Am I the only one thinking....?
boyohboyohboy wrote: What does this daily dropping stock market and dreary news mean for my kids in the next few months?
How come no one is talking about these topics here lately?
I keep hearing such huge numbers coming out of the press that the government is spending or giving to any number of things...numbers I cant even count to anymore...
and I thought a month ago when we came out with the stimulus package that money was the total amount we had (or didnt have) and since then there has been a billion more here, and 10 billion there..and lost more money going out..
so what happens now???
lisar replied: were screwed.... Thats whats gonna happen. Our kids are screwed and there isnt anything we can do about it.
coasterqueen replied: I'm so furious about it that I can't even talk about it. The market has no confidence in Obama which is why it keeps dropping. My children have lost so much money in their college funds already, Ryan and I aren't for sure we can recover quickly enough to have the money they need for college. Yes, that's 11 years away or so, but if you knew how much we've lost, you'd understand. 
coasterqueen replied: But you know what? Obama is going to fix it all. He tells us not to pay attention to the stock market.  Whatever. He's going to sign that bill that has over 8,000+ PORK lines in it so the world is going to be a better place. Didn't he PROMISE in his campaign to rid away with PORK spending? 
lisar replied:
I am with ya!!!! My 401k has lost a few grand already I moved it into a safer market so that it wasnt so much at risk and I wouldnt loose it as fast but it is still dwindling.
Me and dh have debated weather or not to pull money out of it to try and save what we do have left, but havent really got down to nitty gritty of it to see if it would be better or not. I need to look into that.
moped replied:
I do understand, I can't even type the nasty amount I have lost - I literally can't breath when i think about it.
My life depends ont he price of oil, now 18 months ago it was $140/barrel, this morning it is $44, whcih is a lot better than $33 a month ago, things are not good in my industry at all. This week there hav ebeen thousands of layoffs in Calgary, thank god my company is still going ok!
My2Beauties replied: So the stock market going down is Obama's fault?  Um...he is still picking up the pieces of Bush's mess, we definitely can't blame him for our 401k problems and the stock market plummeting...
luvmykids replied: I can't really talk about it either....because I'm too angered at the terms of the stimulus package(s) and Obama's pork spending. I'm not affected by the stock market since our savings vanished when we were trying to keep our last company afloat. I am a little bitter though that these bailouts help companies who've been failing for YEARS (auto makers) and do nothing for the actual citizens.
As for the stock market, I believe it will recover with time, but I don't think we'll ever go back to the good old days of the dot com era and ridiculously excessive living.
Our Lil' Family replied:
I have to disagree with this. If he was picking up the pieces, the stock market would have rebound some...it's doing just the opposite which means there's not much faith in his changes.
my2girls replied: Not worried at all.
Its the ebb and flow of economics. History has a way of repeating itself 
We have lived below our means for a long time now. We are like the ants , store food for winter ( or hard times) , we have never been the cricket.
We taught are kids from a young age to save and not to expect things all the time.
They helped pay the bills ( online or in person with "real" money) and know that bills get paid first and anything left over gets saved.
401k wasn't hit hard at all ( we are very well diversified) and anything we lost will be recouped in time ( we have 30+ years before we retire) and we have actually contributed more money to our 401k now.
We can't blame Bush for everything. We ,as a people, have been over spending and over consuming for years. We HAD to have the bigger house, the good clothes, name brand foods, grand vacations...instead of saving and being frugal with what we have.
I have been through hard times, a job loss , losing our own business and not being able to afford formula (we went on WIC at that time) but you know what that made us stronger as a family and taught us a huge lesson. It taught us how to save money and live well below our means.
Like Dave Ramsey says: Live like no one else, so later you can LIVE like no one else.
boyohboyohboy replied: I am not sure that it matters who's to blame right now.
I am thinking that the people in charge need to start turning things around..
Nothing that the huge stimulus package was supposed to help has helped..unemployment conts to rise, jobs cont. to diminish. There are some major players in the economy about to tank...
I have yet to see any type of solutions...and as an admitted fox news, glenn beck fan. I just dont think I can watch the doom and gloom anymore.
I am starting to wonder if its really high time to grow my own food, learn to sew, and become as self reliant as I can.
lisar replied:
I dont blame bush for the mistakes at all, and I dont blame Obama either. But I do think it is Obama's mess to clean up and he isnt doing a good job at it so far. The economy done this over spending done this, the banks done this by funding to much money to people who couldnt afford it to begin with. I dont blame it all on the presidents.
coasterqueen replied:
Now I didn't blame Bush for what happened in Bush's administration. I blame him for trying to push through a ridiculous bill that is bringing down the stock market confidence as well as consumer confidence. Those who deal in the stock market know full well this is a spending bill and isn't going to help the economy like it's supposed to. It could be my father as president and if he was doing what Obama was I'd still be mad. It's not a Bush/Obama thing like everyone who hates Bush likes to make it out to be.
boyohboyohboy replied:
Lisa, do you think then that there is just so much blame to go around that the only way out is to just let the entire thing collapse and then start over?
do you think fixing it is just like putting gum in the cracks of a ready to crumble dam? I am starting to feel just that way.
coasterqueen replied:
And quite frankly why would you respond to my remark and not to the initial post? It's not a bashing Obama, bashing Bush thing. I fully admit Bush made his fair share of mistakes, I just didn't feel the need to post it here because I'm sick of everyone saying "it's not his fault, it's the past person's fault". It doesn't matter WHO's fault it is. If you are in charge, fix it! Can you tell me how this bill is going to fix it? How many times has this very same approach worked in the past? NONE.
jcc64 replied: Newsflash: Obama's been in office 44 days. Are you suggesting this mess is his fault, or maybe, just maybe, was he handed a huge bag of leftover sh*# from the last administration? The pork laden bill to which you refer was constructed BEFORE he was in office, and you can thank Congress, not Obama, for that one. I don't think we should be spending money on stupid stuff right now either, but I don't consider education, health care, or the environment stupid stuff. Some of the more frivolous pork, which I'm sure you can hear all about on Fox News (that one's for you, Karen  ) is inappropriate and unnecessary, and hopefully that will get excised out on the floor.
