• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%

a351 said:
Any clue as to what may have caused this phenomena? A Catastrophic financial event of sorts? Or did a large chunk of individuals simply catch a bad case of the "lazies" right around the time period in which trillions of wealth vanished and millions of jobs as well? I think I'll go with the former.
Click to expand...

The cause is not whats being debated right now. The Obama Administration claims they have solved that issue. Isnt our unemployment rate reported around 7% right now? So how do those numbers mesh with the ever increasing #'s on welfare? How can standard of living go up, and the cost of living go down, while at the same time, people with jobs are still relying on welfare?

News flash, this change in the allocation of assistance programs was lobbied for by dozens of governors, including one Mitt Romney of Massachuets in the prior decade.
Click to expand...
Yes he was lobbying for more power at the state level, where it belongs. How evil of him.
This stripping of the work requirement that so many have brayed and bemoaned endlessly about was simply a move that allows states to craft their own work requirements which can now include educational endeavors such as job training and trade focused classes. The states however, are not afforded this luxury unless they increase the work rolls of welfare recipents by 20%. A nod to states sovereignty and a move to increase the working rolls of welfare recipents, a Conservatives wet dream you would think?
Click to expand...
I will believe it when i see it.
Key phrase in the quote you're responding to: Most could've predicted an aggregate rise in recipients and overall expenditures due to the conditions mentioned above, but the trick would be demonstrating the seemingly lavish lifestyle of welfare recipents that you portrayed in earlier posts, and claimed Obama responsible for.
Click to expand...

I never said lavish. I said they should have their NEEDS seen to, and nothing more. Example: Food, water, shelter, clothing (not name brand). Not cable tv (or tv's in general), phones, cars, cigarettes ect ect ect.
 
Dpetty said:
The cause is not whats being debated right now.

The Obama Administration claims they have solved that issue.

Isnt our unemployment rate reported around 7% right now? So how do those numbers mesh with the ever increasing #'s on welfare?

How can standard of living go up, and the cost of living go down, while at the same time, people with jobs are still relying on welfare?


Yes he was lobbying for more power at the state level, where it belongs. How evil of him.

I never said lavish.
Click to expand...
It's necessary to discuss if you actually wish to address the effects.

20 trillions worth of lost wealth? Nah, but they can lay claim to a modest recovery from that disaster. Some expected better, some worse.

7.7% currently, and working doesn't absolve one from poverty, or from eligibility for welfare and other assistance programs. In fact, employment is one of the staple requirements that must be met in order to qualify.

Cost of living hasn't gone down, especially when one throws health care and education into the mix. The rest of your question was answered above.

Yes, and Obama granted his state and all others that very ability.
The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.
Click to expand...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...torum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/

Certainly implied it:
Dpetty said:
Why would they look for work when they can live so comfortably on welfare?
Click to expand...
 
I like how you delete most of my quote and just leave what suits you. Makes debating much easier doesnt it? Im going to try it with your last post...

a351 said:
It's necessary actually wish disaster. Some expect worse from poverty, or from eligibility for welfare and other assistance programs. In fact, employment is down, especially when one throws health care and education into the mix. The rest of your question was Yes, and Obama granted others that very ability.
Click to expand...

Wow, you dont know what your talking about, do you? The things you implied... very uncalled for...
 
Dpetty said:
Source?

Before government got in te business of running peoples lives, people did support charity on their own.

On the contrary. Local organizations would be much better suited to meet the needs of the people locally because they would be better able to see and understand those needs. Local people helping local people. A national welfare system is far less likely to meet the individual needs of its recipients. Even if you insisted on it being done at a government leve, local government (city or state) would still be better suited than federal...
Click to expand...
Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

There was also a great deal more impoverished and malnourished individuals than in our current state. Talk with some who actually lived through the era in question, you may find they don't reflect as kindly upon the time period as those who are commenting from a outside perspective.

I'd tend to agree that support on a local level is more apt to recognize the needs and nuances of individual cases, but would be unable to address needs on a broad scale, as the federal sector is able in one fell swoop. Federal funding and local administration and allocation sounds like a reasonable compromise.
 
