It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Long Term Unemployment at All Time High

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
What concerns me, and what I think would be a better indicator, is just how many families in my area are holding thier own.
I think it's a minority, I really do.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by dawnstar]




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

The numbers they're not so forthcoming with tell the real story. There are a LOT of people out of work in this country, people who never asked for unemployment benefits, people who weren't eligible, people who exhausted their benefits but were unable to find new work. The real number of unemployed people in this country is most likely completely beyond the realm of rational thought... The number of underemployed people is another statistic that gets NO air time, but is in many ways more telling.





Very important point.

...and one of the ways statistics are manipulated. My understanding - only those people actually receiving unemployment insurance are counted as unemployed. ..Every other unemployed person is ignored, or categorized differently.

Also, as you say WO - the underemployed are another travesty altogether.


.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Also, as you say WO - the underemployed are another travesty altogether.


That's really the main thing. Employment statistics, even the actual comprehensive survey data, are misleading.

But when median incomes are down, the people suffer. That's not to say the economy is suffering though. All kinds of indicators to economic growth can be pointed to, while having absolutely nothing to do with people (aside from a select few). Sometimes the economy and it's "subjects" are even in direct opposition. Unless you buy that trickle down stuff.

I'm a big believer in percolate up theory. When I do well, my employer does better, the community improves, the economy does even better, the government is solvent, then the economy is booming (as money flows, not consolidates) and everyone wins.

I don't put much stock in the "kindness of affluent strangers" that is the "trickle down" reward theory. And I'm sticking to that until Paris Hilton moves to East Bamboozle, NC and opens a factory.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I am amazed sometimes to read replies by some of those here. By my best estimate these people would love to see the government and the military take over every single job and position in the US. That can only be the result.

Take money away from everywhere else and spend it ALL on the military.

Small businesses should be incorporated into the military. Large corporations should be governed under total military rule. You either work for the military, in the miiltary or support the military under their rule.

That sounds like a very scary place to live. I was in the military (US Navy). I was a Missile Technician, college educated, with a Top Secret ESI clearance. I had to leave to get away from the sheer stupidity. Any outside thinking was seen as unneccessary and pointless.

I have two degrees, over ten years of experience and still I was laid off in ealry 2001 and didn't find a job that would barely support my family, until September of 2003, on the otherside of the US for $25,000 less than what I was making and about $10,000-$15,000 less than the going rate in this location. This is only available only if my wife works as well because we can't afford for her not to work, and we can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars a month after school care and day care for our daughters without her income ontop.

In the time that I was unemployed I did everything from dig ditches, stand in work lines, work warehouse type packing and loading, and move furniture for a company that sells $10,000+ furniture sets.

It's not the lack of trying from these people on unemployment. Its the lack of jobs that will pay their rent, heat, elec., phone bills. I wasn't the exception I was the norm. I currently know people still unemployed, from the time I was. And these are highly educated highly skilled IT, Sales professionals.

When your highly educated, skilled, with years of experience and it takes over two years and moving across the country and working for tens of thousands less than what you were making in a booming economy just to get by, those in charge sitting back on their tax cuts, tax shlters, fat paychecks have some explaining to do.

It used to be you could rise up from lower class and through hard work and dedication work your way into middle class and eventually upper class. Now however, there isn't the money to offer you the finances to provide for your ability to pay all your bills and attempt to increase your education to get a better job. Our economy sucks now. Those who used to be middle class are now being forced into lower class by the upper class, who want to increase their profits and insure their places of wealth and power.


Phae



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

It's not the lack of trying from these people on unemployment. Its the lack of jobs that will pay their rent, heat, elec., phone bills. I wasn't the exception I was the norm. I currently know people still unemployed, from the time I was. And these are highly educated highly skilled IT, Sales professionals.


If you can't find work in one field, how about you go try another? Honestly, it's not the big bad government's fault you can't find work. It's not even a company's fault. Would you like them to hire you for a job they don't need?


Why is it their job? Because that's what we pay them to do... What a strange question...