Wall St is acting like a hopelessly spoiled child whose parents suddenly decided to enact some discipline. No, you can't have your $50 million bonuses even after driving your companies and shareholders into the ground, no you can't continue to take limos and private jets everywhere on our dime, no you can't play your shell games anymore while everyone's life-savings go down the toilet. No, no, no. And like any spoiled child, learning to live by the rules is a tough pill to swallow when you're used to doing whatever you want to, regardless of the cost to everyone around you. Too bad Wall St doesn't like Obama. The completely unrestrained greedy free market got us into this mess, and now he's trying to get us all out. Maybe he will, and maybe he can't, but I honestly don't know how people can lay this at Obama's feet. All of sudden the Republicans are trying to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, hoping no one will notice that they inherited a surplus after Clinton's administration and in 8 yrs managed to turn into a staggering, insurmountable deficit. And all the noise about spending money when we don't have it, no one seemed to blink when Bush decided to wage 2 wars on the country's credit card, while simultaneously cutting taxes. Did anyone ask how THAT was getting paid for? Did all the money that we spent and are still spending in Iraq improve your lives or financial well-being in any way? Did it make your kids' schools better? Did it make health care affordable or more efficient? No, but we all still had to pay for it, and will continue to do so for generations. So, if it was ok to spend TRILLIONS over there, when it benefited no one here in any appreciable way, I think we can spend some money on our own people , trying to clean up the mess we made HERE.
jcc64 replied: Sorry Karen, I stepped away from the computer in the middle of writing my previous post and didn't see your most recent posts.
In response to not wanting it to become a Bush v Obama thing, and just wanting Obama to "fix" this catastrophe, he's only been in office since Jan 20. He's not a magician. How quickly do you expect to see results? It's kind of like asking someone to do a quick U-turn with the Titanic. It's a big mess with lots of moving parts, and gov't is not known for being light and nimble. It's gonna take time, and we all need to be patient and think LONG TERM. This isn't gonna go away overnight, no matter who is at the helm. Give him some room.
coasterqueen replied:
You are right, it's "supposedly" (and I truly don't believe it for what it's worth) that it's left over from last Congress.....but guess what that's congress, not Bush. The Dems are so hot and heavy being in control and a dem president that they've pushed this thing through faster than if repubs were in control, and of course it would be the same if the tables were turned. But for someone to blame Bush for this is confusing to me. He didn't have this bill sitting in front of him to sign it - so it's not his fault. It's a democratically controlled congress Now if Obama vetos this bill I will think highly of him. If he doesn't he just lied to every American citizen. Why? Because he campaigned on getting rid of pork. Now Repubs are pushing the pork just as much as dems but Obama said he was going to get rid of that and I'm not gonna see that done if he doesn't veto this bill. No matter how much help we need he needs to veto this thing. IF the Dems and Repubs are so concerned with our economy and helping us out then pass a bill without all the pork! I mean, 10 million to a company who is being investigated by the feds and is in a LOT of legal trouble? Come on - seriously. There is a spending spree going on in this bill and honestly it isn't to help us. It's to help their own agenda - Dems and Repubs alike.
coasterqueen replied:
See my below response. IF he VETOS this bill, I'll give him some credit. If he doesn't he's nothing but someone who fed everyone (not me because I didn't believe it, lol) LIES about getting rid of corruption, pork, etc, etc. Course he's done that in many ways with several of his appointments.
Crystalina replied: I like too many people on this board to get too deep into this.  
BUT...Most of the pork in this package was there before Obama ever came into office. People think that just because it passed after Obama became pres. that it's all his doing. NOT.
AND...for him to get any of the money out he had to pass the ENTIRE thing. Pork and all. He can not pick and choose what he wants to go through. Not yet anyway.
And anyone who thinks the "economy will fix itself"...  Really now.
Also, I didn't read anything but the OP so if it seems I'm repeating anyone or jabbing at anyone I reall am not. I'll read when I have more time.
coasterqueen replied:
Um, yes he can. Veto it send it back and tell them to come up with something without pork. If congress doesn't they can blame Obama, but anyone with any sense of politics would know that congress is to blame. They are trying to screw him with his hands tied and he needs to stand up to them like everyone who voted for him wanted him to do. Not make excuses for him. Didn't he say he was going to get rid of pork? I mean, how did he think he was going to do that without taking a huge stand. He's president for pete sake - grow some balls and stand up to them.
Crystalina replied:
I do agree that he needs to get rid of Nancy P. and Joe B.
lisar replied:
I dont blame either one of them like I said before. I wasnt a bush fan and I am not an obama fan either. I dont think mccain would have done better either personally. When I voted I voted for the best of 2 evils the way I seen it.
I also dont follow the stock market as close as some on here, so I am sure there are people on here who know more about it than me. I blame alot of it on congress they are the ones that add alot of the junk of these bills. Obama could deny it, but past presidents dont so I will give him his fair shot to see what he does but he is allowing all of this crap to be in the bill.
I agree with most of what has been said on this post.
lisar replied:
Maybe? I dont know really. If I knew how to fix it I would voice it. But I dont. I did study history though recently and we did read on the last economic crash. But that was many, many years ago so I dont know if that would work in todays economy.
