How can a president run the economy? Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but he can certainly make some sort of attempt to do something besides dole out tax cuts to the wealthy. Trickle down does not work! Of course it's probably weatherman syndrome. I have no way of knowing clearly
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any way of knowing the answer, but I have no faith that the actions of a president during a 4-year term will have a significant impact on the economy by the end of that period. It seems to me that the economy is just too big and sluggish to respond that fast, if the president can affect it at all, which I'm not sure about.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, let's face it, part of the problem is that Bush actually has laid claim to the economy. When he pushed through tax cuts, he edit: had said that it would grow the economy.
posted
Syneth: We are not wealthy, and we got a tax cut. A hefty enough one that we were induced to spend. And spending, we put that money right back in the economy. Much of it went to companies that employ people who typically make less than we do. I am pretty sure that we were average in our decision to buy something, so those companies, in order to meet demand, needed to hire more workers. Is this an example of trickle down not working?
Indeed, I think the production of more jobs that are lower paying is pretty good proof that trickle down does work.
All that said, I also tend to think that for the most part, the economy is too slow and sluggish to see much effect during a president's term.
Bush has claimed the economy because every president before him has. It is now part of the campaign.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the acts of a President do not have direct influence on the number and types of jobs available.
However, President Bush disagrees.
Many of his adds present a rosey picture of our wonderful recovery and the thousands of jobs returning to the country each month.
If he claims responsibility for the return of jobs to the economy, he must except responsibility that the majority of those jobs are worse than those that were available in previous years.
The promised job training programs need to be something more than free cue-cards that say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trickle down *does* work, if we're going to rely solely on anecdotal evidence.
I work for a company that is owned by a group of venture capitalists. Undoubtedly, those men and women make a lot more money than I do, and so have higher taxes. Were it not for their continued investment in our company, some of which must have come from the taxes they got to keep due to the tax cuts, I would not be employed today. I can say this securely...our company was within inches of going under last summer, and only a large investment of cash was able to allow us to keep operating long enough to possibly make a profit this year -- for the first time in over a decade. We're a big risk, yet they choose to continue investing.
And really, though I'm travelling too much lately, I don't think my job sucks.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But low income jobs increasing isn't nessasaryly a good thing. Rent on average is about 500 dollars or more. This means that lwo income people will barely be able teo make ends meet, let alone buy enough to stimulate the economy. They ought to increase minimum wage and decrease taxes for people who have a low income to begin with... But I am biased being that my paychecks are microscopic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, my entire years worth of tax cut money went into one months higher medical costs, including more expensive drugs, co-pays, and higher insurance rates.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "tax cut" we got -- I regard it as a loan on our children's future -- helped soften the blow a bit when I wound up laid off.
But, yeah, trickle-down is all about the creation of lower-paying jobs. *waves finger in the air* Hooray for trickle-down!
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can a president run the economy? Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals?
The answer is a resounding yes. This is a representative democracy, and the economic plan decisions made by the elected representative of the nation's people reflects directly back on the decisions made by the representative. The blame could be assigned back to the people if you wanted to go all the way back to the voting process, but that still reflects back on the representative that was chosen for their leader.
Another statistic that this paper did not emphasize is the unemployment numbers. The higher number of those unemployed during the recession and the now higher (than 18 months ago) number of individuals who are "self-employed" is highly misleading and missing a large, important bit of information: many of those who are now not on unemployment or are "self-employed" are not in that position because the economy has improved, but because their unemployment eligibility has run out and they must be counted as either "employed" or "self-employed" when the statistical data is taken, not because they are actually employed or self-employed gainfully. More people are now actually forced to do either lower paying jobs or to work on a temporary or "as needed" (sometimes contractual) basis instead of having regular employment, which leads inexorably to less financial stability and less economic solidity. Also unfortunate is that this lowers their chances for an accurate tax return, since not all temp or contractual agreements (employments) withold all the proper taxes for non-regular employees. This means that more people wind up owing money come tax time than receiving a payout. I haven't done the math (since I'm no accountant and don't do regular polls on tax information), but I wonder what the mean would be of monies owed the government compared to the tax breaks of the last two years. I have a sneaking suspicion that the payouts would be higher than the breaks.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Bush is an industrialist, and he runs the economy from that perspective. Production industry is not the place to turn in the 21st Century if you want to foster decent jobs.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be natural that a recovering economy would have an increase in lower paying jobs?
Artificially inflated economy by way of .com boom. It was artificially inflated by wealthy people dumping too much money into technologies they barely understood, and that money being spent rashly by technology people who didn't really understand how to create a stable company.