No, we do not pay politicians to run the economy. We pay politicians to collect taxes (the closest they should ever get to having a hand in the economy), and run necessary public services.


Do you mean in general or in regards to the unemployment problem facing this country?


It would be nice to hear one of you people give a real solution to all this. How should a politician fix unemployment?


Politicians make the laws that define the economy. How can you say they have "little real impact?"


There are now laws that define the economy. The most the government does it pass useless policy that slows business down. The only thing that comes close is tax policy. It's sure not about to fix your unemployment issues. Unless, you know, we give more of those tax cuts you liberals like to whine about.


In most cases I would agree. The problem is, the government is 'intervening' on its own behalf, and on behalf of the corporations sucking the life from this country like an engorged tick on the of a donkey too complacent to care that it's dying. They're supposed to intervene on our behalf, if they intervene at all. Once again..that's what we pay them to do. They're charged with representing the interests of their constituents, and it's clear to most Americans that they do no such thing.


Nowhere in our constitution does it say the government can control the economy, or must make sure everyone is happy. It states everyone has the equal pursuit of happiness, and they have that.

And quite frankly, all of this government helps big business is false. For instance, the largest of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 5% of this country. He in no way slashed for the top and forgot about the middle and bottom.

The government shouldn't be passing anything besides the bare minimum policy, as well. We should not be restricting governments over the environment. We should not be taxing the people or business to carry out welfare programs that are inefficient and cause more harm to the economy then good. We can talk about something of these, but as it stands now, government programs do not function at the same quality as private charities. It's a waste of money to have most of them unless they are seriously cleaned up.

These policies have proven to be better then socialistic ones. It'd be far better to give up the welfare programs, encourage real charity, where people chose to give, and send it to private groups who handle it more efficiently, and don't spend most on administration costs and other bs.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If you can't find work in one field, how about you go try another?


You seem to have completely missed part of my post.


In the time that I was unemployed I did everything from dig ditches, stand in work lines, work warehouse type packing and loading, and move furniture for a company that sells $10,000+ furniture sets.


HELLO! These jobs do not pay the basic bills. And these jobs do not provide a person the ability to learn another skill so they can pay all their bills and learn a new skill set or get a different degree so they can change job fields.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Honestly, it's not the big bad government's fault you can't find work. It's not even a company's fault. Would you like them to hire you for a job they don't need?


They do NEED these positions they have simply outsourced them to cheaper countries. Over a million jobs have been sent to countries like China, India, Turkey, etc, just since 2001. These are jobs that used to be held by US Citizens. Now these US Citizens are trying to pay thier bills and feed their families, and your response to them is "get a different job, you lazy F&%#!". How kind of you!

Phae



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

They do NEED these positions they have simply outsourced them to cheaper countries. Over a million jobs have been sent to countries like China, India, Turkey, etc, just since 2001. These are jobs that used to be held by US Citizens. Now these US Citizens are trying to pay thier bills and feed their families, and your response to them is "get a different job, you lazy F&%#!". How kind of you!


Most of those jobs are not the kind you'd want to do. Those taking the jobs are doing it at far cheaper costs. In return people get to buy products far cheaper.

You want to get a job? You'd have to be willing to work harder for less. Things like minimum wage don't help the matter.

And once again, what should a politician do? Stop companies from investing overseas? That kind of defeats the purpose of a free market.


HELLO! These jobs do not pay the basic bills. And these jobs do not provide a person the ability to learn another skill so they can pay all their bills and learn a new skill set or get a different degree so they can change job fields.


You're sitting here on a computer. You don't seem to be homeless. Apparently, whatever you're doing DOES pay the bills.

I know people who have worked two low pyaing jobs, and gone to school. It is not impossible.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Most of those jobs are not the kind you'd want to do. Those taking the jobs are doing it at far cheaper costs.

You miss total sections of my post, even though you quoted it. let me repost it for you.

And these are highly educated highly skilled IT, Sales professionals.