Dpetty said:
Where do you think the government gets the money to make these grants in the first place?? Do you honestly not know where the government gets money?? Its from US!! They take our money because they think they can use it better than we can. If the government is so good at providing for the poor, why is the problem getting worse and worse every year? Id much prefer to keep my money and use it to help the poor directly, rather than letting the government waste it on useless spending.
Click to expand...

Of course I know where the government gets money. The government is designed to provide for the general welfare of the people based on our constitution. The problem of poverty increases with economic downturns and improves when the economy is doing well. There will never be an end to porverty. When it comes to providing a safety net for people who need a hand up, I have no doubt that the government does a better jobs of provind that safty net with our money collectively than we do individually. That is the reason social saftey nets were set up, because during the great depression people could not take care of the needy on an individual basis.
 
a351 said:
There was also a great deal more impoverished and malnourished individuals than in our current state. Talk with some who actually lived through the era in question, you may find they don't reflect as kindly upon the time period as those who are commenting from a outside perspective.
Click to expand...

Im not advocating that we go back to their standard of living, nor do i think that changing the welfare system would do that. I assume you agree with me on that point.

I'd tend to agree that support on a local level is more apt to recognize the needs and nuances of individual cases, but would be unable to address needs on a broad scale, as the federal sector is able in one fell swoop. Federal funding and local administration and allocation sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

We wouldnt need federal funding in the first place if the system was set up correctly. Whats the point of giving the money to the fed, just so they can waste some of it paying for their needless red tape and pork barrell spending, then pass on a fraction of it to the state level so they can allocate it to the needy? We already pay state taxes, why not let the money go straight to the state and local governments and bypass the needless step of going through the fed? Yet another example of needless big government.
 
Dpetty said:
Im not advocating that we go back to their standard of living, nor do i think that changing the welfare system would do that. I assume you agree with me on that point.



We wouldnt need federal funding in the first place if the system was set up correctly. Whats the point of giving the money to the fed, just so they can waste some of it paying for their needless red tape and pork barrell spending, then pass on a fraction of it to the state level so they can allocate it to the needy? We already pay state taxes, why not let the money go straight to the state and local governments and bypass the needless step of going through the fed? Yet another example of needless big government.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Well, many states aren't particularly self sufficient, and raising state and local taxes isn't always political feasible, so federal funding in the form of supplementary assistance is quite useful in order to prevent a large dip in the living conditions of those affected by potential budget constraints on the local level strictly.
 
Hairytic said:
Of course I know where the government gets money. The government is designed to provide for the general welfare of the people based on our constitution. The problem of poverty increases with economic downturns and improves when the economy is doing well. There will never be an end to porverty. When it comes to providing a safety net for people who need a hand up, I have no doubt that the government does a better jobs of provind that safty net with our money collectively than we do individually. That is the reason social saftey nets were set up, because during the great depression people could not take care of the needy on an individual basis.
Click to expand...


You have the wording a little messed up.


Article 1, section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The general welfare does not refer to the welfare of the people, its refering to the welfare of the United States. The federal government is charged with protecting the rights of the citizens, as well and defence against enemies, both foreign and domestic. It doesnt mean they need to buy us groceries. Why do you think we even have government at a state level, if the fed is supposed to do everything? State government is not merly a sub government to the federal government. Its a whole different level of government, with different roles and responsibilities. Politicians are giving themselves to much power. The checks and balances that were put in place at the birth of our country are breaking down.
 
a351 said:
Well, many states aren't particularly self sufficient, and raising state and local taxes isn't always political feasible, so federal funding in the form of supplementary assistance is quite useful in order to prevent a large dip in the living conditions of those affected by potential budget constraints on the local level strictly.
Click to expand...

I guarantee that most Americans would be all for paying more state taxes, if it meant paying less federal taxes. As far as the states that arent self sufficient, thats a whole different problem. The federal government isnt exactly proving to be very sufficient either or we wouldnt be hearing so much about this "fiscal cliff" all the time. Obviously what im proposing will never happen because it would require to many politicians (from both sides of the isle) with god complexes giving up their power for the betterment of the people, but if it did, it would require a huge restructuring at the state level.
 
