AP: Old people "are stealing jobs from young people."

I personally got a great job even with all of my ink, then again, I'm not dumb enough to have any on my face or neck to be seen. All of my mine are on my arms and a long sleeved shirt takes care of that.

 

That's bull. The trouble with people is they have to many wants and don't save or invest. I never made over $15.80 cents an hour. That was tops when I retired and I went at 62. People just won't save any money. My Son just yesterday asked if he could borrow $5,000.00 for a down payment on a house. I had already given him over $9.000.00 for a car and a few other things and gave my two girl's much more than that when they needed help. I couldn't have done that if I hadn't forced myself to save. People need to change their habits. This is what I wrote back to my Son this morning.

I have decided to just give you the money Steve. I gave Tammy more than that so it really isn't fair to loan it to you. Hopefully you kids can start putting some money away so that when you get in a bind, or your kids do, you will have money to help. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be able to do what I have and XXX and I haven't made anything like you kids have. XXX's parents taught me. Pay yourself something. Pretend your a bill like all the other bills you have and pay yourself something each month. If you can't put something away, you can't afford to eat out, go to the movies or anything else. Get in that habit and you'll have a much better life of not needing money, or worrying how to pay your bills if something come up unexpectently. I hope you two will. It means changing your habits.

 

The excerpted part of my quote is referencing Obama's entire term, including the millions of job losses that occured in the recession he inherited in the first several months Obama we in office.

I start in 2010 because that is when the economy had turned around and started creating jobs.

But sure we can compare equivalent times with Bush.

From Jan 2002, 1.745 million additional private sector jobs were added under Bush.
From Jan 2010, over 8 million additional private sector jobs have been added under Obama.

Once again, Obama doesn't come close to comparing with the last Republican president as being dumbest or most negligent by your measure.

Bush inherited a 4.2% UR rate. It was 7.8% and skyrocketing when he left office.
Obama inherited a 7.8% UR rate that was skyrocketing upwards. It is now 7.0% and dropping.

Once again, Obama doesn't come close to comparing with the last Republican president as being dumbest or most negligent by your measure.

Which is part of the reason the UR is dipping down.

 

Some do. I suspect that those who are taking advantage of the booming stock markets and retiring now are those who have some significant investments.

 

I don't see anything wrong with old people having jobs. What the hell people, are we meant to stop living when we get old? People turn into social darwinists whenever the oldies are mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Commendable financial advice.

 

That is crap trying to compare job creation with Bush. Bush got the full impact of job loses from NAFTA and Free Trade, except from a little that began to show in Clinton's final years. Thousands of companies left and millions of jobs were gone. Still under Bush a few million jobs were created. Even though Bush also suffered thousands of job loses from the banking fiasco.

When Obama came in, this economy was on it's knees. There was no other place to go but up. To make it sound like Obama was the big job creater is a pipe dream. Much of the jobs he tried to create in the Green industry went to China or they went bankrupt. Billions were spent in stimulus money, but darn few went to fix up or roads and bridges. Most went for temporary jobs like bike paths, grass seeding government property, dune buggy trails, turtle crossings, the arts and etc. Billions went to laid off police, fire and teachers. But when that money ran out, they got laid off again. Obama asked for over 50 billion more. Was it for infrastructure? Nope, it was to put his union police, fire and teachers back to work again. In spite of the billions Obama wasted, jobs came back. Not as many as we had hoped for and they didn't pay like we wished. But to compare job growth under Bush to Obama is crazy. The jobs were leaving by the millions under bush with our trade policy and the banking fiasco. Obama had nowhere to go but up, even if he didn't do anything.

When Obama came

 

The best thing Obama did was to continue what Bush started in bailing out the banks and Chrysler and GM. I know a lot of my Republicans don't agree with me on that, but it had to be done. If we hadn't bailed out the banks, this country would be in much worse shape. People couldn't borrow for homes, cars, appliances or much of anything else. When people aren't buying millions more would be laid off. GM and Chrysler has come back strong and thousands of jobs have been added. If Obama hadn't of bailed them out, Ford and many of the parts companies would have gone under too. Along with all the people who depended on those companies for jobs out side of the auto industry and there were thousands of those.

 

So it's fair to claim Obama is either the dumbest or most negligent president because of his job creation numbers, but it's unfair to show Bush's job creation numbers during the same periods was far worse. got.

Well, no one expects partisan ideologues to not be hypocritical.

