap Toyotas, probably has 2 cars and both on a well know insurance company like Progressive, not the cheap local ones. I bet he has a house with, at least, 4 rooms, all big. And this is probably not his only PC which he uses to post here.

The guys probably doesn't even have friends in lower class. Maybe some family, probably doesn't even go see them often cause they always asking for money.

So the reality is he knows nothing of average or low income life. Heck, I may only work 5 hours (that's my fault) and only get $9.50 an hour, I repeat $9.50 an hour, yet I have a roof over my head (rented), food in the fridge, a car, 32 inch TV, satelite, a PC, a cellphone, and my kids got the necesary needs plus. Just imagen what I could do if I worked 8 hours.

Reply #59 January 23, 2006 3:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Consider this: I have no college degree, and there are NO jobs in our immediate area to match my resume. And yet, I'm still able to get by. Must be because I sold out to the conservatives, eh? (wink!)

Interesting bit of reasoning. You are able to get by, therefore there's nothing wrong with the economy. If you're too lazy to get an education or job skills, all you deserve is sustenance wages. Maybe the Bush sheep just have lower standards than democrats.

Reply #60 January 23, 2006 3:26 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

DJBandit:

I mean what does Col know about living average? He was a soldier once, now he gets money from the Govt, well actually since he became a soldier he has always gotten money from the Govt. So he's use to the Govt giving money away just for the hell of it.

Gah, I'm hesitant to reply to this because I don't want you to think that I'm only addressing it because it's YOUR comment, but I promise that's not the case.

A couple of things: COL Gene, according to what he's said, was either National Guard or Reserves (I don't remember which), so his primary source of income most of the time would not be his military pay.

The other thing is this: The government does not GIVE Soldiers money, and they certainly don't pay our military "just for the hell of it". The pay and benefits that service members receive are HARD EARNED. Further, base pay is designed to be generally comparable to civilian pay.

AGAIN, the government does NOT just "give" service members money. It's compensation for the jobs they do, and while higher-ranking Officers may make a great deal of money, the average enlisted man is NOT getting fat and rich off his military career, particularly not considering the hardship and danger service members endure to earn that paycheck.

Reply #61 January 23, 2006 4:43 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The people that serve in the military EARN the money paid them many times over.

I am president of a non profit corporation that helps LOW income home owners to make necessary repairs on their homes and helps low income seniors with a place to live. My step son is disabled from Diabetes with the loss of a leg and lives on $660 from Social Security Disability and about $500 in section eight housing money. His small apartment is $700 per month. He gets by with our help. Please do not tell me I do not know the problems of the low income Americans. The policies we are following just cut money from food stamps and Medicaid while granting more tax cuts to the wealthy and BIG OIL. Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent so we can go further into debt.

Reply #62 January 23, 2006 6:10 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Try and buy an electronic product made in America

Excuse me, mr. "I don't know a lot". Electronics haven't been manufactured in quanity OR quality in the US for a VERY long time.

No so! The Average weekly wage (Dept. of Labor) has gone DOWN for the past two years

So then you're saying that MM has "misquoted the stats from the Dept of Labor? Funny but I saw the same info that MM quoted! So once again you are WRONG and proven so!

Reply #63 January 23, 2006 6:14 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Interesting bit of reasoning. You are able to get by, therefore there's nothing wrong with the economy. If you're too lazy to get an education or job skills, all you deserve is sustenance wages. Maybe the Bush sheep just have lower standards than democrats.

Once again ignorant stupidity coming out of your mouth! Lazy to get an education? You're talking about someone running for public office. He didn't say he didn't have the education. He said "jobs matching" his resume were scarce!

Reply #64 January 23, 2006 7:30 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

If you go to the Dept of labor web site you will see that the Average wage was $15.88 Dec 2004. In Dec 2005 that number is $16.37. However with a 4.3% inflation increase for 2005, that number to be the same as 2004 must be $16.56. Thus, after inflation, the Average hourly wage DROPPED just as I said in this Blog!


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Reply #65 January 23, 2006 8:15 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

You could not have any reasonable living standard where I live on $8 per hour which after Payroll taxes is $15,000 per year.

