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.

 

Should government assist laidoff and "outsourced" Americans?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


First off, I hope you will find a GREAT JOB shortly.


Thanks! Me too! [smile]


Second I appreciate that you pointed out your desire to work, be productive and self sufficient.


Thanks. So many think I have not been out there looking. But little do they know how much effort I have been putting into finding another job.


I am not sure why the idea of becoming lazy and unmotivated is such a strong talking point... I assume the people who hold this point of view feel like they wanted to leech when they were between jobs or something..


Or they are looking for reasons to do the Lizard hearted thing - ignore us and maybe we'll go away...?

It is only those that want it to appear that all these people, down on their luck, are there because we choose to be. They want to suggest that we are "lazy," "unmotivated," and other epithets, so as to justify doing nothing. By marginalizing us, they can garner support for leaving us with nowhere to turn to.

It is a purposefully concocted BS to sway the understandings and opinions of the "average Joe." God forbid we try and HELP someone!


Great points...

It is also an easy way to say -" THEY CHOOSE TO BE UNEMPLOYED" - which references "RESPONSIBILITY" - THEREFORE the unemployed are also "IRRESPONSIBLE".

= LAZINESS

it an ingenious equation isn't it?




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Mental Modulator, you forgot something, America is not a democracy that is how the federal government blinded the people so they could made them forget that we are a Republic.

And we all bought it, to the point that the states of the union can not longer survive on their own without big brother.




Never thought of it that way...

Sort of like messaging your own back with your foot?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
no but all the greedy Executives that have failed their companies and still got million dollar bonuses over the years should help pay for any and all of the problems in this economy. No, their "Brains" are not worth the cost of having them. Just about anyone with half aan education could have done as well or better as many of them.

If any brain drain occurs at the corporate level it would likely HELP, us and not hurt us. The so called "Elitist" that have robbed our country and YOU should pay dearly.

If anyone deserves million dollar bonuses it is those veterans that are waiting months, and even years for our wonderful government to approve a small amount of compensation for their trauma inflicted by the maniacal decisions of Bush and Co.

So much is so backward in our country. It is indeed time for change, and if you listen around the offices, and bars of America you can hear the drums of change warming up. I hope it is peaceful one. People are sick and tired of the excuses and lies of the Elitist Corporations who have taken control of our Congressmen.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Great points...

It is also an easy way to say -" THEY CHOOSE TO BE UNEMPLOYED" - which references "RESPONSIBILITY" - THEREFORE the unemployed are also "IRRESPONSIBLE".

= LAZINESS

it an ingenious equation isn't it?


Very much so. I am...glad, I guess...that I can see the issue from all points. I know many who are in the same boat as me, and I think there may be one I suspect of being unmotivated. But virtually all I would say are desperately trying to find good solutions to their times of troubles.

So I know that the whole "irresponsible," "lazy," "unmotivated" tags are fully BS.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by mental modulator
Great points...

It is also an easy way to say -" THEY CHOOSE TO BE UNEMPLOYED" - which references "RESPONSIBILITY" - THEREFORE the unemployed are also "IRRESPONSIBLE".

= LAZINESS

it an ingenious equation isn't it?


Very much so. I am...glad, I guess...that I can see the issue from all points. I know many who are in the same boat as me, and I think there may be one I suspect of being unmotivated. But virtually all I would say are desperately trying to find good solutions to their times of troubles.

So I know that the whole "irresponsible," "lazy," "unmotivated" tags are fully BS.


GOOD - Keep up the good work ( no pun intended )

I hope you find a better job than the last.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Unemployment is a necessity and one of the very few things that other "Taxpayers" should pay for.

Unemployment benefits are made to be low (at least it was in my state) to encourage getting another job. I've been on it due to outsourcing. I could have sat on it for 2 years guaranteed. I had to move in with family. All I had to do was fill out one job form per week online. That was it. I received my check. Luckily it only took 2 months to get another job. It payed less than what I was making before but i took it EVEN THOUGH i could have sat on my ass for almost another 2 years.

I've said this in another post, it shouldn't be taxed. I don't know why unemployment checks are taxed. This is what we pay taxes for isn't it?

It stinks to be on it, but you deal with it and make the best of the situation at hand.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Unemployment is a necessity and one of the very few things that other "Taxpayers" should pay for.

Unemployment benefits are made to be low (at least it was in my state) to encourage getting another job. I've been on it due to outsourcing. I could have sat on it for 2 years guaranteed. I had to move in with family. All I had to do was fill out one job form per week online. That was it. I received my check. Luckily it only took 2 months to get another job. It payed less than what I was making before but i took it EVEN THOUGH i could have sat on my ass for almost another 2 years.

I've said this in another post, it shouldn't be taxed. I don't know why unemployment checks are taxed. This is what we pay taxes for isn't it?

It stinks to be on it, but you deal with it and make the best of the situation at hand.


I did not know unemployment was taxed until you pointed it out...
Tax on a tax generated program....



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I am going to base this off of the people I know in my high school.

The amount of kids who are on the path to self destruction is crazy. There are SO many who are careless that not only induce them self in many drugs, but at the same time have grades so poor that they are failing half of their classes, where almost all of them are beyond easy.

They just do not care...and I go to one of the better high schools in the country too, so I can not even imagine what others are like.