Hairytic said:
Corporate welfare abuse costs the US much more than social welfare abuse. Still, we shouldn't force people who really need a hand up to starve and go without medical care because of the ones who abuse the system. Those who do abuse it and are caught get punished, so it's not like they get by with it over and over again. I worked for the prison for many years and we had inmates that were in for welfare fraud.
I simply don't see that abuse of the system is a reason why we should get rid of social welfare. Now, corporate welfare is another matter. We paid billions to bail out large banks, and the bank fat cats paid themselves millions. No one went to jail for it. Now that is real abuse in my opinion.
Click to expand...

While I agree on corporate welfare being a problem, I still think you underestimate what's going on in social welfare programs. And it's not only welfare programs. I run a small business in Ohio and the regular abuse I see in the workers comp system is mind boggling. I often tell people that with what I've learned about playing the system I could be the ultimate nightmare employee. In Ohio if you want some paid time off go to work tomorrow and say "ow, I hurt my shoulder". I could turn that simple statement into months of paid time off and lots of free drugs. And 2 years from now I'll "hurt" that same shoulder again(just in time for walleye season) after all I do have a history of it and it's obviously the employers fault.

Again it's not abuse it's an industry. I have a couple of employees that can get on their cell phones and within minutes tell you which little store down in the inner city is offering the best return on food stamps. Usually around 60 cents on the dollar. The company that gets the most from those food stamps appears to be Anhueser Busch. I've seen printed handouts telling you how to get your child diagnosed with ADD so you can get more money and free drugs. Heck one of my employees divorced his wife for the sole purpose of playing the system. He uses his mothers address, he and the wife "agreed" on very low child support payments making her and the kids eligible for basically a free ride, rent voucher, utility assistance, healthcare, daycare, etc. He still lives there, nothing has changed other than govt money coming in. And of course his take is "everyone else is doing it".

Here's a thought lets clean up both corporate and social welfare abuse. Instead of hiring 16000 IRS agents we should have hired 16000 fraud investigators.
 
Dpetty said:
You have the wording a little messed up.


Article 1, section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The general welfare does not refer to the welfare of the people, its refering to the welfare of the United States. The federal government is charged with protecting the rights of the citizens, as well and defence against enemies, both foreign and domestic. It doesnt mean they need to buy us groceries. Why do you think we even have government at a state level, if the fed is supposed to do everything? State government is not merly a sub government to the federal government. Its a whole different level of government, with different roles and responsibilities. Politicians are giving themselves to much power. The checks and balances that were put in place at the birth of our country are breaking down.
Click to expand...

General Welfare of the US means it's citizens. State governments can enact and enforce laws if those laws do not violate the constitution or Federal Laws. That makes state governments sub governments under the Federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't run social programs that provide food for the poor. Our federal government does a lot of things under the general welfare clasue that benefits US citizens, like the FDA and CDC. There are many things that need to be attended to that government is best at providing for it's people. You can't count on the free market to clean up the environment or combate disease outbreaks and so forth. Like it or not, we need the federal government to provide services for us.
 
gingern44 said:
While I agree on corporate welfare being a problem, I still think you underestimate what's going on in social welfare programs. And it's not only welfare programs. I run a small business in Ohio and the regular abuse I see in the workers comp system is mind boggling. I often tell people that with what I've learned about playing the system I could be the ultimate nightmare employee. In Ohio if you want some paid time off go to work tomorrow and say "ow, I hurt my shoulder". I could turn that simple statement into months of paid time off and lots of free drugs. And 2 years from now I'll "hurt" that same shoulder again(just in time for walleye season) after all I do have a history of it and it's obviously the employers fault.

Again it's not abuse it's an industry. I have a couple of employees that can get on their cell phones and within minutes tell you which little store down in the inner city is offering the best return on food stamps. Usually around 60 cents on the dollar. The company that gets the most from those food stamps appears to be Anhueser Busch. I've seen printed handouts telling you how to get your child diagnosed with ADD so you can get more money and free drugs. Heck one of my employees divorced his wife for the sole purpose of playing the system. He uses his mothers address, he and the wife "agreed" on very low child support payments making her and the kids eligible for basically a free ride, rent voucher, utility assistance, healthcare, daycare, etc. He still lives there, nothing has changed other than govt money coming in. And of course his take is "everyone else is doing it".

