• 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!

US unemployment lowest in 4 years

So you compare the U.S. Economy to Chile? Wow, that might be one of the most ignorant statements I have seen in this forum. Let me give you a hint, this is a private sector economy and not Chile.

No, you just made the most ignorant statement not realizing Chile's economy was privatized in nearly all spheres including private pension funds and also had a very weak social safety net system at the time of the financial crisis in 1982. This is the place were privatization in government services started.
 
No, you just made the most ignorant statement not realizing Chile's economy was privatized in nearly all spheres including private pension funds and also had a very weak social safety net system at the time of the financial crisis in 1982. This is the place were privatization in government services started.

There is no comparison between the privatized economy of Chile and the privatized economy of the U.S. Too bad you don't understand that.
 
Giving hundreds of billions via Stimulus to States and local Govt "won't do a thing " either except just put off the inevitable. Without addressing the key issues of why our economy was and is STILL shrinking, any money doled out to Public Sector Unions is money wasted, unless of course your a Politician paying back your base.

Nearly all states experience severe economic conditions as the direct result of the economic meltdown and not due to unions. What a major red herring. Without federal dollars many more jobs would have been cut due to the recession.
 
The Constitution says nothing about tax breaks for business either.

The Constitution was amended by Congress(16th Amendment) to address revenue. Suggest you read the Constitution with all the Amendments. Do you ever admit that you are wrong?
 
The Constitution says nothing about tax breaks for business either.

You seem to have a problem with businesses keeping more of what they earned. Is this jealousy on your part and do you have that problem in your own personal life being jealous of what someone else has?
 
Because we have been at it for a couple hundred years, have 50 sovereign states, over 300 million people, and a 16 trillion dollar economy.

Chile refused to bail out the economy for a few years before they could no longer function. We most certainly can take a lesson from them since many of their privatized policies are here at our front door. What exactly do you think would have happened if we did nothing?
 
The Constitution was amended by Congress(16th Amendment) to address revenue. Suggest you read the Constitution with all the Amendments. Do you ever admit that you are wrong?

And, that does not at all address tax breaks for business:doh
 
You seem to have a problem with businesses keeping more of what they earned. Is this jealousy on your part and do you have that problem in your own personal life being jealous of what someone else has?

No, I was just using your silly Constitutional argument.
 
Chile refused to bail out the economy for a few years before they could no longer function. We most certainly can take a lesson from them since many of their privatized policies are here at our front door. What exactly do you think would have happened if we did nothing?

Chile doesn't have 50 sovereign states that have their own economy and if that economy isn't good move to one that is. This isn't an economy based upon a large central Govt. Chile was.

If we did nothing we would lose some businesses but would be stronger today. We need to stop rewarding bad behavior and that is what the Federal Govt. did with TARP and what liberals do all the time with individuals.
 
And, that does not at all address tax breaks for business:doh

Congress has that authority. Why do you care what a corporation makes or pays in taxes? We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. You need to get over your jealousy and cheer success instead of demonizing it.
 
So why have they given up then? I mean, if we are to believe what you are saying, and jobs are out there for the taking, then why aren't they applying? Surely they are not all winning the lottery are they? (well, in a sense, with handouts, maybe they are)

There are all sorts of reasons why employers look at applicant’s and continuously reject them. Let’s take a look:

A person loses their job, and if they were fired they have a certain amount of time before their unemployment benefits run out. Before the Federal extension program most states paid for 26 weeks, with a few paying up to a year. In any case, unemployment pays only a fraction of your original pay, so you are dealing with all prior bills with less money.

Now the person submits job applications, usually for employment similar to their prior experience and pay grade. Employers get a lot of applications for jobs and they can’t interview everyone. So they perform triage using applications and resumes. They eliminate candidates if they have prior criminal records, are too old or too young, not enough experience or too much experience, not enough education or too much education, skill-sets aren’t quite what they are looking for, etc., etc., etc.

Time passes and after six months employers use that time factor to eliminate many candidates, because they suspect something is wrong if the applicant has taken that long to find a new job. By this point applicants who have high skills, education, and experience start looking for jobs that are below the level of their prior positions. Employers see this and they eliminate the applicant because they don’t expect them to stay longer than it would take to find a better job.

Starting to get a picture here?

At some point unemployment benefits and/or savings runs out and applicants lose their apartments, or homes. If they are lucky they go live with relatives or friends willing to support them while they keep trying to find work. If not they end up in shelters, or homeless and this makes it almost impossible to find work for many reasons. Others simply end up in under-the-table jobs, day labor, welfare, or crime (drug dealing, theft, etc.).

Economists prefer to ignore this, and simply point to decreasing unemployment numbers as if the economy is recovering. It isn’t, more people are just dropping out of the job market and turning to less savory options. Neither the government nor these supporting economists want to deal with this so they fudge the figures and hope we just ignore it.