Technology is ridding many jobs and leaving good paying ones to high tech fields. Many kids are ruining their chances at a decent college and are not even thinking of college because there is barely any of that idea stressed at the 13-15 year age level, where many kids get involved with bad influences.

So, based off of that - I just get the feeling that there are many people who graduate high school (if that), where they are in such bad terms regarding their social quo - and they get nowhere.

I do not believe THESE people should be getting much government assistance. Some, yes, but on a very time restricted amount.

But, there are those who have had good jobs, and have gotten laid off due to a failing business and what not. These people should be given assistance in harsh times. They still need to prove a good chunk that they are doing their best to find work etc.

Call me evil, but I am for the bettering of society in general. If someone with no qualifications for anything refuses to work at even the fast food level, I have no sympathy for them. In the end, I am here for myself. I will gladly give some tax money for the unfortunate, but NOT the ones who are not, and never will be, motivated.

I stressed this in another post - but in terms of welfare, the only thing I would be for more of it is education.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


No, if the government wants to help out, they would lower the corporate tax rate, not make it the highest in the world per the Obama idea. Right now, or atleast under the Bush admin, we had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (behind Japan).

It seems to me the government doesnt want to help out the american ppl, but rather it just wants the american ppl to be more reliant on the government for special services. If the government were serious about helping out the American ppl, the government would drop the corporate tax rate to 0%, abolish the 16th amendmant, and replace the income tax system with a FairTax. This would literally fix the US economy, and supercharge it. Ive heard estimates that the US economy would grow anywhere from 5-10% in the first year of a FairTax...Its time to take back our country! Read the source ive linked above. Deny ignorance!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fox News
reply to post by mental modulator
 


No, if the government wants to help out, they would lower the corporate tax rate, not make it the highest in the world per the Obama idea. Right now, or atleast under the Bush admin, we had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (behind Japan).


Well historically speaking the corporate tax rate is low... In IKE EISENHOWERS admin (R) the top 1% was taxed at 90%...

Anyhow, what makes you think reducing corporate tax will help stem outsourcing of jobs?

BUSH cut the 1% and funny enough only the top 1% indicated a strong consistent growth during the corse of the last eight... Yet we are in this position now....

???



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Look at Ireland...it has one of the smallest corporate tax rates in the world at 12%...

Right now, the US corporate tax rate is maybe 34-35%, which is the second highest in the world...has that benefiited us? How has it benefitted Japan? I also want to abolish all payroll taxes, etc. Read the fairtax page I linked, it says it all perfectly.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Fox News]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
"BUSH cut the 1% and funny enough only the top 1% indicated a strong consistent growth during the corse of the last eight... Yet we are in this position now.... "

I didnt read this bit... You are placing blame where blame need not be placed.

Look up the Community reinvestment act, and how more government oversight and influence inflated a bubble that would collapse the housing sector.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fox News
"BUSH cut the 1% and funny enough only the top 1% indicated a strong consistent growth during the corse of the last eight... Yet we are in this position now.... "

I didnt read this bit... You are placing blame where blame need not be placed.

Look up the Community reinvestment act, and how more government oversight and influence inflated a bubble that would collapse the housing sector.



The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[2][3]


en.wikipedia.org...



according to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[7]






The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities"


en.wikipedia.org...




The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia),


[edit on 13-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


whats your point?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fox News
reply to post by mental modulator
 


whats your point?


My point is the Financial institutions have been creating 35/1 derivative products that created this mess.

The last time these types of products were created and sold was in the 20's.

Both times our economy has gone down the tubes.

What do you reckon caused this mess?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


So...your saying mor government oversight is needed?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I think the US government should provide food and medicine to those that are in real trouble. I do not support helping my neighbor who has a larger home, driving a better car with my money.

I would support interest free loans if those getting the loan have a reasonable means and ability to repay it and as long as it must be repaid or lose the house. It also must be available to everyone for a certain number of weeks and or months. If a person stops making payment or dies then the house belongs to the Feds to be resold.

Essentialy the failing banks would get the entire loan value payed off by the Government and the owner would get a low payment interest free loan.
I would set the payments based on the persons age and life expectency of 70. This would make the payment very low. The home could not be resold until payed off. This protects the owners "Home" while not protecting their investment. In other words the owner can take the loan but is stuck with the home and payment for life or until pay off.

This would protect unrelated tax payers from financing their neighbors mistakes or circumstance and limit the opportunity for people who should by all rights lose their home, from using YOUR pay to make a profit by flipping the house.

This would essential be a rest switch but would take many years before Banks would make big profits again on home loans.

It is better than the alternative of having our Grand children pay for our mistakes.

For a little while, only the guys ponding the nails in the houses should be making money on houses.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Xeven]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I think most Americans would be happy if the government would just STOP ASSISTING the corporations in their efforts to get rid of American workers.

Stop the H1B Visas

Revoke NAFTA

Penalize corporations that outsource American jobs to other countries

Stop giving American jobs to illegal immigrants



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I think legislation needs to be passed that for a certain amount of business a country does in the US, they can only outsource, or import, a limited percentage of employment.

For example, if you do 100% business in the US, then you can only outsource or bring in labor limited to say 10%.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
ProfE

and

NN

Good points both of you, I think there is only so much selling out we can take.

I think there should be a more defined legal distinction between a human and a corporation...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join