GOP List of waste in Stimulus

sarlen · Post by **sarlen** » February 3, 2009, 2:36 pm

While only a few of these stick out as real pork I don't think most of them belong in the package at all, I can appreciate a lot of the things on this list but now isn't the time. This package is about turning the economy around not a chance to slip someones pet projects in under the radar.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/ ... index.html

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 3, 2009, 2:51 pm

That is a good list. The Republicans are doing a very good job of trimming the fat, which is a good thing. I'm concerned why they pushed the initial bailouts through so quickly, and also how these men suddenly became so fiscally conservative only after Obama took office. No matter really since that's all in the past.

I'm still waiting to hear some Republican solutions instead of just Republican criticism.

On a side note, I'm happy to see so many Republicans compliment Obama in the media. They actually seem to be developing a good bond with him. Of course, they all fucking hate Nacy Palosi but I'm not fond of her either. She's waaaay too partisan for my taste. She is very much "us vs them" and I despise that attitude in our elected officials.

sarlen · Post by **sarlen** » February 3, 2009, 3:01 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: Of course, they all fucking hate Nacy Palosi but I'm not fond of her either. She's waaaay too partisan for my taste. She is very much "us vs them" and I despise that attitude in our elected officials.

I have listened to a couple of her speeches and frankly she doesn't even convince me she believes half the shit she spews. She is all about the party lines and not about what we need, and that's compromise and solutions.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 3:26 pm

I think the problem is that some Democrats are trying to accomplish two things with one bill: There's an economic stimulus bill in there, but then there's also funding for a number of important programs and causes that Democrats really want. The proponents of these programs believe that they are legitimately stimulative, but usually over a longer term. For instance, money going toward smoking cessation and STD prevention is economically stimulative, because healthy people cost the government less money and produce more wealth. It's almost certain that this money is a good investment, but it's a good investment over a long time frame. Lots of these programs are good ideas, but I generally agree that many/most of them don't belong in a bill which is intended to be an urgent jolt to the economy.

That said, the Republicans are going to be forced to do some amount of compromising. The Democrats almost certainly don't need any Republican support to pass this bill. If the Republicans are just going to vote against in en masse unless it's exactly the stimulus that the GOP wants, the Democrats will have no incentive to compromise and will just throw everything they want into the bill and jam it down the Republicans throats.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 3, 2009, 3:30 pm

...and thereby ensure that the GOP has complete control back in 2010.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 3:38 pm

Doubt it. Pork makes a great subject to rail against, but it's actually immensely popular when it happens. Especially when a bill is huge enough to have something for everyone, and when it also contains a stimulus that will be unaffected by the inclusion of unrelated spending. Plus I'm fairly confident that the Republicans will compromise anyway.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 3, 2009, 4:08 pm

I would not count on that. You are already seeing people start to come out with the "this is NOT what I signed on for" comments. You also fail to account for the average person's perception of what is going on versus reality. They heard "change change change change change change" for a solid year from the Democrat camp and they are getting a healthy dose of the same. with the added bonus of every nomination Obama is sending out has issues that is going to resonate HEAVILY with people during a recession.

When your nominated people are failing to pay taxes that amount to more money then most people will make in the entire Presidency of Obama, then you are going to see some changes when election time comes around. You are also going to get some massive backlash once Holder gets situated and begins his reign of terror. Some Repubs are also going to lose seats because of that mess.....they were given a free ride by certain interest groups to vote on him without a repurcussion to their ratings...and they went with a really bad choice.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 3, 2009, 4:21 pm

The GOP need to be careful here though. If they refuse to sign on and all this shit works out great they will be without a job next term. If they sign on and it doesn't work they can always spin that though about trying to be willing.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2009, 4:30 pm

It's gonna be hillarious to watch Kilmoll nit-pick every single thing the government does for the next 4 years.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 3, 2009, 6:00 pm

Not to mention that all of that so called pork amounts to less than the costs of the tax cuts for the rich compromise the Dems agreed to....

With a few exceptions, a lot of that is either infastructure or national related.