These are jobs that US Citizens do want to do. DBA's, Programmers, CS, Manufacturing. These jobs used to pay anywhere from $30-$120K and have been sent overseas for $5-$10k.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
In return people get to buy products far cheaper.


When your unemployed or working those low wage jobs your able to buy what exactly? New clothes for your children to go to school?


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You want to get a job? You'd have to be willing to work harder for less. Things like minimum wage don't help the matter.


How would those at the top feel if you told them that? You have to work harder for less. Put yourself in that position. Take anywhere from 30-50% from your current income and do the math about what you would be able to do.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And once again, what should a politician do? Stop companies from investing overseas? That kind of defeats the purpose of a free market.


True, lets not expect the politicians to help the people, when the corporations are paying them to let them send these jobs overseas so the upper echelon can make more money.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You're sitting here on a computer. You don't seem to be homeless. Apparently, whatever you're doing DOES pay the bills.


Again you missed whole sections of my post.

I have two degrees, over ten years of experience and still I was laid off in ealry 2001 and didn't find a job that would barely support my family, until September of 2003, on the otherside of the US for $25,000 less than what I was making and about $10,000-$15,000 less than the going rate in this location. This is only available only if my wife works as well because we can't afford for her not to work, and we can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars a month after school care and day care for our daughters without her income ontop.

What I'm doing DOESN'T pay the bills. What I and my wife do combined, barely pays the bills. I have two degrees and my wife has one as well. We both have certifications in our respective fields as well. These cost money each year to keep up to date as well.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I know people who have worked two low pyaing jobs, and gone to school. It is not impossible.


Who are these people? Young, single, right out of high school? How about families that the major bread winner was laid off due to having their job outsourced to another country? Becuase like I said.


I wasn't the exception I was the norm. I currently know people still unemployed, from the time I was. And these are highly educated highly skilled IT, Sales professionals.


Phae



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If you can't find work in one field, how about you go try another? Honestly, it's not the big bad government's fault you can't find work. It's not even a company's fault. Would you like them to hire you for a job they don't need?


Hmmm. The only growth industry in America is the prison industry. I guess that's the field you'd have me choose...


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
No, we do not pay politicians to run the economy. We pay politicians to collect taxes (the closest they should ever get to having a hand in the economy), and run necessary public services.


web.ask.com...

That's funny, the budget not only disagrees with you, but it completely destroys whatever credibility you might have ever had..with anyone. The federal government does oh so much more. Maybe they shouldn't, but they DO.

If we pay politicians to collect taxes, they are in the most severe dereliction of duty imaginable..see my next reply. I think we pay politicians to speak for us in the halls of government and fix our problems. In fact, I know so. They don't do that either, but that's what we pay them for.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It would be nice to hear one of you people give a real solution to all this. How should a politician fix unemployment?


You're exempt from coming up with solutions I guess since you can't see the problems. Fair enough. You're off the hook.

How about no tax shelters for international business for starters. That way the United States would collect its fair share in tax revenues from those monolithic ticks. There would be more money flowing into the government than it would even know what to do with, if it actually collected from the 'inner circle' come tax time. That money could be used to build concrete dome housing for people in disaster prone areas, which would cut insurance costs by half annually, stimulating REAL growth in the economy. The money could be used to establish urban argiculture, to wean people off of corporate dependency and increase nutrition, saving hundreds of thousands of lives per year. The money could be used to build an American free use space station/long range habitat ship construction platform. Pick a program that benefits mankind as a whole and you're off!

In general, if you eliminated the tax advantages to being filthy rich, that would probably cut the national debt in half in a matter of maybe two fiscal years. The rich should not be taxed more than the average man, they should be taxed in equal proportion. Just because you made more money doesn't mean you're special. That's not a meritocracy, that's survival of the fattest.

We should be taking 22 billion a year in capital gains from Bill Gates ALONE, assuming he's savvy enough to earn 10% interest on his banked money.