MommyToAshley replied:
Yes, it was drafted before he took office as some of those earmarks even have his name one it. But, as President, he has the opportunity to do the right thing and veto the bill and help draft one without all those earmarks.
McCain and Feingold, from two different parties, came together to come up with a bill to stop the frivoluos spending, and senators on both sides of the line are complaining that they don't want this. So, I think we need to take their lead and quit blaming each other and really take a look at the path we are headed on. It's scary.
We made the mistake with the first bail-out and we just keep handing out billions like it is nothing to these companies that "are too large to fail". We should have let them fail.. our economy would not have collapsed and I don't think we'd be as bad off as we are right now. There are so many stories of people losing their jobs, going back to school, finding a better career or starting their own business.... that's what I thought our country was built on, that you reap the rewards of your efforts. It sucks to have to start over, but we can do it. It just doesn't make sense to keep bailing out the same companies and banks that have the same practices they always have had. Each day we are taking more and more steps away from our capitalistic economy and moving more towards socialism.
lovemy2 replied: Simply put our kids pick up the tab and their kids keep picking up the tab and if we are lucky their kids kids will finish paying it off in their lifetime -
Its a sad and scary thing - and I just can't help but wonder where will it end and at what point does it turn around....and will we actually see it turn around or will it be so slow that we won't notice....?
lisar replied:
lovemy2 replied:
You really shouldn't pull it out - keep putting it in at this point - you are not near retirement age nor are your kids near college age (although they are closer to college than you are retirement) now is a GREAT time for people our age to be putting into the market - its called dollar cost averaging - you are buying MORE with your money right now in the market so when (and I agree I do pray there is a when) the market swings you will be much farther ahead than those who pulled out or stopped putting into retirement if that makes any sense -
lisar replied:
He still contributes to it all. We just put it all in a lower risk one.
jcc64 replied: As long as we're all soul-searching (and we should be) I think we need to consider the following:
I think we need to take a hard look at the wisdom and policies behind the fact that they were ABLE to get so big. And you can't do that without examining our relationship to the notion of deregulation. The stimulus package and Obama have nothing at all to do with that, but until we look closely at the conditions and ideology that created these catastrophic conditions, we're not going to get very far.
The pork may be infuriating, but it's not at the heart of what took us down in the first place.
My2Beauties replied:
Because just like you're wondering why everyone is so quick to blame Bush I'm wondering why you came in patronizing Obama, like Jeanne said he's been in office 44 days, he can't pull rabbits out of his hat.
jcc64 replied: On the front page of today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/business...ner=rss&emc=rss
None of this mess has anything to do with excessive pork, which as Karen pointed out, is very much a bipartisan addiction. Which prompts me to ask: Why are Obama's the only feet you're holding to the fire? Why not the people who included it the first place? If someone commits a crime, the blame rests with the perpetrator himself, not the cops who may or may not catch him.
lovemy2 replied:
luvmykids replied:
Very, very well said Dee Dee.
And for the mass of folks who want to blame Bush, is it really his fault people lived so excessively beyond their means for so long? I can't tell you how many people I know who enjoyed the vacations, new cars every few years, much more expensive house than they could ever legitimately afford,  Even if Bush was behind the lenient lending (which actually starting during Clinton's run), is it his fault people got reckless?
I'm not making it a Bush vs Obama thing, I really don't give a crap whose fault it is and personally would like the government to stay out of it, let the chips fall, and go forward from there.
Danalana replied:
Very well said!
coasterqueen replied:
I don't think I ever said the Obama is the only one to blame, really he isn't to blame for what has happened as Jeanne and others have pointed out that he's only been in office for 44 days. I only put Obama to blame if he passes this bill. I only point out Obama because he's done nothing but campaign that HE is going to turn around America because Bush is the one that messed it up. I think he's put a lot of blame on Bush alone. He's put the blame on companies as well, but his whole campaign was what Bush did, and how it was all wrong. I only expect Obama to turn this country around like HE SAID he would. I didn't blame the pork. Or at least that is not the point I was trying to get across. I am focusing on him campaigning that HE will turn this around. Pork bills aren't going to do it. And if we held all the people responsible in the first place we would not have bailed them out. Which I was against in the first place no matter WHO was the one to do it.
Danalana replied: *sigh* It doesn't matter if Obama outright screws something up...the people who backed him will never say that he screwed it up, because "it all started with Bush". Never mind that things were already headed to a dangerous place before Bush got there. I'll never say that Bush didn't make mistakes, and you can bet those who didn't vote for him were there to critique every single one. It wouldn't matter if he had been in office for 5 days. Why does special grace and consideration have to be extended to Obama, when it was never done for the former president?
That said, I don't pretend to know anything about this pork thing yall are talking about. I do pray that it is the right choice, if he does pass the bill, just like I pray that he vetoes it if it is not. I DO want him to succeed, whether I voted for him or not. I just wonder if he will EVER be held accountable for anything, or if Bush will be his scapegoat forever.
Like I said, I don't know about pork, but I do remember a lot of promises and talk about stopping all the spending...and we are spending left and right.
MommyToAshley replied: I didn't weigh in on the stock market earlier, but I have to agree with Karen that the stock market does tie directly into whatever is happening at the moment and can be easily tracked:
--On January 20th, when Obama was sworn in as president, The DJIA dropped 332 points (4.0%) to 7949
--Then market then stabilized at around 8100 for a few weeks, The Market rose a bit in expectation of Treasury Secretary Geithner's unveiling of the financial sector rescue plan.