Not sure how you think the GOPers are going to come flooding back into power in 2010, especially once all the details of the last 8 years of assclownery start getting made a matter of public record (see Rove not being able to duck congressional testimony anymore) as Obama slowly unravels the Orwellian nightmare that Cheney assembled over that time frame.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » February 3, 2009, 7:30 pm

Why should we be paying for tribal alcohol reduction and led based paint? I agree with a lot of that list except for the energy saving initiaves that could reduce costs in the long run.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 3, 2009, 10:31 pm

Wouldn't many of those things simply fare better in the annual budget or something?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 3, 2009, 10:32 pm

Yeah, I think one Democratic Senator admitted recently that it may be better to split the thing into two bills: An economic stimulus, and a bill to fund critical programs that were ignored during the Bush years. I forget where I read this, but maybe some political junkie here saw the same thing and can confirm.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 3, 2009, 11:20 pm

Welcome to the return of big government.

We're fucked, hopefully only for 4 years, but fucked nonetheless.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 3, 2009, 11:23 pm

Sueven wrote:Yeah, I think one Democratic Senator admitted recently that it may be better to split the thing into two bills: An economic stimulus, and a bill to fund critical programs that were ignored during the Bush years. I forget where I read this, but maybe some political junkie here saw the same thing and can confirm.

It was either Claire McCaskill or Jim Webb or both. I'm looking for the source where I read this, haven't been able to find it yet.

EDIT: I was wrong, it's Bill Nelson (D) of Nebraska.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkfNFd5Qzkc

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 3, 2009, 11:26 pm

Winnow wrote:Welcome to the return of big government.

We're fucked, hopefully only for 4 years, but fucked nonetheless.

Yes, 'cause the past eight years were just fine and dandy.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 3, 2009, 11:58 pm

Spang wrote:
Winnow wrote:Welcome to the return of big government.

We're fucked, hopefully only for 4 years, but fucked nonetheless.
Yes, 'cause the past eight years were just fine and dandy.

History will judge how much you enjoyed the past eight years. Just give it time. Before you know it you'll be fondly looking back at that those glorious years.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 4, 2009, 1:06 am

Or not.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 4, 2009, 2:05 pm

Winnow wrote:Welcome to the return of big government.

We're fucked, hopefully only for 4 years, but fucked nonetheless.

I don't know Winnow. I think you are in a position of financial security that many of us, certainly not I, are not able to enjoy. It kind of paints a picture, in my eyes, that Republicans are trying to hold on to the money they have in desperate fear that the Democrats are going to try and take it all away.

Allow me and my family to get into such a position and I'd probably right there with you. As it is however, we're wondering how we are going to make the house payment, car payment, credit payment, and utility payments in the short term. We can't even begin to think about how to get the kids through school.

So if by fucked you mean that 90% of the nation will get a leg up and have a chance at survival then yeah I guess we are fucked.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 4, 2009, 2:38 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Allow me and my family to get into such a position and I'd probably right there with you. As it is however, we're wondering how we are going to make the house payment, car payment, credit payment, and utility payments in the short term. We can't even begin to think about how to get the kids through school.

This is all George Bush's fault, I'm assuming? He's not the worst president, but he's certainly the most scapegoated.

This is life... If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I'd be in the same boat, but it's would be no ones fault other than my own because I haven't saved adequately. Just how exactly is Obama going to help you in the short term, other than by freeing you of responsibilities you agreed to?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 4, 2009, 3:01 pm

Fash wrote:This is all George Bush's fault, I'm assuming?

Yes, it is his fault. George W. Bush left this great country with two fucking wars to deal with and an economy that's in the shitter. It wasn't my fault, wasn't your fault and it sure as hell wasn't Bubba's fault. It was George W. Bush's fault. He had every opportunity to be a great president, but he insisted on being a total fucking failure. Fuck George W. Bush and fuck anyone who defends him. He sucked!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 4, 2009, 3:08 pm

In the case of George Bush I'm not sure scapegoat is the proper term to be used.

Anyway, it will be fun watching all you Bush defenders nitpicking the new administration on a daily basis for the next 8 years. Whatever gives you a reason not to kill yourself I guess. For me it's all about the results. For now I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and at least giving him the same chance to prove himself that George Bush was given. Now I don't really remember 8 years ago but I'm pretty sure the vast amount of criticism (other than the usual partisian bullshit) didn't start until after the invasion of Iraq.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 4, 2009, 5:03 pm

Fash wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:Allow me and my family to get into such a position and I'd probably right there with you. As it is however, we're wondering how we are going to make the house payment, car payment, credit payment, and utility payments in the short term. We can't even begin to think about how to get the kids through school.
This is all George Bush's fault, I'm assuming? He's not the worst president, but he's certainly the most scapegoated.