Take the total annual net profit of every corporation that operates in America, slice off 44% and we get to keep that for social programs and not for profit job creation for the benefit of the human race, things like education, art, medicine, industry, energy, space travel - you know, all the things the government does besides collect taxes. They do it to individuals who make 6 figures but not corporations that make 9 figures. Stop that injustice and the problem will begin to dissolve before your very eyes...

Another way to get more jobs would be to encourage responsible forestry and mining. Just because you can't make 30% profit on it doesn't mean it's not worth doing, unless of course you're an international banker.

Stop the old boys club aptmosphere that pervades Washington, get tough on corporate polluters and politically tongue in cheek conflicts of interest. There's your problem solved. Do those things, and Americans will be living in concrete domes eating genetically sprouted Salmon pate for pennies a year, within a year, or your money back. What's your idea?


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There are now laws that define the economy. The most the government does it pass useless policy that slows business down. The only thing that comes close is tax policy. It's sure not about to fix your unemployment issues. Unless, you know, we give more of those tax cuts you liberals like to whine about.


Uhmmm..I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant to say "There are no laws that define the economy." I have one word and I don't think you're going to like it: Tort. You're just wrong about this, the facts say so, I say so, your beloved POTUS says so. A few surgical alterations to the tax policy would fix 'my' employment issue quite nicely.

And as far as I'm concerned, you calling me a liberal is as sure a sign of your ignorance in regards to my principles as if you had called me a hippie or a neo-con or a fascist or a capitalist or any of your other warped, subjective perceptions of the world; as made clear by your posts your perceptions are truly disturbed. Better watch it mister, keep labeling people and one day someone will take that stupid clicky labeling gun away from you and smack you a good one on the forehead... $9.99+Tx


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Nowhere in our constitution does it say the government can control the economy, or must make sure everyone is happy. It states everyone has the equal pursuit of happiness, and they have that.


That's so funny that you bring up the consitution. I'm glad you gave me this opportunity to point something out.
As a constitutional defender, you are considered a potential terrorist by our current government.

www.house.gov...

People have equal chances at happiness? That's not true, and here's why. Survival makes people the happiest, comfort makes people happy too. In a capitalist society you need money to survive, and you need a great deal to be comfortable. People don't have an equal chance at money, unless they like to risk a third of their paycheck on scratch off tickets. None of these problems could be complained about if we had a TRUE Libertarian Meritocracy, because people WOULD be responsible for their own achievments. In our society, pedigree, starting cash, connections, and corporate crime make the playing field so tilted as to render a game of foosball more like a repetetive falling action towards a yawning black mouth.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And quite frankly, all of this government helps big business is false. For instance, the largest of the Bush tax cuts went to the bottom 5% of this country. He in no way slashed for the top and forgot about the middle and bottom.


So few people benefit, and it cost so much money, a conservative should know better. But conservatives aren't conservatives any more. You are supposed to know things like that Mr. Constitutional Defender.

74 million households received less than 100 dollars in tax relief in '04, 50 million received NOTHING, NADDA, ZIP, SQUAT, ZERO. That's 50 million HOUSEHOLDS, not people. 50 Million Households got ZERO. We clear? How does that promote jobs? Explain that to me and I'll nominate you for the nobel prize.

The much hyped small business tax credit;
83% of small businesses got less than a hundred bucks. That was supposed to CREATE JOBS?! How? 100 dollars a year doesn't buy an employee, or even pay more than a two days salary for an existing one. What's your explanation for this?

Meanwhile, capital gains got dropped from 44% in most cases to 15%! He did this because he figured people would invest more in the stock market and that would increase the wealth of the nation by proxy. Let's put aside the facts as to why that won't work, and talk about how bizarre it is that it was attempted, by a self avowed conservative of all people. If you don't realize how ludicrous this is, you don't know the history of the ideology to save your ass.

Why the hell is a Republican politician within ten miles of interacting with STOCK PRICES, trying to manioulate the supposedly free market? It's nowhere near the government's allowed, intended, or requested sphere of authority. The entire party policy did a 180 degree turn, and dove straight down into hell, and apparently the only people who noticed were the ones NOT SUCKLING AT THE BELLY OF THE BEAST.