 

Now lets get back on topic. Old people aren't saving enough and have had to work longer, that is keeping jobs from going to the younger. People really need to change their habits. Everyone is trying to keep up with the Jones', or can't resist buying the latest thing. My Son has had at least six cars or trucks in the same amount of time my wife and I have had one. His wife doesn't like to cook so they eat out a lot. He feels sorry for the waitresses so he tips at 25%. My wife and I will eat out about once a month. For over 4o years I carried my lunch and lived on less than $20.00 a week. I know there are millions out there pissing away money left and right and saving nothing, like my three kids. As long as you do that, you'll never get ahead. You have to change your spending habits. Don't charge more than you can pay off at the end of the month, unless it's a house or car. Save and when you get enough, invest. You also need to put away for emergencies, for that water tank going out. That emergency fund comes before investing.

 

Great advice. Not everyone is in the position to take it.

 

Look at what was happening during both of their terms Iriemon. You don't want to do that. Did Bush have anything to do with either NAFTA or Free Trade? He sure didn't. But his administration took the blunt of the effects of them. Did Bush force the banks to loan to millions of poor, most who couldn't afford it? He sure didn't. All those job loses weren't Bush's fault and if you were honest with yourself and not so partisan you would have to agree. I give Obama credit for trying. I thought those Green Jobs was a good idea. But China was determined to own those industries and under cut the American companies every chance they got till they either drove them out of business, or they had to move to China. But Obama made a big mistake of not using billions on infrastructure. We needed that bad. But he was more interested in saving votes and poured that money into laid off union police, fire and teachers.

 

Bush took the blunt of the effect of Nafta? You mean with the 4.2% unemployment rate he inherited?

Mr. "Ownership Society"?

I never said they were all Bush's fault.

But if you are going to blaaaaaame Obaaaaaama for the job creation under his administration to say he's either the dumbest or most negligent president ever, it's just a tad hypocritical to give Bush a waiver on his far worse numbers.

Obama did use billions on infrastructure. Roughly $100 billion of the Stimulus went to that. He wanted to do more but was blocked by the Tea Party Republicans.

 

Your right but there are millions out there who can, but won't, because their wants far out number their needs.

 

It would be nice if the problem and answer were so simplistic.

 

Including those that use raw numbers taken totally out of context to make partisan driven ideological points? Like yourself?
Entire sub sections of our economy packed up and moved out during the Bush years (the manufacturing base of this nation, for instance). Under the circumstances any job gains at all were remarkable and I'm not a Bush fan at all!
The banking industry went bust and the housing industry all but shut down.

When we see what Obama did to create jobs when he got full control of the senate...nearly a trillion dollars to hand out to keep his public sector union cronies on the job (not job "creation" by any means), billions into the failed myth of "green jobs" (who can point to one single example of unqualified success in that regard?) and a home weatherization program that was such a miserable failure and so riddled with corruption and incompetency that
it simply ceased to be and was mentioned afterwards by the administration about as often as the black sheep uncle, who had an "unfortunate" history
with his associations with underage teenaged girls, at family gatherings. http://www.nationalreview.com/plane...timulus-weatherization-program-greg-pollowitz

 

Prove your bogus claim and ad hom persona attack and show where I've taken numbers out of context as you claim.

I agree, the few decent economic year under Bush were driven by the housing bubble, which of course ended in disaster.

Someone was making the point about facts earlier? Case in point.

Obama's did not hand out a trillion dollars. Of the $800 billion stimulus, almost half went to tax cuts.

Of the remaining, a lot of it did go to helping millions of people, including policemen, fire fighters, and teacher keep their jobs. Why is that a bad thing to you?

 

I said NAFTA and Free Trade, especially with China. They were signed on Clinton's watch. But almost all of Free Trade and Much of NAFTA's exodus came during Bush's term. Do you doubt that?

Just telling it how it is.

Hard to believe the way you talked about him and his job creation.

No mam, I think he did the best he could under the cercomstances of inheriting an economy like he did. China really undercut him a lot in job creation. I wish he had put a lot more into roads and bridges and less to bailing out his union buddies. This is how much he wanted for both in his new stimulus package.

– $50 billion on infrastructure projects and establishment of National Infrastructure Bank

– $35 billion to prevent more teachers, firefighters and police officers from being laid off

According to the records, he did spend that much, but only $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects. Much of the other went into things like the rail system, like light rail, airport upgrades, etc.

 

As I've stated before, and every time I do, you simply ignore it: Unemployment was 4.2% when Bush took office and was down in the 4 1/2% range as late as 2007. We didn't have an unemployment problem because of Nafta. The UR didn't jump from 4 1/2% to 10% in 2 years because of outsourcing jobs.

Go back and read my posts.

Good for you. How does that rebut what I said on the issue?

Don't blame Obama, it has been the Tea Party Republicans who blocked his efforts for jobs programs.