This is life... If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I'd be in the same boat, but it's would be no ones fault other than my own because I haven't saved adequately. Just how exactly is Obama going to help you in the short term, other than by freeing you of responsibilities you agreed to?

I never made the assertion that it was anyone's fault actually. I'm not so naive to say that it was all the Republicans fault or the Democrats. We as a country fucked ourselves. If it falls on GWB then I am to blame even more so because I voted for him...TWICE.

I had never said anything about denying my responsibilities. We pay our debts and had a plan for paying them but that included having jobs. Probably poor planning on our part not to factor in the loss of a job or worse. To be honest though it isn't like we are trying to live beyond our means. We didn't buy a huge house (only 1100 sqft), we only bought a new vehicle when we had to, we don't have a huge plasma tv hanging from our livingroom wall.

I wouldn't even blame it on GWB because I believe that he is easiest target. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes and neither does anyone else here most likely. They say that we are in the process of recovery. You have to ask yourself, "Recovery from what". I believe that Obama is the first step towards that recovery and that is why I voted for him this election.

I agree with Fair in that I believe this is a class issue more so than a political party issue. The rich are rich and want to keep what they have. The poor want to be rich and try and get what they can. They'd be happy to be middle class but that distinction no longer really exists. It's pretty much Poor or Rich. I suppose you have to decide on a common definition of each first though.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 4, 2009, 5:48 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:
Fash wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:Allow me and my family to get into such a position and I'd probably right there with you. As it is however, we're wondering how we are going to make the house payment, car payment, credit payment, and utility payments in the short term. We can't even begin to think about how to get the kids through school.
This is all George Bush's fault, I'm assuming? He's not the worst president, but he's certainly the most scapegoated.

This is life... If I were to lose my job tomorrow, I'd be in the same boat, but it's would be no ones fault other than my own because I haven't saved adequately. Just how exactly is Obama going to help you in the short term, other than by freeing you of responsibilities you agreed to?
I never made the assertion that it was anyone's fault actually. I'm not so naive to say that it was all the Republicans fault or the Democrats. We as a country fucked ourselves. If it falls on GWB then I am to blame even more so because I voted for him...TWICE.

I had never said anything about denying my responsibilities. We pay our debts and had a plan for paying them but that included having jobs. Probably poor planning on our part not to factor in the loss of a job or worse. To be honest though it isn't like we are trying to live beyond our means. We didn't buy a huge house (only 1100 sqft), we only bought a new vehicle when we had to, we don't have a huge plasma tv hanging from our livingroom wall.

I wouldn't even blame it on GWB because I believe that he is easiest target. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes and neither does anyone else here most likely. They say that we are in the process of recovery. You have to ask yourself, "Recovery from what". I believe that Obama is the first step towards that recovery and that is why I voted for him this election.

I agree with Fair in that I believe this is a class issue more so than a political party issue. The rich are rich and want to keep what they have. The poor want to be rich and try and get what they can. They'd be happy to be middle class but that distinction no longer really exists. It's pretty much Poor or Rich. I suppose you have to decide on a common definition of each first though.

It's not just poor OR rich, it is poor VS. rich. The issue at hand is that class warfare has been waged. If you prefer you can say that class warfare never ceased, but merely intensified recently. This is NOT a coincidence:

Sure both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the disparity. However, to merely deny that politics has anything to do with this graph is beyond naive. Politics plays a major role in how intensely the class war is waged. It is justified because when wealth is suctioned towards the top it is called "capitalism", but when wealth is spread around it is called "socialism" and made into taboo. When people begin to realize that this is all propaganda of the class war, we can begin to address the real issue in this country: the actual class war, the giant disparity between the haves and have nots.

Bush did everything in his magnificent power (even stepping beyond the scope of his power) to not only perpetuate the class war, but to wage it on the side of the ultra rich, at the expense of the nation at large. Bush apologists fail to see the forest from the trees.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 4, 2009, 6:04 pm

The "housing crisis" has been coming for a long time. I used to do pre-foreclosure work for a company that serviced the "shitty" loans. My job was to do everything I could to keep that person in the home before the foreclosure process had to start. I would go through the credit reports as well as 32 pages of docs submitted by the mortgager. I would essentially set up a budget with these people, and it was amazing how many stated that they could have avoided getting into that situation by addressing the budget issue when they bought the home. Now, this could have been taken care of by them when they were looking into purchasing, but most indicated that they were given some incomplete, or inaccurate, information by the person doing the prep-work. Sometimes they just failed to ask questions when buying. Ultimately, poor planning led to most of the loans coming into my area. We were doing well, and we were purchased by a bigger bank, and then an even bigger one. The last of these buyouts was in early 2000, iirc. They started dumping the worst loans I had ever seen on us, expecting the same results. They were bought cheap from other lenders, and while I understood that they were just a drop in the bucket when it came to the overall business that the bank had, there was no way it could continue forever. I got out around May of 2001. The company was gone shortly after 9/11, but it would have been gone even if the bank's office in the WTC had not been destroyed.