This economy, naturally, implodes on itself.
Only those who are actually well equipped to work in information technology keep jobs in that field. Others are laid off.
These unemployed go looking around for jobs. But there are no jobs right now, because too many have become unemployed at the same time.
Question: which is better? Being unemployed or having a low paying job?
Insert 'trickle down economy' tactics.
Lower wage jobs increased.
Spending by consumers increased.
Competent workers who restarted out at lower wages start to gain promotions and raises, or educate themselves better and gain a better job. Slowly, higher wage jobs increase.
The last step is the slowest, but an increase in lower wage jobs is a sign that the economy is recoverying, I believe. Trickle down tax cuts simply increased the creation of lower wage jobs (and by extension, a few higher paying jobs too.)
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, billions of the tech money of the 90's went toward prepping for Y2K (edited to add that Clinton didn't have anything to do with the dating problems in the tech industry). I also would not call the tech bubble of the late 90's particularly good for anyone. For a brief period, maybe, but even at the time, I thought it was insane how speculative and risky that market became...and how incredibly high the salaries were in that industry. Dot-com instant millionaires. It couldn't possibly last. And it didn't.
Personally, I'd rather opt for slow growth than meteoric rises with commensurate meteoric drops.
posted
I really don't think it does much good. Low wage jobs are often extremely poor. Some of them have bad working conditions, a few of them are bad for families. They have a fast turn out so people usually don't keep them for long. Many of them do not pay a living wage so a person has to have at least 2 of them to survive. If they have children this is a very bad thing. The jobs lack benefits and things such as days off if you need to take care of children can only be gotten if it's the kind of job that has unions or after a period of time. It doesn't really stregthen the economy, it's an illusion. If they really wanted to help instead of corporate welfare they'd pay out a living wage, create jobs with benefits, give more tax cuts and help to small businesses that have trouble creating things like benefits. Parents would have peace of mind knowing that if their son or daughter gets sick they can take off without worrying about losing their jobs. People would get 10 dollars an hour instead of just 7, having more money to spend on what they want to spend it on. It's not easy to get resources to get a better job, especially if you live in an area with no or expensive public transportation and you can't even get to these places. Or if you have no phone because it got disconnected and you owe too much money to repay it. Common sense should tell them, pay the workers more and they'll do their job better. Like how fair is it to pay child care workers so little that they quit their jobs, a kid gets attached to a worker and suddenly has to get used to some other person. It's illogical. These politicians want to make themselves look good but they really, really don't care about the common worker one bit.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can the head of the executive branch really be held responsible for the billions of decisions made by individuals? --------------------------------------------------
The answer is a resounding yes. This is a representative democracy, and the economic plan decisions made by the elected representative of the nation's people reflects directly back on the decisions made by the representative.
John is right here, the blame is on our system of state oppression. If a president were not able to ram through interventionist policies like tariffs and subsidies, taxes and the like, he would not be a player in our economy. However, he can and is. State intervention in the form of central banking(read as inflation) is the sole cause of the boom bust cycle. Such booms and busts are not a natural feature of a free economy using a commodity money, such as gold.
In an true free market economy, Amka would be correct about the president's lack of responsibility, however, this is not what we have. When one man can wipe out economic freedoms with the motion of a pen, that man has too much responsibility.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really don't think it does much good. Low wage jobs are often extremely poor. Some of them have bad working conditions, a few of them are bad for families.
Why do you want to judge what jobs are good or bad for individuals? Do you think the government is a good judge of what is "good" and what is "bad"?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush is an industrialist, and he runs the economy from that perspective. Production industry is not the place to turn in the 21st Century if you want to foster decent jobs.
If this were really the case, shouldn't the manufacturing sector be booming?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Who then gets the blame for the tech-busts, also of the `90s?
I guess it's Bush, right?
Personally, I think that our economic shape right now has less to do with the President (or any branch of the government at all, for that matter) than it does with strictly economic issues. I apply that same reasoning to Clinton, as well.
For instance, many complain of the loss of manufacturing jobs. Ohio is a much-mentioned state, with at least a quarter of a million such jobs lost. But is that really the President's fault, or the government's? I don't think so. I don't think it's anyone's 'fault', anymore than I think all the people who made buggy-wheels and buggy-whips lost their jobs because of the government.
The situation today is similar, though not as obvious. *shrug* That's my take, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of good and bad. Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least. For example... Workers who work in chicken factories... It's not the dawn of the industrial revolution anymore.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, but he can certainly make some sort of attempt to do something besides dole out tax cuts to the wealthy.