[edit on 11-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Phaethor

These are jobs that US Citizens do want to do. DBA's, Programmers, CS, Manufacturing. These jobs used to pay anywhere from $30-$120K and have been sent overseas for $5-$10k.


Most of the jobs you talk about are a small portion of the jobs sent overseas.


When your unemployed or working those low wage jobs your able to buy what exactly? New clothes for your children to go to school?


The unemployed are a small part of the population.


How would those at the top feel if you told them that? You have to work harder for less. Put yourself in that position. Take anywhere from 30-50% from your current income and do the math about what you would be able to do.


That's just life. Everyone can not be middle, or upper class. If you want to compete with people in India, you have to be willing to do what they do.


True, lets not expect the politicians to help the people, when the corporations are paying them to let them send these jobs overseas so the upper echelon can make more money.


It is not a politicians place. This country was not founded on the idea of limiting people, but letting them do pretty much whatever as long as it doesn't harm other people. That was what the founding father's wanted.


What I'm doing DOESN'T pay the bills. What I and my wife do combined, barely pays the bills. I have two degrees and my wife has one as well. We both have certifications in our respective fields as well. These cost money each year to keep up to date as well.


This doesn't change anything I said. You have to accept that you made bad decisions. You entered the wrong field. Now you can either keep going in that field, or try and find another.

You don't like when a company goes overseas? There are two legitimate ways to stop it. You can get the public to start buying more expensive products and services from companies who stay here, or you can accept that you'll have to live on less to compete. The government does not have the right to pass policy and tell businesses how they should spend their money.

WydreOne

Hmmm. The only growth industry in America is the prison industry. I guess that's the field you'd have me choose...


Our economy grows at a rate of 4% per year. That's one of the highest figures of any developed nation.


That's funny, the budget not only disagrees with you, but it completely destroys whatever credibility you might have ever had..with anyone. The federal government does oh so much more. Maybe they shouldn't, but they DO.


I believe I already said these welfare programs are pretty much unconstitutional. Politicians have abused their power in this country by doing what basically equates to stealing.


How about no tax shelters for international business for starters. That way the United States would collect its fair share in tax revenues from those monolithic ticks. There would be more money flowing into the government than it would even know what to do with, if it actually collected from the 'inner circle' come tax time. That money could be used to build concrete dome housing for people in disaster prone areas, which would cut insurance costs by half annually, stimulating REAL growth in the economy. The money could be used to establish urban argiculture, to wean people off of corporate dependency and increase nutrition, saving hundreds of thousands of lives per year. The money could be used to build an American free use space station/long range habitat ship construction platform. Pick a program that benefits mankind as a whole and you're off!


Once again, do you actually have a way of collecting from these rich guys? It's not so simple. Here in America, you kind of need real proof if you make allegations. Our government can't do much if we can't prove these guys are evading taxes.

The statement about building better structures for people in disaster prone areas shows how much credibility and logic your argument has. People move into those areas at their own risk. They made a choice as adults, and if they can't take the consequences, its their problem, not mine. I do not want tax payer dollars going to help out some idiot who moved into an area of California prone to mudslides.

And it isn't the government's job to tell people what to eat, either. People have choices to make. People are fat and out of shape because they made choices, not because corporations are big and evil.


Take the total annual net profit of every corporation that operates in America, slice off 44% and we get to keep that for social programs and not for profit job creation for the benefit of the human race, things like education, art, medicine, industry, energy, space travel - you know, all the things the government does besides collect taxes. They do it to individuals who make 6 figures but not corporations that make 9 figures. Stop that injustice and the problem will begin to dissolve before your very eyes...


44%? That's an absurd tax rate. And you know what these company's do if you try and screw them like that? They slimply get rid of workers, or cut pay, or cut benefits. This puts more strain on the government programs you want, which in turn causes you to try and tax these guys more, and the cycle repeats.