This was not the result of any political party's influence. I would blame the banks more than anyone. Sure, the buyers should have made better choices, but the lenders were practically giving away money to people that were not really in a position to pay on the terms they were getting. Temporary fixed rate mortgages were sold with the idea of the buyer being able to refinance into a fixed rate before it changed to an ARM. That was rarely the case with many of the loans I worked on, as they probably shouldn't have been qualified for the loan in the first place.

Blame Bush? Things were fucked before he was elected (His campaign office actually rented our building space in downtown Austin which forced us to move to the opposite side of town >< ) Blame Clinton? Nope, not him either. Blame the banks that failed because of the bad paper they wrote and bought for a fraction of the value of the loan amounts.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 4, 2009, 6:13 pm

My old business in Atlanta was a mortgage closing business. I saw and even helped close several loans that I knew were predatory, but I was under contractual obligation not to tell the borrower. On one occasion I actually broke that obligation and told this old lady she was being ripped off, because this company was literally trying to steal $25-50k from her.

Again, the government is (should have been) responsible for regulation and oversight of the banks. The mantra of free market self regulation is utter nonsense. It is like taking out all the red lights in a city and expecting no one to wreck (not my analogy). Rules and laws are there to protect the society at large. It is the duty of the government to establish these laws. They failed.

For the past 14 years, on my former beat as the tax reporter for the New York Times, and now as a columnist for the trade journal Tax Notes, I have been documenting the myriad ways in which our economy has been recalibrated to take from the poor, the middle class, and even the affluent and give to large corporations and the very richest of the rich. I discovered, for example, that in 2000, people making between $50,000 and $75,000 paid the same share of their income to the federal government as those making more than $87 million, and that those making between $100,000 and $200,000 were taxed more heavily than those making $10 million—a state of affairs the Bush administration called "progressive" when I first reported it in 2005. Thanks to Reaganite economic policies, we have encouraged once-competitive industries such as oil, car manufacturing, accounting, and news media to congeal into unchecked (and now struggling) oligopolies. We have slashed the ranks of white-collar cops—the auditors and investigators whose beats are taxes, securities, food and drugs, pollution, etc.—and hamstrung those who are left. And we have transformed the idea that bankers would self-regulate from a crackpot notion into the essence of government policy, with results as predictable as if we removed all traffic lights and stop signs on the theory that most drivers are responsible.

Over and over for the past decade, our leaders argued that the fundamentals holding up our economy were strong. Now we know that this floor of shiny statistics merely concealed the rot below. But there is an upside to this realization: The economic crisis can help us clear away the rot and build a more solid foundation—one that elevates people over capital, kick-starts commerce, and removes some of the costliest barriers to individual success and national progress.

Change will not be easy, and the cost of cleaning up the current mess will be a huge drag on the economy in the near term. But we are, at last, at a turning point; we have a chance to end the socialism for the rich that put us into this hole. How? By, in effect, reverse engineering the debacle.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... erapy.html

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » February 5, 2009, 8:53 pm

i just applied for a mortgage loan because on a 30 year loan with 5 percent interest i can get a house with a mortgage payment for less than half of my current rent and it wouldn't even be a shitty house in south phoenix!

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » February 5, 2009, 9:32 pm

A new home builder here in the Columbus area is advertising 3 7/8 with 720 FICO and 20% down.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 5, 2009, 10:06 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:i just applied for a mortgage loan because on a 30 year loan with 5 percent interest i can get a house with a mortgage payment for less than half of my current rent and it wouldn't even be a shitty house in south phoenix!

It's irritatingly the opposite here... repayments on $380,000 would be $2506/month. (7% interest)

House I'm currently renting is < $2200/month and worth in the order of $650,000

/sigh

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » February 6, 2009, 12:06 am

Christ, I only make 2000 a month as a teacher. In my excitement this year with my first job, I conveniently forget that I'm very much poor.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 6, 2009, 2:59 am

Kaldaur wrote:Christ, I only make 2000 a month as a teacher. In my excitement this year with my first job, I conveniently forget that I'm very much poor.