-- Secretary Geithner unveiled his vague and undetailed plan. Within an hour the stock market dove 250 points (3.0%), and closed down 381 points (4.6%)
-- The markets then made some small gains until the day the president signed the stimulus package on Feb 17th... the markets dove 297 points (3.8%)
-- Prior to the State of the Union Address, the stock market showed gains. On Tuesday, February 24th, Obama confirmed increased deficit spending, increased taxes, etc -- The market started sliding... and continue to slide for four trading days for a total loss of 588 points (7.99%)
etc, etc, etc. You can see the affect of every announcement on the stock market almost immediately. It does appear that Wall Street doesn't have much confidence in Obama right now. I'm not saying that a President should lead by trying to please wall street. But, the market is a direct reflection of what is happening now. It's probably one of the only economic indicators that isn't delayed. (You can go back and track when Bush made the announcements about the bail-outs too... you can see the affects on the market are immediate)
luvmykids replied:
And that goes waaaay back too, when Kennedy was shot, the market dropped...etc. It's a pretty reliable indicator of how our country feels as a whole.
Cece00 replied:
I agree.
I dont think the economy is the fault of just Bush or just Obama or just Congress. Its EVERYONE's mess, everyone helped create it.
Without going into it too much- right now, government is the problem, not the solution. I favor them stepping back a good bit and seeing what happens. I DONT think throwing money at all of these problems is the right answer. I'm sick of all the money flying out the window.
You cant put a bandaid on a gunshot wound and hope that is going to fix it.
Cece00 replied:
Agreed.
I dont think the stock market is responding solely to Obama.
At this point, I think it will respond negatively to quite a lot of things going on, not just whatever Obama happens to be doing on a day to day basis.
jcc64 replied:
You've got to be kidding me! His entire presidency, post 9-11, was one big free pass up until the economy tanked. How else do you get to start a unjustifiable war that cost TRILLIONS and have no one blink an eye?? No one called him out on anything, and the few who dared were accused of being unpatriotic, or had their phones/computers were wiretapped.
Danalana replied: I don't know where you live, but around here, people tend to speak their minds. No matter what Bush was doing, they would criticize it. I heard a lot of criticizing in the media too. But you know, it really happens with whoever happens to be president (usually), because people around here (where I live) could do a MUCH better job than the president. You know, since hindsight is 20/20.
Jeanne, I understand the point you are making, but I never saw it the way you are saying it happened. There might have been a little bit of time when people didn't have their underwear in a wad, but that was during the time we were trying to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack. LOADS of people didn't wanna give him a chance from day one. I, personally, don't want to see any president fail...I don't know why anybody would. I'm not sitting back, hoping/waiting for him to fail. I just doubt it would be portrayed as his failure. After all, he has to clean up "the mess" Bush (all by himself!) made.
jcc64 replied: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/...rage/index.html
Raises the very same issues being discussed on this thread.
MommyToAshley replied: I understand that Obama hasn't been in office for long, but I have a question and I don't want this to come across as being sarcastic or cynical because that is not how I mean it to come across. When will Obama be held accountable for the economy? In a few months? 6 months? Two years? Four years? What if the economy starts to make a come back next month, is that attributed to Obama? What if it starts to tank in one month, is that contributed to Obama?
For the record, I want to see Obama succeed for more than one reason. The main reason is that I am American first and always want what is best for our country. Secondly, I am really pulling for our first African-American President to have a successful term in the history books. With that said, I was hoping that the stimulus package would not have been passed as it was, and I don't like the housing package either. I really hope that he goes back to some of the things he campaigned on... starting with personal responsibility and I hope he vetoes this legislation with all the earmarks. He has already gone back on several promises made during his campaign, all things that I really liked when I heard them on the campaign trail. He was elected on one platform but leading based on another. I don't know if it's that he truly believed what he was saying when he campaigned but then discovered that he is more under control of the democratic party than he'd like to admit and it is politics as usual, or if when he campaigned he just said what people want to hear to get elected but this is where his true beliefs are? I think he is realizing that there are some pretty strong political ties that he can't escape because he was pretty believable on the campaign trail.
boyohboyohboy replied: I am sure that this might not be what anyone wants to agree with me on..but that said..
my opinion is that Obama went into office with a very naive idea of politics..I realize he was in the senate, but he had these ideas that are great and wants to fix what is wrong with the world..but he hadnt been around long enough to make his ties in the government and we all know that the ear marks are favors for things that get done here and there..people ask for favors and laws are passed..
he might have had all the best intentions when he went in..but I think he is starting to see that its going to a harder fight then he thought. I dont hold that against him. I think he really does want to make things better, whether his idea of better agrees with mine, or the rest of the world remains to be seen..
but I honestly do think he is not really going to be able to keep his promises because thats just not how government works..right or wrong..this is just how things get done..sure I wish someone could change that..but he just has such an uphill battle..
luvmykids replied:
I very much agree, I don't think much of his campaign is realistic given how politics works
jcc64 replied: I think you both make good points, Stacy and Dee Dee. I can't answer the question about when WILL it be acceptable to hold Obama accountable, I don't know the answer to that except to say that the scope and magnitude of our problems are so vast, that I can't see how any reasonable person can expect him to make a dent for quite some time. I specifically recall him saying during the campaign that he wasn't even sure these problems could be completely wiped out during his tenure in office. That's scary, but I think it was an accurate assessment. These are crazy times, it's a whole new world, and we can't keep looking at historical precedent to know how and when we're gonna get out of this mess.
MommyToAshley replied: I also don't think we can keep spending money and raising taxes. Eventually even the middle class is going to have to pay higher taxes, there is no other way to pay for this kind of reckless spending. If we keep taking from those working and giving to those not working, it won't matter how many jobs are created, logic tells you that there are going to be a lot less people working. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for extended unemployment benefits at difficult times. But, I do think that there needs to be some responsibility along with those unemployment benefits, and I certainly don't understand the wasteful, ridiculous govt spending (like studying pig odor) that is going to raise my taxes.
luvmykids replied: I heard something this morning on the radio about ANOTHER stimulus package....can someone please, please tell me it was a joke?
boyohboyohboy replied:
nope, not a joke.
there is another 400+ billion dollar package coming about that they say is over half full of ear marks.