Here's a thought lets clean up both corporate and social welfare abuse. Instead of hiring 16000 IRS agents we should have hired 16000 fraud investigators.
Click to expand...
Well, each state is different. I don't know how Ohio is set up when it comes to welfare, but My daughter sure didn't get a free ride. She has an ADHD child and doesn't get any extra money for it. She also has to pay her own rent and utilities. She has looked into getting help to pay the bills when she was sick, there was no program that could or would help her. All she got was food stamps and medicaid for the kids. She ended up having to come live with me and my husband. She gets no free medical help, so when she needs to see a doctor she has to wait in the waiting room of the free clinic all day and there is no gauranty she will be seen. I think you have an unrealistic view of how the poor and needy really live. Those who play the system run the risk of getting locked up for welfare fraud.
 
Hairytic said:
General Welfare of the US means it's citizens. State governments can enact and enforce laws if those laws do not violate the constitution or Federal Laws. That makes state governments sub governments under the Federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't run social programs that provide food for the poor. Our federal government does a lot of things under the general welfare clasue that benefits US citizens, like the FDA and CDC. There are many things that need to be attended to that government is best at providing for it's people. You can't count on the free market to clean up the environment or combate disease outbreaks and so forth. Like it or not, we need the federal government to provide services for us.
Click to expand...

Ugg, you obviously didn’t read my post. I haven’t said we need to rely on the free market, in fact i haven’t even mentioned free market. I said this is a job for local and state government. Yes the gov does a lot under the guise of "general welfare", but that doesn’t make it right. They do a lot of things that aren’t right. Local government is not a sub government to the fed. That where most people go wrong these days. If that were true, we would pay state taxes, we would pay everything to the fed and they would dole it out from there like they do all their other organizations. The FDA and CDC are perfect examples of everything i have said.
 
Hairytic said:
General Welfare of the US means it's citizens. State governments can enact and enforce laws if those laws do not violate the constitution or Federal Laws. That makes state governments sub governments under the Federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't run social programs that provide food for the poor. Our federal government does a lot of things under the general welfare clasue that benefits US citizens, like the FDA and CDC. There are many things that need to be attended to that government is best at providing for it's people. You can't count on the free market to clean up the environment or combate disease outbreaks and so forth. Like it or not, we need the federal government to provide services for us.
Click to expand...

Under the U.S. Constitution, both the national and state governments are granted certain exclusive powers and share other powers.
Click to expand...

The state is not subservient to the federal government.
 
j-mac said:
The state is not subservient to the federal government.
Click to expand...

Yes they are.

We fought a war over it, and we (the south) lost. The pro subservient folk won.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes they are.

We fought a war over it, and we (the south) lost. The pro subservient folk won.
Click to expand...

That was a constitutional amendment, which is ratified by the states.
 
Dpetty said:
Ugg, you obviously didn’t read my post. I haven’t said we need to rely on the free market, in fact i haven’t even mentioned free market. I said this is a job for local and state government. Yes the gov does a lot under the guise of "general welfare", but that doesn’t make it right. They do a lot of things that aren’t right. Local government is not a sub government to the fed. That where most people go wrong these days. If that were true, we would pay state taxes, we would pay everything to the fed and they would dole it out from there like they do all their other organizations. The FDA and CDC are perfect examples of everything i have said.
Click to expand...

We simply have different views, there is no right or wrong about it. This is why freedom of speech is so important. I think government is best at dealing with charities. We elect our officials to manage things, which gives us a say in how things are run.
 