Incidentally, this kind of statement is pretty irritating. Bush didn't ram through 'tax cuts to the wealthy'-though class-warfare types love to say so, he rammed through tax cuts to pretty much everyone. Is there a person on this board who can say their taxes haven't been cut because of Bush's efforts?
Now I'm not saying this means the tax cuts were a good idea. I'm not saying that no part of them is worthy of criticism. But when there's so much ammunition, don't throw rocks, use bullets.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least.
In our welfare-state economy, you are correct, the government forces companies to make certain concessions to labor in the name of the greater good. However, such actions rely on the belief that the government can know what is "good" for people. Do you believe that it can make better decisions that you can, regarding what is best for you?
quote: For example... Workers who work in chicken factories...
Unless those workers are slaves, they are there because they WANT to be there. They have the option of not working in chicken factories.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least.
You'll have to define safety, and when you do I expect I'll disagree. Safe how? If by safety you mean offers good, affordable health care for the employee, offers good severance benefits should the unexpected happen, doesn't screw with stocks for exclusively executive gain, and doesn't scrimp on things like workplace safety and such, then I agree.
If by safety you mean the company has a responsibility to make sure its employees are working and paid for their entire lives, to preserve the status quo, no matter what, then I couldn't disagree more. Employers aren't omnipotent, and they're businesses, first and foremost. Employees are individuals, first and foremost. Instead of looking to their employer to provide for and protect them indefinitely, they should do their best to find a company that does that, and make themselves as inexpendable as possible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the specific topic, but I want to make a couple of comments:
quote: They ought to increase minimum wage and decrease taxes for people who have a low income to begin with...
Speaking of things that don't work. Increasing minimum wage will only cause inflation.
quote: These unemployed go looking around for jobs. But there are no jobs right now, because too many have become unemployed at the same time.
Question: which is better? Being unemployed or having a low paying job?
I'd like to see one of these people that got laid of even TAKE a low paying job. Why else does the government want to let "immigrants" work in America? Because Americans aren't willing to DO the lower paying work.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Seriously, what was his modern outlook, and how did it cause the irrational exuberance of the late 90's?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As John said, of course a president's planning decisions have plenty to do with the economy. You guys think Clinton's modern outlook had nothing to do with the tech-sector boom of the '90s?
Who then gets the blame for the tech-busts, also of the `90s?
I guess it's Bush, right?
Personally, I think that our economic shape right now has less to do with the President (or any branch of the government at all, for that matter) than it does with strictly economic issues. I apply that same reasoning to Clinton, as well.
You're both right and wrong. The truth is, the president had a lot to do with the economies of both examples, but Clinton is not responsible for the specific tech boom. He's responsible for ancouraging a situation where the tech boom—and its resultant fizzles—were able to take place. However, the surplus and increased budgets for the nation's total economy were directly influenced by Clinton. Saying he created the tech boom is disingenuous, at best.
The same applies for Bush's current situation: he's been spending in a deficit, without a clear picture (just a vague "trickle down" picture) of how this is going to work out in the end. In addition, his other policies have made industries more apprehensive in investing capital for new endeavors, choosing instead to solidify, or merge, their current resources. This has resulted in downsizing due to less administrative overhead (actually a good thing), but only the overhead in the lowest levels of the many sectors (meaning the higher-paid guys stay in place, and the managers get severance for leaving). Unexpectedly, I would guess, is the surge of actual workforce downsizing due to these moves, where companies who are trimming the fat are also doing it on the lowest rungs of the ladder as well as the (lower) administrative levels. I don't think Bush expected that to happen, but it happened nonetheless. In the "trickle down" plan, the lowered overhead for the administrative level would have created a better fiscal investment opportunity for the (investments in the) workforce, which has yet to happen. Yeah, it's nice to hear people give anecdotes and give the usual "coming soon!" pep talks, but outsourcing to other countries and offshore moves by the Big Boys is still taking place. This is yet another unanticipated result that I don't think Bush (or his administration) expected to happen.
After all, these companies don't exist to push the "rah-rah" of nationalism or wave the American flag in every office. They exist for the bottom line. And Bush's tax plans, his constant spending in deficit, and the subsequent lowering of the value of the American dollar have had a severe impact on how industries approach making new investments inside of this nation's borders. Is it totally all Bush's fault? Of course not. Can Bush (and/or his administration) be held accountable for promoting the current economic situation? Heck yeah.