Stop the old boys club aptmosphere that pervades Washington, get tough on corporate polluters and politically tongue in cheek conflicts of interest. There's your problem solved. Do those things, and Americans will be living in concrete domes eating genetically sprouted Salmon pate for pennies a year, within a year, or your money back. What's your idea?


You know, the parts of the world where the government intervenes less with environmental policies, the better the environment actually is.

My solution to this nation's problems are simple. Scrap most welfare programs. Maybe we should keep, but they would certainly need to be revamped. Welfare, for instance. I'm not against helping poor families. I am against inefficient programs that don't solve the problem. I'd be willing to pay the way for these people if they were getting education, and finding a way to get a descent job so the government doesn't have to support them. It would work far better then either letting them sit around and just collect benefits, or making them work two jobs and accomplishing nothing in the longrun.

With the welfare programs gone, taxes can be taken down to a level between 10-15%. People would have more money coming to them every week. Corporations would reinvest in the economy, because that's what those big evil rich bastards do. That's how they keep making more money. They'd probably even increase worker benefits, as well as pay. Most socialists don't like to hear it, but it is not in a company's best interest to screw their employees, because they are also the customers at the end of the day.

The economy would see a lot more growth. People would have more money to spend on things they need, like healtchare, or saving up for when they're retired. People would give to charities who use money more efficiently then the government, and morally, its far better to have people willingly give money then having a government take it from them by force.


And as far as I'm concerned, you calling me a liberal is as sure a sign of your ignorance in regards to my principles as if you had called me a hippie or a neo-con or a fascist or a capitalist or any of your other warped, subjective perceptions of the world; as made clear by your posts your perceptions are truly disturbed. Better watch it mister, keep labeling people and one day someone will take that stupid clicky labeling gun away from you and smack you a good one on the forehead... $9.99+Tx


If you're proposing liberal policies, you're a liberal.


People have equal chances at happiness? That's not true, and here's why. Survival makes people the happiest, comfort makes people happy too. In a capitalist society you need money to survive, and you need a great deal to be comfortable. People don't have an equal chance at money, unless they like to risk a third of their paycheck on scratch off tickets. None of these problems could be complained about if we had a TRUE Libertarian Meritocracy, because people WOULD be responsible for their own achievments. In our society, pedigree, starting cash, connections, and corporate crime make the playing field so tilted as to render a game of foosball more like a repetetive falling action towards a yawning black mouth.


The majority of people will never make it to the top. People still do it, though. Everyone has the chance. If they didn't, there wouldn't be companies like Apple and Microsoft.


74 million households received less than 100 dollars in tax relief in '04, 50 million received NOTHING, NADDA, ZIP, SQUAT, ZERO. That's 50 million HOUSEHOLDS, not people. 50 Million Households got ZERO. We clear? How does that promote jobs? Explain that to me and I'll nominate you for the nobel prize.


When the Federal government puts taxes down, states tend to increase taxes. Do you have a source for this information?


Why the hell is a Republican politician within ten miles of interacting with STOCK PRICES, trying to manioulate the supposedly free market? It's nowhere near the government's allowed, intended, or requested sphere of authority. The entire party policy did a 180 degree turn, and dove straight down into hell, and apparently the only people who noticed were the ones NOT SUCKLING AT THE BELLY OF THE BEAST.


Dropping taxes stimulates the economy by taking away government control. Increasing taxes tries to control the economy.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Heh, Canada has the opposite problem right now, we do not have enough Qualified workers to fill all the positions we have right now.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Heh, Canada has the opposite problem right now, we do not have enough Qualified workers to fill all the positions we have right now.


You still have plenty of unemployed.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Disturbed
Is that really the point? No. Are you an American? I am. I am trying to figure out ways to keep my country alive through the next century. Right now we're spiraling down into a well, at the behest of a trained monkey and his handlers. That to me is unacceptable. Or maybe the trained monkey is trying to save us from some evil liberal agenda, I doubt it, but it's possible. If that's the case, fine! Let's get saved already. We don't need armageddon, we need positive change, and space exploration.