Hairytic said:
General Welfare of the US means it's citizens. State governments can enact and enforce laws if those laws do not violate the constitution or Federal Laws. That makes state governments sub governments under the Federal government. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can't run social programs that provide food for the poor. Our federal government does a lot of things under the general welfare clasue that benefits US citizens, like the FDA and CDC. There are many things that need to be attended to that government is best at providing for it's people. You can't count on the free market to clean up the environment or combate disease outbreaks and so forth. Like it or not, we need the federal government to provide services for us.
Click to expand...

See bolded part - no, there isn't, as long as the states agree to those programs. We don't need the feds to provide any but the services enumerated to the fed's control by the Constitution. They can all be provided by the states as they wish. The feds should only act as a coordinator in this scenerio.

But we've screwed that system and gone way extra-constitutional. So with the system the way it is, the way we've allowed it to morph, we have become dependent upon federal services. Setting up a vicious cycle.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
OK...so we've gone nowhere, which is not growth. What happened to those people who left the roles In November that upped the rate a month ago??? Still doesn't change the fact that 350,000 left the work force in one months time.
Click to expand...

I'm asking this as a question, not as anything snarky.

Do those number (the 350,000) include retirees?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I'm asking this as a question, not as anything snarky.

Do those number (the 350,000) include retirees?
Click to expand...

I think that is measured in a different table within the report, not sure though....But certainly not anywhere near enough retirees in that if it is so, to effect the bad news....I would think that those giving up to get disability is a more likely reason.

[The only reason that the unemployment rate fell was because more people dropped out of the labor market than actually found jobs. The labor force declined by 350,000 and the labor force participation rate, a measure of potential workers, declined to 63.6, the same level as reported in September. The recovery is well underway, yet potential workers continue to remain on the sidelines and out of the labor market. One reason is that approximately 1.5 million more potential workers are on the disability rolls now as compared to 2007. It is doubtful that many of them will ever return to the labor force, lowering future economic growth.
The 146,000 new jobs being created are positive, but the good news is tempered by downward revisions to previous months of 45,000. The economy needs to produce 125,000 new jobs to keep up with population growth. 146,000 jobs are not enough to reduce the unemployment rate unless people leave the labor force. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s job calculator estimates it would take five years to reach full employment given the current rate of job creation. This is unacceptable.

Unemployment Rate Drop in November Employment Report Due to Workers Leaving Labor Force
Click to expand...
 
Hairytic said:
We elect our officials to manage things, which gives us a say in how things are run.
Click to expand...

Yes differing views are fine. In a perfect world our leaders listen to us, but unfortunately i think most politicians are deaf to their constituents.
 
j-mac said:
I think that is measured in a different table within the report, not sure though....But certainly not anywhere near enough retirees in that if it is so, to effect the bad news....I would think that those giving up to get disability is a more likely reason.
Click to expand...

I was just curious, because I read somewhere that approximately 300,000 boomers these days are retiring per month. If that is included, then that number is still too high, but 50,000 is not nearly as scary as 350,000.

I even tried some research but still couldn't find out if retirees are included in that number...

Hmmmm...
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I was just curious, because I read somewhere that approximately 300,000 boomers these days are retiring per month. If that is included, then that number is still too high, but 50,000 is not nearly as scary as 350,000.

I even tried some research but still couldn't find out if retirees are included in that number...

Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about retiring but the SS administration states +/-10k day are reaching retirement age...not the same thing
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Meanwhile Government unemployment is a paltry 3.8% and 73% of new jobs created in the last 5 months are in government. That is not really good news or a growing economy.

73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government | CNS News
Click to expand...

Simply not true.

Over the last 5 months (jul-nov), there were 789,000 jobs added in total.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Total nonfarm

During that same period, there were 34,000 government jobs added.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Government

In reality, 4% of the jobs added over the last 5 months were government jobs.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Simply not true.

Over the last 5 months (jul-nov), there were 789,000 jobs added in total.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Total nonfarm

During that same period, there were 34,000 government jobs added.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Government

In reality, 4% of the jobs added over the last 5 months were government jobs.
Click to expand...
Looks like I scrounged up the source of that bit of disinformation, not surprising really.

On The Right Track? Another Half Million Americans Fall Out of the Workforce - The Rush Limbaugh Show

73% of new jobs created in the last 5 months are in government.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom