People lose jobs all the time for a variety of reasons.  You have lost this jobs arguement many times over and I'm sure you don't want to go there again.  We have very low unemployment in this country, but people like you want to tell everyone how bad it is and how bad off people are....it's pure nonsense.

you mean those 5 dollar phone jobs that the companies can't afford to pay employee taxes for.

No the manufacturing and high tec jobs that paid $50-70,000 per year with good benefits like health insurance and retirement.

the main reason these companies have gone over seas is because of the high taxes here. they can't afford the taxes. so taxes need to be lowered.

People lose jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. You have lost this jobs argument many times over and I'm sure you don't want to go there again. We have very low unemployment in this country, but people like you want to tell everyone how bad it is and how bad off people are....its pure nonsense.

First, the unemployment rate has NOTHING to do with the rate of pay. We have created a lot of LOW Paying jobs in the service areas and lost a lot of higher paying jobs in manufacturing and now High Tec. I documented the study that clearly showed that the average pay of the new jobs is 25% lower then the jobs that were lost. If we loose 100,000 high paying jobs and create 100,000 low paying jobs the unemployment rate would be the same. That is not the issue- How about you give up your job and take another job making 25% less pay with fewer benefits!

you mean those jobs only the illegals are working.

lets see if i can explain it to you again.

below 5% everybody who wants to work is working. those not working are looking for better paying jobs.

at 3% everybody is working who wants to work. those in the 3% are taking a vacation.

i believe unemployment right now is 3 to 5%.

Oh Yes , they will.and will do it in the same way they did before: by deceit, confusion and playing on the greed of the simple tax payers who get all excited about few hundreds of Dollars.

I am a smoker, and hate to pay more for my bad habit and (deep down) wish that bill doesnt pass because there are many other ways to pay for that cause.Just eliminating few ear-marks' projects could pay for it. However, i wont have the guts to say that this bill is bad. I will pay the extra tax, reluctantly but convinced it is for a good cause.

Sometimes you have to be pushed to do a good thing. Those who wont support this bill dont even want to be pushed to do anything good.

you may have to be pushed to do a good thing. but you really aren't doing good if you have to be pushed to do it.

And I have documented how that was accurate, as usual.

Col, if I lose my job, I won't sit around and complain about Bush or the federal government.  I will pick up and move on with my life.

Well this is new to me and since I am still a bit ignorant to the facts of this topic I can only say that I have no opinion on it yet. Both sides seem to make a good point as to why to either expand it or stop it.

On one hand the Democrats and a few Republicans wish to expand this programs which expires on Sept 30 so that more money can be put into this programs which benefits about 6 million children from families that are of low-income but still make too much to qualify for Medicaid. I would be considered one of these people. I, however, have insurance for me and my 2 kids from my job which I got about a month ago.

Then there is Bush's reasons for not expanding this, he feels that the Democrats are using this program to create a system of Gov't run medicine (universal healthcare and so they call it now). The problem is the programs has already been altered to include adults and is to be expanded to include middle-income workers as well thus creating a Gov't run healthcare system, which is the Democrats goal. Bush feels this expansion could lead people to drop their private insurances or allow businesses to eliminate healthcare benefits since there is an alternative for them.

Now, to me both sides make a decent defense on the issue. I will need to study this up more in order to make a better decision. I welcome any information from anyone here (besides Col gene) who is well informed on this issue.

But if it is as Bush claims than I am not for this idea. The program was created to help children not adults or middle-income people. Adults can work to get what they need and middle-income people can stop buying their kids the latest in video games and computer stuff and they can spend that money of some decent healthcare.

You mean those jobs only the illegals are working.

I mean both legal and illegal workers

I believe unemployment right now is 3 to 5%. It is 4.6% which has nothing to do with the low paying jobs we are creating.


Col, if I lose my job, I won't sit around and complain about Bush or the federal government. I will pick up and move on with my life.

That was not the issue- If you can only find a job for 25% less with no benefits I guess you would be fine with that?


And I have documented how that was accurate, as usual.

Col, if I lose my job, I won't sit around and complain about Bush or the federal government. I will pick up and move on with my life.


The study I sighted was a national study done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and you did not show it was not accurate!

Why do you insist that people can't find good paying jobs with benefits? I did, I have a decent paying job with great benefits. I'll go father, my wife has a decent paying job with benefits. My kids have benefits. And we both got our jobs within the past 6 months. And neither one of us has a college degree.

LOL.  Col, this is just pure BS and you know it.  If you think all the jobs out there are paying that much less then you are just as bad as John Kerry who tried to use that nonsense during the election.  I have already proved your number inaccurate, move on.




LOL. How long ago was that col?  Myself and others have shown otherwise.

Why do you insist that people can't find good paying jobs with benefits? I did, I have a decent paying job with great benefits.

That is great. However more and more companies are cutting or eliminating benefits especially health and retirement. The more jobs that do not have those benefits the more people will have jobs without benefits!


. How long ago was that col? Myself and others have shown otherwise.


The study covered 2001 thru 2005 and was completed for ALL 50 Stated for the U.S. Conference of Mayors. It showed the average annual wage for the jobs lost between 2001-2003 was $43,629. The average annual wags on the jobs created from 2004-2005 were $ 34,379. That is a 21% Reduction before inflation. After considering inflation the drop was 30%. This was a VERY comprehensive study completed for the non partisan U.S. Conference of Mayors. It also showed that in 18 States the jobs created did not offset the jobs lost during this period! The study also showed the newly created jobs have significantly less benefits especially Health and Retirement!