I live on much less than that. I get about $6,000 a year plus about $3000 in college fin. aid. I don't feel like I'm poor at all. In fact, I got a nice laptop, computer, car and good place to live. My total monthly bill is just $600 including gas and food. Rest is spent on college bills.

The more stuff you have or want, the more you have to pay in order to support your higher standards of living. I live in little more than a room and have a good but old car that is fully paid off.

If you consider having your own apartment, car and just basic needs met such as food poor, what is bums? worse than poor?? I remember the days of living on $350 a month, in an 3 bedroom apartment with 5 other adults. I had to use bicycle to ride to store to buy food. I remember having my back hurt by hauling heavy food in the backpack and using bicycle handles to hold bags with milk jugs in it.

Considering that, I am definitely not poor now. Your standards of "poor" is much, much too high.

Reply #66 January 23, 2006 8:23 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I do not know where you live but in the two areas I have lived in the past 10 years a one bedroom apartment is $700 per month and utilities another $100. That is $10,000 per year with NOTHING else. No health coverage, transportation, food, clothing.

Reply #67 January 23, 2006 11:02 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

If you go to the Dept of labor web site you will see that the Average wage was $15.88 Dec 2004. In Dec 2005 that number is $16.37. However with a 4.3% inflation increase for 2005, that number to be the same as 2004 must be $16.56. Thus, after inflation, the Average hourly wage DROPPED just as I said in this Blog!

This is NOT what you said....."this is"!

#57 by COL Gene Monday, January 23, 2006 No so! The Average weekly wage (Dept. of Labor) has gone DOWN for the past two years. That is what people have to spend! People have turned more and more to financing their purchases with Credit cards and the average credit card balance is at an ALL TIME HIGH. The savings rate is at an ALL TIME LOW. This shows the impact on the average family. GDP growth and corporate profit only impact a some of the population. Things like the GM and Ford cuts 60,000 of the best paying jobs. The impending cars from China at $10,000 per car.

I see nothing in your reply that says "anything" about inflation. I love it when you shove your "own" foot into your mouth!

Reply #68 January 24, 2006 7:39 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Many of the jobs created during the past five years pay LESS then the jobs that were lost in 2001-2003 and have fewer benefits!

Col, I have already debunked that as a Kerry campaign lie. You still continue to use it.

You still have not directly addressed the questions proposed to you col. What do you consider a "reasonable" life? Address Gideon's analysis and stop avoiding it.

I love how you bring up that 5% are unemployed. That percentage is so small it's hillarious you bring it up. Here's one for you col. 95% are employed.

Reply #69 January 24, 2006 8:37 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Look again at my Blog.



Yesterday the Dept of Labor reported that after inflation, the Average Hourly Earnings DROPPED .5% in 2005. That followed a .7% drop in 2004. Thus, during the past two years the Average Hourly Wage has DROPPED 1.2%.

NOTE I SAID "AFTER INFLATION" I can not believe how some on this Blog site either ignore what is said or SPIN it into something that was NOT said!

Reply #70 January 24, 2006 8:40 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

For the 15 million (5% of the work force) that can not find work that is not so easy to ignore. There are MANY others that are considered employed by the unemployment rate that earn an amount that DOES NOT ENABLE THEM to live!

Reply #71 January 24, 2006 8:55 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Look again at my Blog. Yesterday the Dept of Labor reported that after inflation, the Average Hourly Earnings DROPPED .5% in 2005. That followed a .7% drop in 2004. Thus, during the past two years the Average Hourly Wage has DROPPED 1.2%. NOTE I SAID "AFTER INFLATION" I can not believe how some on this Blog site either ignore what is said or SPIN it into something that was NOT said!

Are you retarded? Or stupid? This is out of your OWN mouth. No spin involved nor needed! The word inflation does NOT appear in your reply!

#57 by COL Gene Monday, January 23, 2006 No so! The Average weekly wage (Dept. of Labor) has gone DOWN for the past two years. That is what people have to spend! People have turned more and more to financing their purchases with Credit cards and the average credit card balance is at an ALL TIME HIGH. The savings rate is at an ALL TIME LOW. This shows the impact on the average family. GDP growth and corporate profit only impact a some of the population. Things like the GM and Ford cuts 60,000 of the best paying jobs. The impending cars from China at $10,000 per car.