Lately its so hard to keep up because some of this money is called stimulis packages, then there are just plain large sums going for this cause or that cause..I think the idea is starting to be that unless you get out pen and paper there is no way to keep track of all the spending that is going on.
I thought originally they said that the first large package we sent out, was just about more then we could ever hope to spend or pay back..it was almost one trillion..now since then there has been so much more handed out..that doesnt make sense to me..
they gave 900 billion to gaza to "fix the damage" that isreal did to them..now that alone is almost another trillion...and then this new package...
it just keeps coming..
I was watching an economist say last night, that this economy hasnt even tanked yet, and that its going to really get much worse and that the end isnt going to be seen until at least 2012.
coasterqueen replied:
Not only that but billions of dollars we've already given to companies like GM, who may just file Chapter 11 ("go through the car wash", well then that's billions of dollars GONE that we as taxpayers will never get back. They should have never given them the money in the first place. They'll come out of this ahead and be able to start back over again and our money is G O N E. Course I'm not an optimist though, so I figured we'd never see any of the money we've given to any of the companies.
jcc64 replied:
Like what, exactly, Dee Dee? I collected unemployment benefits while retraining for a new career to replace the one that is now relocated to cheap textile mills in China. I reported to them every week, answered the same questions, documented every move I made in triplicate, kept my "training" grades at a perfect 4.0, never missed a class, which was also required to be documented. What else should I have been required to do? Should I have reported every time I went to the bathroom as well? I detect a hint of blame in your suggestion, as in, maybe we unemployed people aren't trying hard enough. But short of manufacturing a job out of thin air, I'm not sure what people can do to satisfy this criteria.
And people's taxes ARE NOT being raised, unless they are in the upper income brackets (above $250,000) in which case they are simply being asked to return to the tax rates before Bush came into office and declared 8 yrs of Christmas for them. Trickle down got us here, it's time to try something else.
coasterqueen replied:
I can't speak for Dee Dee, but my mother was unemployed for over 2 years, until just recently. Sure she had a temp job here and there and got a Christmas Target job, but that's about it. She was only required to put out so many resumes during her unemployment, that's the only requirement she at least mentioned to me. She complained 24/7 about not having income and maybe losing this or that. IMO, me, personally, if I was afraid of losing things, worried about my income, I'd go get ANY job - even McDonalds until I found a full time "career" job.
I have a friend who's been out of work since before 2000. He says he puts out resumes left and right, but did he ever just go get any job to bring in income? No. He just collected his unemployment until it ran out and sent out resumes.
I'm not saying that is what you or anyone else should do. I'm saying in my own PERSONAL experiences with close friends/relatives that IMO they could have gotten ANY job until they found full time career ones and not lived off of the government. I feel my mother and friend just felt it was below them to do such things after having careers. I just know my husband and I would take any job we had to if needed before living off of the government for an extended period of time.
Again, PLEASE do not take what I'm saying about my personal situations against you, because they are not. AND I have to leave for the day so you can flame me and well...I won't be able to respond. 
coasterqueen replied: So I guess IF the requirements aren't tighter, I think they need to be. I'm not sure if they are different from state to state or what.?
Ok, now I'm really late for my event. 
luvmykids replied:
That is one of my big beefs, we're giving out money to companies that have been in trouble for YEARS and now at the most dire of times, we give them more instead of cutting them loose. I understand that GM going under affects jobs and unemployment, etc....but when are we going to say ENOUGH?
Obama campaigned quite a bit on cutting spending and even fairly recently said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term....I shouldn't be suprised at any politician who doesn't live up to their campaign but with all the Obama fanatics who were so smitten I kind of thought maybe they were seeing something I didn't. Guess not.
lisar replied:
I am not saying this against you so dont take it that way.
I have about 40 guys that we had to lay off that are on unemployment and not a one of them look for a job. They just live on it. When they get the next check they have to fill out a form that ask 3 questions
1. Have you looked for a job?
2. Were you able to work if a job had been provided to you?
3. Did you earn any money other than unemployment?
Thats it, thats all they ask. I know this because I fill out the papers for half of them every 2 weeks.
And thats here, it might be diffrent where you are at, but 90% of the people I know have taken advantage over it.
lisar replied:
And I have to agree, I think the ones that are on un-employment should have to have something filled out by every person they apply to for a job. They should have to have atleast 5 filled out a week or something. To prove that they are looking for a job. They have nothing else to do. Or some kind of schooling. They should have to go to the day labor place everyday and hope they get picked and if they dont then thats fine, go look for a job. My unemployment rates have gone thru the roof.
jcc64 replied: It is a state to state thing, Karen. I think it's inherently dangerous to apply personal experiences to a global ideology--your mother and friend were not ambitious or industrious or whatever, so therefore, everyone who is unemployed must be lazily sucking off the state. I don't believe working at McDonald's is "beneath me"; however, taking a low wage service job simply to avoid accepting unemployment while retraining for a higher-paying job is nothing more than treading water. All of my time would be consumed making a non-living wage, which would necessitate amassing a mountain of credit card debt to pay my bills (not buy "stuff" but pay my heating bills, or should I go without that, too?), and preventing me from participating meaningfully in my own recovery, as well as that of the economy. Society benefits from every worker optimizing his potential, education, and earnings ability. I don't think shuffling everyone into low wage service jobs is going to help this country recover economically. If you have an education, or are able to access one, that benefits everyone in the long run. Or are you suggesting that my layoff should consign me to misery and poverty for the rest of my life--that I am not entitled to start over?
I hope and pray you never lose your job and find yourself at the other end of other people's punishing judgments.
jcc64 replied:
They do, here in NY. I don't know what it's like where you live.
lisar replied:
My view and I cant speak for Karen, but I think you are taking it personally and she wasnt pointing you out like I think your taking it.
boyohboyohboy replied: I have to agree, that while my husband was on unemployment, he had no real marketable skills..he had been a truck driver since he left college. so he could have went to work at mc donalds, but that wouldnt have paid the bills. He collected unemployment and went to hand out resumes daily, he was never just home sitting..he was up all night searching on line news papers for job ads.
he posted ads offering to do work..
but there was nothing for his type of skills. our unemployment didnt offer training. he wanted to go to school. to do anything but it just wasnt offered.
I think it would be wonderful if the government took on the cost of education for these people that have no other option now for work..pay their way thru school..and then give them a cut off date or an amount and then when they can get a job in that field make them pay that money back..
there are a lot of people who were making 6 figures that now have the house and the cars and the debt that cant go work at mcdonalds during the day and walmart at night to keep things a float..and why should they have to let their life styles go? They are in debt too, they were making ends meet most of them, but just meet..do I think I should have to pay for someone to live in a multimillion dollar home? no..but give them a chance to better themselves..
frankly even the mcdonalds jobs are drying up here.
the small malls, are gone. the stores down town closed...
there are not that many minimum jobs left here to get..
I think there are people who do take advantage of the unemployment system, its broken..it needs fixed like so many of the other programs..this is the time to overhaul them like Obama promised he was going to do...line by line..I think is how he put it.
MommyToAshley replied:
I did not mean to offend you, as I admire you and what you are doing in your current situation and you are the poster person for personal responsibility. I think there needs to be even more resources available to people like you.
I know there will always be people who take advantage of the situation. But, if we are going to give money to people, then there needs to be some accountability that goes along with it. I have a friend that was laid off from work and he told me that he would rather draw unemployment than get called back to work because the unemployment was the same amount he was making at work at the time (they downsized everyone's hours and his benefits were based on his full time work week). There are hundreds of stories of people being laid off work and needing unemployment. Unfortunately many like my friend are not being personally responsible, and I think he should have to meet certain requirements to receive the benefits. Unemployment benefits should be more than just throwing money at someone, it should be a way to help the person to be self-sufficient again. I think along with the money, there needs to be job training, education, child care, counseling, etc. For those like you and many others that are being responsible, those same criteria would only help you further in your cause to learn a new trade and reenter the job force.
But, my comments were not just about unemployment. I see that as a necessity right now. It's more about the general way of thinking and solving problems that is going on right now. I am talking about everything from giving a tax refund to those that don't even pay taxes, to this housing bill that rewards those who made bad decisions and lived beyond their means, to legislation filled with ridiculous earmarks that is going to pass because we can blame it on the past administration, to the fact that we keep bailing out the same large companies that make the same bad decisions over and over again. There has to come a time when people are responsible for their actions. If we keep taking from those that are responsible and rewarding those that are not, then I fear what is to come.
I tell my daughter every day that she is responsible for HER own actions, why should that change when she grows up?
boyohboyohboy replied: It must be a state thing but our unemployment was only a third of what we made..and so we had to take on more part time work, well I did while dh looked for work.
also it ended in 13 months..so he was on it 9 months before something came thru..but now that this job is looking uncertain dh says that because he used up most of his time for this year that he only has the remainder of those 4 months left..so unemployment wouldnt help us now...
I dont see how people can take advantage of the system.
when its gone, its gone.
MommyToAshley replied:
It must be different in each state. My friend's pay was 80% of his pay, and since his workplace went down to four day work weeks, it ended up being the same as his pay would have been had he stayed at work. I know they just extended the unemployment benefits, but I don't know how long. Again, I am not against people receiving unemployment benefits, I just think that it needs to be more than money. I think career counseling, or even counseling in general would be helpful to so many because I know some that take it hard and become depressed and just give up. I know many that would go back to school if they could afford it, but it is a matter of making it a priority and doing what it takes to make it happen. I don't think taking a job at McDonald's for the long term is the answer, but I did it to pay my way through college so I don't think it should be knocked either.
My2Beauties replied: Kentucky's max payout for unemployment is only like $355 per week or something of that nature, which is nothing. The railroad unemployment is even lower than that, a whopping $305 each week. What do you guys suggest the guys who are temporarily laid off do? They are waiting on their call backs and are just stuck in limbo? Brian has looked everywhere and not one place will pay our bills, I'd rather him get unemployment and work on the side for cash he makes more $$ that way. I'm sorry but Karen, if I was laid off from my job, I'd make less at McD's then I would on unemployment so there is no way in H-E double heck I'd take a job at McD's and make less $$, that makes no sense. I'd rather draw $355 a week than $262 per week (gross mind you) at least the $355 is net. $262 is pushing it, I figured that up at $6.55 per hour which is minimum wage here. On July 1 minimumw age goes up to $7.25 which is still only $290 per period and it's taxed. Nope, wouldn't do it. I don't mean to be blunt and by no means am I trying to be rude but I'd rather have the extra $$.
lisar replied:
Here where I am McDonalds starts you out at 9 bucks an hour. Thats more than some secretary jobs.
And as for getting unepmloyment and working on the side, I know lots of people of doing that.
MommyToAshley replied:
I personally would start looking into another career. Didn't you say that he really enjoys construction work too?
This reminds me of the phone book thread we had. There were only a handful of people here that still used the phonebook. Most stated that they are now using electronic resources. Our kids' generation don't even know what the phone book is! Therefore, it is easy to conclude that those working for the phone company making phone books, selling advertising for the phone book, etc will eventually be out of work. When this happens, it wouldn't make much sense to continue looking for a job in the phone book industry. Wouldn't it make more sense to go back to school or learn a new trade.
Where the government needs to step up is in situations like Jeanne is facing in the textile industry where jobs are being sent overseas because it is cheaper. I see this a lot in support and technical industries as well. If human rights and environmental laws weren't being abused, I wouldn't have a problem with outsourcing to other countries. But, it is not a level playing field and there is no way our labor force can compete. That's why I loved Obama's campaign promise to give a $3000 tax credit to companies for EVERY job they created or kept here in the US. It rewards companies for doing the right thing. But, that is one of the first promises that went out the window.
Kaitlin'smom replied:
well I would like to know how he got 80% of his pay as we could really use that, heck that would have been more than what we needed and DH coudl have gone to school with the extra. he is only getting 50% of what he was making. he had put out so many applications and resumes I cant even count. he cant take less than a certain ammount for a day job or we woudl be worse off due to having to put kaitlin back into some type of child care. So a job like McD is out right now. We have talked about the possibility of he might have to take something at nights and weekends which woudl suck for our family but he will do it if needed. However even finding those job right now is extremily difficult. ON of our friends son has been out just about the same lenght as DH and he has littlery applieve everywhere he can and NOTHING he cant even get part time work. Its a really tough market. He is still looking for something in he field, but nothing is hopeful.
MommyToAshley replied:
I don't know the details, all I know is what he said about being able to make just as much on unemployment.
I know what you mean, it is a really tough market right now. I was watching the national news channel and they had a story from a school in Sydney Ohio where over 700 people applied for a single janitor position. Under normal circumstances, they'd probably get a handful of applications.
On the flip side, I was also reading the WSU alumni newsletter, and Wright Patt is about to get a big contract in which there will be a ton of civil service jobs available for technical and medical feilds. They are even giving special scholarships for students who major in these fields to prepare the workforce... so, I would tell your DH to keep an eye on WP and try to get his foot in the door now.
Kaitlin'smom replied:
he has appiled to many there and most of the positions even though they are civil service you have to have clearance, to which they are no longer paying for, so if you dont have it they move on looking for someone who does. Our neighbor just finally got a job there it took him months and he has the clearance and is retired military!
I will tell him though and He will keep appling to what ever he can find....and hopefuly he will get something before unemployement runs out.
TrulyBlessed replied:
I am from Michigan and I see what this state and what the people are going through with the automotive crisis. It is devestating. I loss my job in the automotive and I only pray that my husband and other family members make it through. But I have to agree if the company can not stay afloat with the bailout moeny, then they need to let them go under, same with the banks.
TrulyBlessed replied: I don't think some people realize how hard jobs are to come by right now. It's even hard to get a job at McDonald's. A local company just posted a job for a janitor position starting at minimum wage and had over 400 applicants the first day.
Also, I don't think someone on unemployment should have to take a job that is less than the unemployment amount. They have already lost a lot of their income and that is what the unemployment is there for to cushion them and help them to find a job in the same pay range. Please remember that the people on unemployment have paid into unemployment just like everyone else, so why can't they have some of their money back?
It's really hard to voice an opinion on the matter if you have not lost your job during this economic crisis. I don't think people realize how hard it is out there to get a job.
Michigan's max unemployment is $360 per week, which you may only bring home $310.00. Examine your household and say if you could keep your home for $1,240.00 per month? Also, it's not like they can live off unemployment forever, it runs out after so long, but I understand that it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch. It's just like how some people stereotype people that are on welfare, it only takes one to abuse the system.
coasterqueen replied: Jeanne - 1st off I don't like that you are saying I'm being inherently dangerous lopping people all into the same category about unemployment. I think I specifically stated that my views are based on what is going on in my own state and in my own circle. I also said IF the rules are loose, as I believe they are here then they need to be tightened. Where did I categorize the entire US in the statements I made???????
And for anyone offended by my McDonald's comment, I apologize. BUT I think I was specifically stating what *I* would do and what I know my husband would do if the situation ever happened to us. My husband and I talk about these things all the time because his industry is reliant on state and federal government and things are tight and his employer is laying off people all the time. He could be next. We think all the time what we'd do to make ends meet. We know the lifestyle we live now would not be the lifestyle we'd have to lead if one of us lost our job and had to work at McDonald's. BUT we both we raised in families where we were taught to work 24/7 if we had to to make a living. Whatever you needed to do. We were taught the government did not bear our children and therefore they should not have to pay for them. We were taught so very different than I guess many people on here were taught, so if my views, if my personal beliefs are so far different than yours I apologize for the difference, but I do not apologize for being brought up the way I was or how I intend to bring my children up the same way. My father taught me survival in whatever means is necessary. My parents worked so many jobs at once at times just to make ends meet. I never saw my father, and a lot of times not my mother, but we were provided for. No we didn't have LAVISH items, we had the BARE necessities but we were happy. IF Ryan or I lose our job tomorrow all of our lavish items will go away and we will provide the bare necessities for our family and BE HAPPY. I never once criticized anyone else on here about what their choice would be. I criticized what mine would be and what many I personally know. I am personally ashamed of my mother for collecting unemployment so long and I know my father is equally ashamed of himself for allowing her to. Especially since he brought us up so differently than what he is doing now. I don't even know their reasoning, because I know they could have survived without unemployment if they really had to. So my upbringing, my thoughts, my views, might be contradictory to what has happened in my family's life the past two years, but I still feel the way I was raised to be true. I don't expect anyone on here to understand my views, agree with my views, etc, but I will be forever confused as to why people would take offense to MY views - be comfortable with your own, as I am with mine and there is no reason to take offense.
coasterqueen replied:
Very well said, Dee Dee.
coasterqueen replied:
I do not disagree with unemployment or anyone using it. I disagree with some of the rules they have with unemployment, as far as what you should be doing while on it, etc. And sure, it might be strict in other states, I was specifically speaking of my own area, the rules I see in my state. Being that it's a state to state thing, I am really confused why so many people on this thread are thinking I'm basing it on their state or their area or their experiences.  I know there are hard working people who have lost their jobs and TRULY are using unemployment wisely and sincerely looking for jobs, just as I believe in welfare for those who truly need it. I am just saying there are things about the system that aren't quite right and should be addressed.
Why is it when someone posts a comment in any type of these threads stating that the "systems" should be looked at more, that they are helpful for those truly needed it but there are a lot who take advantage of it - people on this board get all up in arms like I'm lumping the whole universe into one sum. I'm N O T. I'm saying there should be more accountability for those who abuse it. IF for some reason someone gets offensive about me stating that then well, I'm sorry, but look at why you would be? Why would you be offensive about me stating some take advantage of it. Did I say YOU (not anyone in particular) are abusing it? NO. I said some do, plain and simple. Stop taking offense to something that I'm not directing at You (anyone in particular who might be taking offense).
My2Beauties replied:
But you pay into unemployment...I don't understand why you think you're living off the government when you paid into it, it's like your 401k almost if you will 
My2Beauties replied:
Why look into another career? With gas prices the way they are, people are using the railroad more actually it's just they're in a slow period right now and cutting a lot of the two-man jobs down to one man so that is why he is laid off, they'll be called back, even if it's a year from now. Brian is doing construction on the side but construction is back-breaking work, they offer little or no insurance when you work for one full time, they offer no type of retirement, etc...it's not a good career choice, he'd be going backwards instead of forwards IMHO if he did that. I mean at least the companies in this area are like that. He isn't into BIG construction like skyscrapers or large building construction, he does more home improvement, roofing small commercial buildings and/or houses, etc...he doesn't have the stomach to do a large building. He gets leary on a 3-story house 
coasterqueen replied:
Please look at the rest of my posts and you will understand that I KNOW that I pay into unemployment and I know it's beneficial and don't see anything wrong with it temporarily, it's long term that I do. It's the rules in MY state, my area that I have a problem with.
coasterqueen replied:
He could look into construction management, though, with a little schooling if he doesn't already have it. There isn't anything to "stomach" there and the pay and benefits can often times be great. There are many careers in this field that do have benefits and pay well.
coasterqueen replied:
Does Brian work for Amtrak? Or the railroad in the sense of hauling stuff,cargo,etc?
MommyToAshley replied:
I'm sorry, I got from your post that he is often laid off and may not be called back. And, I didn't mean to imply what career he should pursue, I was just making a suggestion to the question/statement you made about "what are railroad workers supposed to do". I hope he gets called back soon, as I hope everyone that has lost their job is able to find something soon. Times are getting tougher, I really hope things turn around soon.
cameragirl21 replied: I personally see nothing wrong with collecting unemployment...there are way too many people here in south florida losing their homes and while I readily admit that it's largely their own fault for buying way more house than they could afford, I don't think their kids should have to suffer for it. We all pay into unemployment and it's there for the taking when anyone needs it. To me it's no different than expecting your insurance company to pay for your car or house when there is an accident of some sort...that is what you pay into insurance for.
As for Obama, I think he's doing the best he can under the very unfortunate circumstances he inherited. If he had inherited what Clinton left behind, I'm sure his job would be a lot easier. I don't fault Bush entirely, I believe it's a cycle that has to take its course and I also think that Obama is a bit of a masochist for even wanting this job under these circumstances.
I am neither a fan nor foe of Obama...I voted for him because I preferred him to McCain, or more specifically, to Palin but I can't see he would have been my first choice of Dem nominees. I support him and believe he'll do good things as he promised to do, to the best of his ability under the current circumstances which are not of his doing.
What I find amusing, though, is that those who completely support Obama see him as some kind of Messiah who will create miracles and make the sea part while those who hate him talk about him as if he sits on the right hand of satan. One thing to bear in mind is that Obama is just a man doing his job the best he can and I think we should at least give him six months before passing any judgments, be they good or bad.
JMO, of course.
My2Beauties replied:
Hauling stuff like cargo, they do mostly cars and things of that nature in this area with Ford being here.
My2Beauties replied:
Thank you I hope he gets a call back sooner rather than later. 
luvmykids replied:
I don't hate him by any means, and don't at all feel like he's the right hand of Satan However, I'm not seeing what he promised as far as spending, CUTTING the deficit, etc....and I didn't believe it in the first place, so I fall more into the category of disgruntled.
And I don't blame him for the situation he came into, but refuse to blame Bush alone, especially when some of the problems that admittedly got worse under Bush did start with Clinton. And along with that, as you said, I think a lot of it is cyclical....when we start having "bubbles" (housing bubbles, dot com bubbles, etc) they're bound to burst by their very nature.
MommyToAshley replied: I don't hate him either. In fact, I had high hopes for him and his administration. I am truley disappointed he didn't stick with the platform on which he ran. I don't care for the direction we are going with the spending, bail-outs, and tax increases.
Danalana replied: I agree DeeDee, though I didn't vote for him. I was strongly opposed to him, but I did hope he would do some of the things he promised.
Jennifer, I understand what you mean about giving him 6 months before we judge anything, but come on. I don't think, in the history of presidents, that has ever happened. The ink doesn't even get dry before people are criticizing every move. I like Bush, but I was ready to see him go because I was tired of hearing people complain. And I knew it would be the same thing when Obama took over. This, my friends, is why I hate politics.
|