Well, I do share w/ one fellow .. but yeah, teachers get such bad wages given they have degrees...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 10:46 am

Teachers make decent (not spectacular) wages....the problem being they are really only employed for 9 months a year instead of 12. If anyone took a 3 month layoff at work, their salary would suffer.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 10:50 am

Sabek wrote:A new home builder here in the Columbus area is advertising 3 7/8 with 720 FICO and 20% down.

If anything is going to stimulate the economy, it is going to be the banks finding ways to loan people money for housing. The big thing being that this time around, the greed factor needs to be weighed in and possibly even regulated to make sure banks are not extending money to people that they know cannot pay it back. The housing industry definitely can be an enormous stimulus across the board.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 6, 2009, 11:59 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:If anything is going to stimulate the economy, it is going to be the banks finding ways to loan people money for housing. The big thing being that this time around, the greed factor needs to be weighed in and possibly even regulated to make sure banks are not extending money to people that they know cannot pay it back. The housing industry definitely can be an enormous stimulus across the board.

Who is going to loan money to people that don't have a job?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 12:04 pm

There are plenty of people that have jobs. If this encourages people that have jobs to buy homes while the prices of said homes and interest rates are lower, then you have an economy that starts to build back up.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 6, 2009, 12:11 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:There are plenty of people that have jobs. If this encourages people that have jobs to buy homes while the prices of said homes and interest rates are lower, then you have an economy that starts to build back up.

So, you believe there are enough first time home buyers out there that once they get loans, it will jumpstart the economy? Why do you feel the banks are currently denying these first time home buyers a loan?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 12:47 pm

I am not sure they are first time buyers taking advantage of this. It would definitely benefit first time buyers too though....with a good rate, they can get a home and pay less than they do for rent. Then they further stimulate the economy by buying all the crap that homeowners need. As to why the banks are denying....who the fuck knows? Why would they loan people money they KNEW could not be paid back? Banks are greedy fucks who don't give a shit about anything other than squeezing every last cent out of people.....much like a lot of businesses which is also why we are in this mess to start with.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 6, 2009, 12:59 pm

The banks have the money to loan now. They are just cracking down on who is eligible for those loans. So really, what more can our government do to stimulate the houseing industry if banks are not loaning the money they have for whatever reasons?

I hear the Republican mantra of "fix the housing problem" over and over, but I never hear any details. What needs to be fixed? Where should we direct our attention? Where is the problem? Banks just failed because they lent money to everybody. They are being very careful now (too careful?) and examining where things went wrong and how they need to change thier business model in order to stay alive. People wanting/needing loans are caught in the middle. Nothing the government can do is going to speed up that process. The loaning problem starts and ends with banks.

The big question with the stimulus is where should the money go? The country needs jobs more than people need loans. Unemployment is a huge drain on an already faultering financial system. The stimulus should go for job creation and sustaining existing jobs where available. We need less people on assistance and more contributing to America with taxes and consumerisim.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 6, 2009, 2:22 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:There are plenty of people that have jobs.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Jump to 26-Year High

Unemployment Rate Hits 7.6 Percent in January

598,000 jobs cut

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 6, 2009, 2:30 pm

Still 92.4% employed...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 6, 2009, 2:44 pm

And how many employed people are holding off making large financial commitments because of the uncertain economy? If you are worried that you may lose your job in the next year, you won't be too eager to buy a home.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 6, 2009, 3:08 pm

Lalanae wrote:And how many employed people are holding off making large financial commitments because of the uncertain economy? If you are worried that you may lose your job in the next year, you won't be too eager to buy a home.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. There is a possibility that I might lose my job (or my girlfriend might) in the next year, albeit a small chance. We are still looking at buying a home because I'm not going to bring my life to a hault because of what might happen. I'm going to continue living my life and moving forward, and if something does happen, I'll deal with it then.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 6, 2009, 3:39 pm

On the other hand, some people are more cautious and would actually prefer to wait for the economy to pick up before making such a large commitment. Of course there's no guarantee someone can't lose thier job at anytime but some people like to feel more comfortable before jumping into something like that.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 6, 2009, 4:08 pm

Aslanna wrote:On the other hand, some people are more cautious and would actually prefer to wait for the economy to pick up before making such a large commitment. Of course there's no guarantee someone can't lose thier job at anytime but some people like to feel more comfortable before jumping into something like that.

I totally understand that. I just think it's silly to live your life in fear constantly because of what MIGHT happen. Like you said yourself, it could really happen anytime, even in a good economy.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 6, 2009, 4:24 pm

Just because someone is being cautious doesn''t necessarily mean they are living their "life in fear".

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 6, 2009, 4:42 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Aslanna wrote:On the other hand, some people are more cautious and would actually prefer to wait for the economy to pick up before making such a large commitment. Of course there's no guarantee someone can't lose thier job at anytime but some people like to feel more comfortable before jumping into something like that.
I totally understand that. I just think it's silly to live your life in fear constantly because of what MIGHT happen. Like you said yourself, it could really happen anytime, even in a good economy.

If you're not a fraidy cat, why do you need the CCW?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 5:15 pm

For the same reason I have insurance. Just because I am not afraid does not mean I cannot make an effort to protect myself from other people's stupidity.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 6, 2009, 5:21 pm

Kilmoll wrote:Teachers make decent (not spectacular) wages....the problem being they are really only employed for 9 months a year instead of 12. If anyone took a 3 month layoff at work, their salary would suffer.

Couple points on this. Obviously there is extreme variation by school district and individual teacher, but this is certainly not true for all teachers. Most teachers I know work crazy hours during the school year-- often 11+ hours a day-- and don't get a whole lot of time off in the summer, as they're required to come in and work a certain number of days, attend continuing education programs, lots of them have obligations as the faculty sponsor of some student organization or a sports coach or what have you. This is anecdotal and I'm sure there are some teachers who just work 8 hour days 9 months a year, but the idea that teaching is an easy gig is often not true.

Fash wrote:Still 92.4% employed...

Unemployment statistics measure only those people who report themselves as actively looking for a job. This is good in some ways-- obviously you don't want to count stay-at-home moms among the unemployed-- but it also leads to the exclusion of those who are unemployable, have given up looking for a job, etc. I've never seen any good numbers as to how extensively it underestimates true unemployment, but the true percentage of people who would like a job and don't have one is substantially higher than the reported unemployment rate.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » February 6, 2009, 6:43 pm

Sueven wrote:
Kilmoll wrote:Teachers make decent (not spectacular) wages....the problem being they are really only employed for 9 months a year instead of 12. If anyone took a 3 month layoff at work, their salary would suffer.
Couple points on this. Obviously there is extreme variation by school district and individual teacher, but this is certainly not true for all teachers. Most teachers I know work crazy hours during the school year-- often 11+ hours a day-- and don't get a whole lot of time off in the summer, as they're required to come in and work a certain number of days, attend continuing education programs, lots of them have obligations as the faculty sponsor of some student organization or a sports coach or what have you. This is anecdotal and I'm sure there are some teachers who just work 8 hour days 9 months a year, but the idea that teaching is an easy gig is often not true.

This is true for me. As a band director, I have three weeks off in July. The rest of the time, marching band has already begun full tilt, day one of summer vacation. This does not translate into a full time summer position, but professional development also keeps us busy about four more weeks in the summer, attending conferences and camps (unpaid) for our field. And during the fall, I average twelve-fourteen hour days with marching band factored in, so that by the time October rolls around, I've already logged an extra 320 hours of work in three months time, translating to another quarter of school (8 weeks). Music teachers are not the norm, however, and I do know some teachers that quit as soon as summer rolls around and don't think about anything until the day before it kicks back up in August. I do get an 800 dollar stipend for marching band: this comes out to be around 2.60 an hour with time factored in. The rest of my salary is on a uniform pay scale, which means I get paid the same amount as an elementary education teacher or a high school science teacher, regardless of the time we put in.
And before anyone says it, I know, I'm a teacher, and I clearly didn't go into it to get paid well. My point was more to the fact that, while some teachers take the three months off, I know many who do not.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 6, 2009, 7:09 pm

Wow....you truly are getting fucked on the pay scale end of things. My sister and sister-in-law are both teachers...and I know my sister makes 45k+ for her 9 months. Most of the additional pay for summer or coaching activities is MUCH higher than $800 here as well. I know that most of them are in the $2500-$3500 range for what generally amounts to 2 months of part time work.

let me edit this to say that is not me trying to take a shot at you....it just sucks that your district/area undervalues your profession