Deny that you wrote this....that is if you can. I am not ignoring what you said! You are! Show me were it says "anything" about inflation!

Reply #72 January 24, 2006 9:24 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

#60 by Texas Wahine Monday, January 23, 2006

I wont take it as a picking on me. I expected others to jump on me. It was not directed to everyone. It was more of just getting under Cols skin. I know soldiers don't get their money just to get it. My brother was in the National Guard and his brother is a navy seal as well so please don't think I don't have a clue what it's like to be military. It was all to boil Col just to bug him. He needs to loosen up a bit. Trust me, I get your point and sorry if I offended you or your husband. Wasn't my intention.

I am president of a non profit corporation that helps LOW income home owners to make necessary repairs on their homes and helps low income seniors with a place to live. My step son is disabled from Diabetes with the loss of a leg and lives on $660 from Social Security Disability and about $500 in section eight housing money. His small apartment is $700 per month. He gets by with our help. Please do not tell me I do not know the problems of the low income Americans. The policies we are following just cut money from food stamps and Medicaid while granting more tax cuts to the wealthy and BIG OIL. Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent so we can go further into debt.

Am I suppose to feel bad because you have a disabled child? As a father it's your responsability to help him. His case is not like everyone elses.

Let me make you understand something Col cause you have your head so far up your rear end that you think everyone wants to do harm to the little people here. I am a true believer that if you can not do it on you own because of some kind of disability that you should be helped. It's only fair. But if you are fully capable of getting a job and making a living than you do not need to be dependent on the Govt to give you money. You want the Govts help? Take advantage of the education you can get from them and get a better job not sit down at home and get welfare and food stamps for the rest of your life.

If your son is disabled he deserves to be helped because he didn't ask to be disabled the way you say he is. It's not fair but it's life. That still doesn't mean you know what it's like to live as lower class. Your son is not lower class cause he has, apart from the $500 from Sec 8 and $660 from SS, he has you guys. Many people out there don't have anyone, most family members don't even care or just can't help.

Reply #73 January 24, 2006 9:26 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Yesterday the Dept of Labor reported that after inflation, the Average Hourly Earnings DROPPED .5% in 2005. That followed a .7% drop in 2004. Thus, during the past two years the Average Hourly Wage has DROPPED 1.2%.

Col, 1.2% is nothing in reality. Why do you keep ignoring Gideons analysis of your "numbers"?

For the 15 million (5% of the work force) that can not find work that is not so easy to ignore. There are MANY others that are considered employed by the unemployment rate that earn an amount that DOES NOT ENABLE THEM to live!

Col, like was said to you before that you keep ignoring. That number also includes people who don't want to work among other things. You automatically assume that these "unemployed" people have no place to live and are completely broke, which is just not true.

You still haven't answered any of the questions or analysis that have been directed to you. Keep ignoring reality col.

Reply #74 January 24, 2006 9:47 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Specially for Col.

Here is a small list of links for you. Each one is a page from a newpaper website, the JOB section. The most interesting thing about it is that IT'S FULL OF JOBS.

Link


Link

Link

So where exactly are these 15 million people looking for work?
BS Col, nothing but BS. There are a lot of jobs out there. What we lack is a lot of qualified people to get these jobs. People don't care about an education anymore. And those who do want jobs that payhigh income right off the back. They are unwilling to start at the bottom. They want to get a high wage right from the begining.

As usual get a clue Col.

Reply #75 January 24, 2006 10:01 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Let’s say 1/2 of those 15 Million are NOT looking. That still leaves over 7 Million that CAN NOT find a job. You do not acknowledge that many of the jobs that do exist which DO NOT PAY A LIVING WAGE and have few if any benefits. There are millions of Americans that can not afford to live even with the job they have. Just look at LA and MO after Katrina. Guess what those people are still POOR! Look at the millions of poor on the Gulf coast of Texas. What about the GM and Ford situations? Every day more and more living wage jobs leave this country. What about the Illegal immigrants that Bush ignores that are depressing wages and NOT PAYING TAXES?