C'mon, ask me why. You know you want to.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
oh, yes, thank you for pointing it out to me, I forgot one.....the postal service....which well, probably had alot to do with the formation of the beginnings of our modern day highway system more than defense did!!!

by the way, Banshees, just where did I quote any more than anyone else on here........
I mean, if I did here, you should really love some of the others in some of the other topicslllll


Wrong dawnstar, the US interstate highway system was created specifcally for the military and strategic value it would have, based on the German autobahn. The postal service had nothing to do with it. It is after all officially known as the "Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways"

National Highway Act

In February 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) designated the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States." The interstate system has often been called "the greatest public works project in history." It not only linked the nation, but it boosted productivity and helped sustain a more than tenfold increase in the gross national product since the start of the program in 1956.
His first realization of the value of good highways occurred in 1919, when he participated in the U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. During World War 11, Gen. Eisenhower saw Germany's advantages as a result of the autobahn network, also noting the enhanced mobility of the Allies when they fought their way into Germany. These experiences shaped Eisenhower's views on highways. "The old convoy," he said, "had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land."
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in January 1953, the states had completed 10,327 km of system improvements at a cost of $955 million. Only 24 percent of interstate roadway was adequate for present traffic. The 1956 act called for uniform interstate design standards to accommodate traffic forecast in 20 years. Two lane segments, as well as at-grade intersections, were permitted on lightly traveled segments. (However, legislation passed in 1966 required all parts of the interstate highway system to be at least four lanes with no at-grade intersections regardless of traffic volume.) On June 26, 1956, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 89 to 1. That same day, the house approved the bill by a voice vote. In August 1957, the numbering scheme for the interstate highways was announced and the red, white, and blue interstate shield was unveiled. Many of the states had submitted proposals for the shield, but the final version was a combination of designs submitted by Missouri and Texas.
Interesting fact - one of the co-authors of the Highway Act was Senator Albert Gore Sr.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
ECK just posted an interesting thread:

So Much for the New Bush Economy


From the article he cites:




The February payroll jobs figures released last Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a continuation of America's descent into a third world service economy.

The Bush administration cheered the creation of 229,000 private sector jobs (which still leaves Bush with a net private sector job loss during his reign). However, once we look at the details, the joy vanishes: 174,000 of the jobs, or 76% of the total, are in nontradable services.

Administrative and waste services (largely temporary help and employment services) account for 61,000 or 35% of the new service jobs. The remainder are accounted for by construction (30,000), retail trade (30,000), healthcare and social assistance (27,000), and waitresses and bar tenders (27,000).

www.counterpunch.org...




...An important perspective on our new 'service' economy IMO.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
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 defense and general welfare of the
United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall
be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,
and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities
and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries;



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
You're gonna have to help me out a little dawnstar...

what was the point of your post? Was it your solution to the problem, because I can sort of see how it could work...

The Fed needs to be dissolved. Trade should be established backed by silver (you can't waste gold on bullets in wartime), and international bankers should be shown the door.

Please clarify though, what did you mean by your post?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
sorry, WyrdeOne...

but some seem to think that the only expense the constitution permits the federal government from wasting money on is defense, all others should be cut!!!

so, well, if we imagine this one, well, how much money goes into the roads, the traffic controll, ect, ect.....that wouldn't be there if they cut everything, but defense...
someone thought they'd explain just how our trucks and trains would get the goods to us be saying the roads were part of defense...

I finallly decided not to argue any longer, and posted the part of the constitution that well, gives the federal government the responsiblity of creating "postal roads", which I believe is the early framework of our modern road system?

sorry, for the confusion.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Is that really the point? No. Are you an American? I am. I am trying to figure out ways to keep my country alive through the next century. Right now we're spiraling down into a well, at the behest of a trained monkey and his handlers. That to me is unacceptable. Or maybe the trained monkey is trying to save us from some evil liberal agenda, I doubt it, but it's possible. If that's the case, fine! Let's get saved already. We don't need armageddon, we need positive change, and space exploration.


How about you go address my last post, that explained the real way to improve this country.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join