This is only ONE aspect of Hidden Unemployment that government unemployment figures, and economists and statisticians who support "the economy is doing fine" theory don't want us to address. So, as long as a person is "not seeking" then of course they don't count. Meanwhile, we still have 4 people looking for every one job currently available in the USA; so that even without Hidden Unemployment if every available job were filled today, three people "seeking" would still be out of work.
 
Last edited:
Chile refused to bail out the economy for a few years before they could no longer function. We most certainly can take a lesson from them since many of their privatized policies are here at our front door. What exactly do you think would have happened if we did nothing?

If we did nothing? Chances are that the country would have sunk into a depression, and yes it would have been horrible, but by this point we would have been expanding at a far greater rate. That's my opinion anyway.
 
The Constitution says nothing about tax breaks for business either.

You are correct. The 16th amendment allows for direct federal taxation of income from all sources. The current FIT code contains a bunch of BS, 85% of it is dedicated towards deductions, credits, exclusions and exemptions based on how (and upon who) that income was later spent. All of that BS is what lobbyists have convinced our congress critters is "fair" - meaning it makes "special folks" get reduced federal income tax bills.
 
There are all sorts of reasons why employers look at applicant’s and continuously reject them. Let’s take a look:

A person loses their job, and if they were fired they have a certain amount of time before their unemployment benefits run out. Before the Federal extension program most states paid for 26 weeks, with a few paying up to a year. In any case, unemployment pays only a fraction of your original pay, so you are dealing with all prior bills with less money.

Now the person submits job applications, usually for employment similar to their prior experience and pay grade. Employers get a lot of applications for jobs and they can’t interview everyone. So they perform triage using applications and resumes. They eliminate candidates if they have prior criminal records, are too old or too young, not enough experience or too much experience, not enough education or too much education, skill-sets aren’t quite what they are looking for, etc., etc., etc.

Time passes and after six months employers use that time factor to eliminate many candidates, because they suspect something is wrong if the applicant has taken that long to find a new job. By this point applicants who have high skills, education, and experience start looking for jobs that are below the level of their prior positions. Employers see this and they eliminate the applicant because they don’t expect them to stay longer than it would take to find a better job.

Starting to get a picture here?

At some point unemployment benefits and/or savings runs out and applicants lose their apartments, or homes. If they are lucky they go live with relatives or friends willing to support them while they keep trying to find work. If not they end up in shelters, or homeless and this makes it almost impossible to find work for many reasons. Others simply end up in under-the-table jobs, day labor, welfare, or crime (drug dealing, theft, etc.).

Economists prefer to ignore this, and simply point to decreasing unemployment numbers as if the economy is recovering. It isn’t, more people are just dropping out of the job market and turning to less savory options. Neither the government nor these supporting economists want to deal with this so they fudge the figures and hope we just ignore it.

This is only ONE aspect of Hidden Unemployment that government unemployment figures, and economists and statisticians who support "the economy is doing fine" theory don't want us to address. So, as long as a person is "not seeking" then of course they don't count. Meanwhile, we still have 4 people looking for every one job currently available in the USA; so that even without Hidden Unemployment if every available job were filled today, three people "seeking" would still be out of work.

You are spot on here CA. I know this to be real, you know this to be real, but this will never be admitted by the true followers of the current administration that came to power preaching fundamental transformation, whom say this is the "new norm" and we should get used to it....Ain't it great? We are left with propaganda, and slogans, meanwhile after a lifetime of work, we have nothing to look forward to because we are not the elite....God I hate progressive socialism.
 
Chile doesn't have 50 sovereign states that have their own economy and if that economy isn't good move to one that is. This isn't an economy based upon a large central Govt. Chile was.

If we did nothing we would lose some businesses but would be stronger today. We need to stop rewarding bad behavior and that is what the Federal Govt. did with TARP and what liberals do all the time with individuals.

Chile had a decentralized government under Pinochet. Moving to a different region would have not gotten them out of the economic mess they faced. If we did nothing, many more people would be unemployed and the social safety nets would not have been sustainable. Mass unemployment and the problems it would cause is not the fault of people. It's the fault of a bad economy that was sustained by using financial instruments that help to implode the world wide economy.
 
Congress has that authority. Why do you care what a corporation makes or pays in taxes? We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. You need to get over your jealousy and cheer success instead of demonizing it.

Same ole' tired out talking points:roll:
 
If we did nothing? Chances are that the country would have sunk into a depression, and yes it would have been horrible, but by this point we would have been expanding at a far greater rate. That's my opinion anyway.

I agree we would have most definitely hit a depression, but what makes you think we would be better off after a depression?
 
Back
Top Bottom