Will it eventually work out for the best? It hasn't yet, but no final decision can be made until 10 or 20 years down the line. The best course of action isn't to try to assume success or failure as an end, but to address the real problems of the now. And as of now, there are a lot of problems that are being glossed over with misleading numbers and claims by both major parties. Also, the very fact that Bush is in office while we are experiencing these issues are enough to demand that something with immediate positive results be done, which has yet to happen (lots of promises, not a lot of results). Both Bush's and Clinton's excuses of blaming the previous administrations—both did it—are just excuses with no proactive results. It's not an acceptable excuse to blame the guy before you: Bush Sr. was doing a reasonable job of trying to get the economy in order without falling back on blaming the previous administration (nevermind that he should have never claimed "no new taxes" and the political mess behind the Gulf War).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:he rammed through tax cuts to pretty much everyone
While technically its true, my couple of hundred dollars really went far, it can not be denied that the bigger portion of those tax cuts went to the wealthier folks.
Things like cutting the tax on Dividends and Inheritance doesn't do much good for people in my neighborhood.
My problem with Trickle Down--Give money to the rich. They can spend it on investing in other American companies, or if the market in the US is bad, they can take their money and invest it over seas, they can buy American stuff, or they can travel to Asia and load up on expensive imported items.
Why doesn't Trickle Up work. Give the poor extra money and they will spend it, buying goods and services. Sure, many of those goods will be cheap imports, but that still increases sales in the American companies that bring them to their stores. This increases the business of the stores, their suppliers, and the manufacturers who make the items, and eventually will trickle up to the wealthy owners.
I believe there would be a greater growth in US economy if money is given to those on the bottom as opposed to those on the top.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My problem with Trickle Down--Give money to the rich.
How do you figure? How do the rich get rich? Is it because the government has chosen to make them rich? Who is giving the rich money?
quote: Why doesn't Trickle Up work. Give the poor extra money and they will spend it, buying goods and services.
Firstly, its immoral. In order to "give" money to the poor, the government must first take that money from someone who is the rightful owner of said money.
Secondly, government redirected funds are by definition less efficently spent than if those funds were left in the economy to begin with.
quote: I believe there would be a greater growth in US economy if money is given to those on the bottom as opposed to those on the top.
You have a very odd understanding of economics. Do you think that all distribution of wealth is the concern of the state?
Would it make sense to put an illiterate in charge of editing a newspaper? I say no. Why then would you put someone who is an economic failure(poor) in charge of the nation's wealth? Why not let the markets decide who is best suited to have money?
Our market driven economy is not a zero-sum game. When one group gains wealth, say the rich, it does NOT imply that an equal amount of wealth was taken from some other group.
posted
I'm amazed at the lack of understanding about Trickle Down. The reason that most extremely wealthy people are extremely wealthy starts at owning a business. Giving them more of their own money back allows them to invest more in their own business and others, hire more employees, and make more big-ticket purchases.
Can you think of some examples of jobs that would be created if rich people spent more money? Undeniably, jobs that would pay higher than minimum wage in many cases.
Now giving money to the POOR might create a few more low income jobs at places such as Wal-Mart and McDonald's. But I thought that's what we were trying to avoid.
Not to mention that Trickle Down makes sure that people get back money comparable to what they paid in. Why in the world do you think that you deserve to be given money that wasn't yours in the first place? That money is given to the rich because of the ENORMOUS percentage of their yearly income that they lose to taxes, money that belonged to them. Do you really think that poor people are getting jipped? Many of them don't even pay a cent in income taxes. (I am one of these, and we're not even minimum wage, nor are we on welfare.) The tax brackets are remarkably unfair to rich people.
edited: Because I don't think anyone here wants to give more money to the POOP.
quote:The best course of action isn't to try to assume success or failure as an end, but to address the real problems of the now.
Address the real problems right now without assessing if those solutions will succeed or fail?
Considering I didn't say that, no. However, trying to implement "solutions" which give no realistic immediate returns—because a couple hundred dollars per middle-class family is not a substantial or realistic return—is not a good idea of offering a "solution" based on success or failure. It's tossing bread to people with a promise of future meat and potatoes.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, trying to implement "solutions" which give no realistic immediate returns—because a couple hundred dollars per middle-class family is not a substantial or realistic return—is not a good idea of offering a "solution" based on success or failure. It's tossing bread to people with a promise of future meat and potatoes.
So we should be looking at the long term, and taking those actions which will improve people's lives the most over time then?