Sorry that police officers, firefighters and teachers keeping their jobs upset you so. Millions lost them anyway, which apparently makes you happy.

This is how much he wanted for both in his new stimulus package.

– $50 billion on infrastructure projects and establishment of National Infrastructure Bank

– $35 billion to prevent more teachers, firefighters and police officers from being laid off

Breakdown of Funds Paid Out By Category

$39.1B Transportation
$33.7B Infrastructure.
$30.1B Energy/Environment
$15.9B R&D

http://www.recovery.gov/arra/Transp...es/fundingbreakdown.aspx#ContractsGrantsLoans

 

Personally I think the title of the thread should be changed because it gives the misinformation that the AP is saying that old people are taking jobs and actually the article is written in a completely different tone.

 

Wait!!!! I thought old people were retiring in droves???? Isn't that the reason Lefties like to claim that the workforce partition rate has declined so bad? LMAO!

 

You compared job creation numbers under Bush and Obama without any regard whatsoever for context (like the manufacturing base, a huge supplier of jobs, fleeing the country en masse) even though Marine 1 clearly asked you to take facts like this under consideration.
You absolutely ignored all exculpatory evidence for Bush due to your hyper partisan ideology. That's not "ad hom personal attack"...that's manifestly what you did.

We agree on something. Success has many parents but failure is an orphan. The drive and zeal for easy money caused many to pick the carcass of the Golden Goose clean. When the good times ended Bush was left holding the bag.

Actually I said he handed out nearly a trillion dollars (speaking of facts). Not wanting to have to be bogged down in researching every little facet of my claim, when the clear fact is that Obama simply gave away a very large sum of money, gained under the pretense of the pledge of job creation, to keep his public sector supporters on the job.

In effect Obama extorted funds from congress by claiming one thing and then doing another. The cold, calculated dishonesty of it all is mind boggling.

And secondarily, and probably more importantly, by pumping billions into local communities to keep the chosen ones, public sector employees, on the job the president did absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem of pension and benefit packages bargained in a one hand washes the other manner that threaten the long term economic viability of many state and local governments.
In fact he exacerbated the problem by failing to address it at all in favor of putting a band aid on things that causes people to believe all is okay when in fact that's far from the truth.

He's like the real estate agent who has put a new rose garden in front of the sink hole that threatens to swallow your home.

 

False. I did it on the premise of the claim made that Obama was one of the dumbest or most negligent presidents of all times because of the employment numbers.

Try reading the thread before you jump in with your ad hom attacks and then maybe you'll have a clue as to what you're talking about.

But business can regulate itself. Wasn't that the mantra?

A necessary and appropriate course when the economy is spiraling down towards a depression. It should have been larger and longer. Kind of like with Reagan and Bush.

Obama extorted nothing.

A lot of it did go to helping millions of people, including policemen, fire fighters, and teacher keep their jobs. Again, why is that a bad thing to you? How in your view would the economy have been better had millions more cops, firemen and teachers lost their jobs in 2009-10?

 

What's the point of printing more money to keep millions of cops, firemen and teachers employees when they will ultimately lose their jobs when the printing press stops printing? Not only will they ultimately lose their jobs, but the country will be in even more debt.

Like a credit card, we will have to stop speeding at some point. Think of it like Detroit, but on a national level. You cannot keep on spending... you have to find ways of creating wealth. Sometimes it's better to take off the bandage quickly than let it fest and get infected. No doubt, it will hurt, but in the long run, its the best thing to do.

 

Job lose was as low as it was only because under Bush, he made up for much of that lose by having over two million in job growth. Hopefully that came about because of tax cuts. No mam all those big job loses came about all around the same time, when the banks failed and around the same time GM and Chrysler were bleeding red and laying off like mad. That is when the house of cards fell. You sure can't say Bush did anything in his last years to bring on that down fall except those three things, none of which Bush had any control over. In Clinton's last three years, he saw lose of manufacturing from NAFTA and things got only worse when he started trade with China at the end of his term. The economy was in a downward trend the day Bush took office.

President Clinton, The Economy Started Losing Manufacturing Jobs While You Were in Office

Change in Manufacturing Jobs

1998 -140,000

1999 -170,000

2000 -99,000

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...g-manufacturing-jobs-while-you-were-in-office

 

Why do you say they will ultimately lose their jobs? When the economy picks up and tax revenues start recovering they won't.

I agree we cannot charge all the time. And we should not when the economy is doing well. Unfortunately, we've had presidents like Reagan and Bush how did not, and kept the credit card charging even when the economy was doing well, which put us in the precarious debt situation we are in. Now we are feeling the pain.