[edit] I know my beliefs on what should be done are already known, but what course of action do you propose, John L?
posted
What are you missing? I'm saying that using either long-term-only or short-term-only plans are not going to work. Why do you keep asking me absolutes on one way or the other?
[edit] What course of action? I don't think there is one course of action that would be most suited for the economy. And without taking time to adequately assess available resources and look at all the options—which I have no intention of doing, because it requires work I have no interests in (professional or personal)—I can't say with authority. However, promoting a penalty to offshore and "outsourcing" companies, while trimming some of the fat within actual government administrative levels, is a decent start. Also, this overwhelming urge to cut taxes while increasing spending needs to stop: either freeze budgets and cut taxes or freeze taxes and keep spending, the "having cake and eating it too" approach is just leaving a deficit that won't become a problem for 10-20 years (perfect for claiming political victory, crappy for actually solving economic problems).
[ March 12, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John L, I guess I am trying to figure out what you do think will work. You seem to think that there are actions that can be taken which will improve our economic situation. What are those actions?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like it or not a company does have the responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe at least. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to define safety, and when you do I expect I'll disagree. Safe how? If by safety you mean offers good, affordable health care for the employee, offers good severance benefits should the unexpected happen, doesn't screw with stocks for exclusively executive gain, and doesn't scrimp on things like workplace safety and such, then I agree.
Working conditions in most meat factories are abyssmal. People are maimed and die, and the companies get away with it, because so many of the workers are illegals who don't speak English "Fast Food Nation" is a great read on this topic.
As tyo the OP, of course Bush will take the credit if the unemployment #'s go down. Never mind a living wage. In Seattle, person making the minimun wage, $7.16/ hour ,would have to work 80 hours/week to pay the established fair rent, $788/month. Gee, you didn't want to buy food, pay for medical care and heat the apartment with that paycheck, did you?
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In Seattle, person making the minimun wage, $7.16/ hour ,would have to work 80 hours/week to pay the established fair rent, $788/month. Gee, you didn't want to buy food, pay for medical care and heat the apartment with that paycheck, did you?
Gee, you don't want any freedom to enter into contracts or not, do you?
What the heck is "fair rent" and who decides what that is? We should allow the free market to decide what working conditions are acceptible and which are not. If workers choose not to work somewhere, whether they are citizens or not, is their own business. By forcing government edicts of safety on businesses, you shut out those who you seem to want to help.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Working conditions in most meat factories are abyssmal. People are maimed and die, and the companies get away with it, because so many of the workers are illegals who don't speak English "Fast Food Nation" is a great read on this topic.
Then why not illuminate to us some of the information that is in this "great read" you're referring to? I'd like an example, to see if it's worth picking up, but I'd also like you to put it into the context of the conversation at hand, not just plunking any old quote from the text and claiming it as absolute.
And rent prices are unfair in many places, but that's hardly a reflection on the safety of working conditions. Raising wages may make the housing a little more affordable, but a better solution is to make more housing more accessible, giving the landlords reason to make more money by beating competitors' attempts at monopolies. I've seen it happen between some apartment complexes in this area: one becomes more favored by location, so the other one creates a competitive market by undercutting and working to increase the property value of the surrounding area. It's all about property value, not working conditions, and there are a whole lot more things to complain about when it comes to dealing with property values.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Fair Rent is decided by the city government.
People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job. If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless- or maybe they already are, 22% of people in homeless shelters are employed- and they FINALLy get a job, they are not going to wonder, "Is the machinery I use on this job well-maintained? Will I be forced to work so long, and become so exhausted, and make potentially fatal mistakes?" No, because they need food on the table NOW. I have never heard anyone who has been truly poor, say that the poor have those kinds of choices.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John L, I would love to, but I have lent my copy out to my neighbor. When I get it back, I will make the time to set down some examples.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And rent prices are unfair in many places...
How can a market driven price be unfair? How do you define fairness?
quote: The Fair Rent is decided by the city government.
Enlighten me then, because I have no idea what it is or where you cited it from.
quote: People do NOT always have the choice to take, or not take a job.
False. Unless someone is a slave, or is being coerced with the use of force, there is ALWAYS a choice. Perhaps those making the choice do not like the alternative, but there exists a choice.
quote: If they have been jobless for months, the savings have run out, unemployment has run out, they are not eligible for welfare, and they face being homeless-
Who is responsible for this?
quote: I have never heard anyone who has been truly poor, say that the poor have those kinds of choices.
The poor don't say a lot of things, that doesn't mean they aren't true.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
