Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » ck4829 » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
ck4829's Journal - Archives
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Wed Dec 07th 2011, 01:15 PM
Secretary Hillary Clinton’s speech on defending LGBT rights abroad and the new Obama administration policy to protect people around the world who are jailed, beaten and executed for being LGBT have been met with intense uproar from the Religious Right.

"This country cannot continue to violate God’s principles and to make a mockery of His laws and think we’re going to get away with it. And when the blow comes, it’s going to be horrible."
- Pat Robertson

“The inmates have taken over the asylum.”
- Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America

“Radical sexual anarchist agenda.”
- Mat Staver, Liberty Council

And the best for last... "So what if other countries put people in prison for creating pro-gay organizations, it's not like they're killing them, right? We're the bad guys for refusing them aid because of it!" Yeah, really.

"It’s crazy. They’re saying it’s all homophobia in Nigeria, according to the law I guess in Nigeria not only is gay marriage a crime punishable by a fourteen year jail term but any person who registers, operates or participates in gay organizations faces a decade in jail, a clause that specifically targets the many active sexuality-rights advocacy groups in the country. Alright, but they’re not killing them are they? Are they going to go to jail?"
- Janet Mefferd

Making the Christian Right throw a temper tantrum, always a sign that you are doing the right thing.
Read entry | Discuss (9 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Mon Dec 05th 2011, 01:09 PM
Arizona’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R) spends a lot of time playing politics and apparently no time doing his actual job. The AP reports that, over a three-year period ending in 2007, Arpaio “inadequately investigated” or in some instances didn’t even work more than 400 sex-crimes reported to his office. The cases “include dozens of alleged child molestations.”

In El Mirage, Arizona, where Arpaio provided contract services, he failed to follow through on at least 32 reported child molestations — with some victims as young as 2. Many of the children were undocumented immigrants. According to an El Mirage detective, Arpaio’s people essentially “put their feet on the desk, and that was that”:

In El Mirage alone, where Arpaio’s office was providing contract police services, officials discovered at least 32 reported child molestations — with victims as young as 2 — in which the sheriff’s office failed to follow through, even though suspects were known in all but six cases.

Arpaio refused to answer questions for months and “declined a public records request for an internal affairs report, citing potential disciplinary actions.” He acknowledged his office completed an internal probe into the investigations, but said, “I don’t think it’s right to get into it until we get to the bottom of this and see if there’s disciplinary action against any employees.” (Translation: Who can I pass the buck on to?) /

In other news, Joe Arpaio has endorsed Rick Perry for President.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Tue Nov 29th 2011, 11:00 AM
No, you aren't a job creator if you put money in the Cayman Islands.

No, you aren't a job creator if you put money in Bermuda.

No, you aren't a job creator if you put money in a Swiss bank account.

No, you aren't a job creator if you put money in any other offshore tax shelter.

No, you aren't a job creator if the only thing you do is run around telling people to get a job.

No, you aren't a job creator if you think the only way to create jobs is to cut the safety net.

And, no, you are definitely not a job creator if the jobs you put up use credit checks as a hiring filter and you go out of your way to tell the unemployed not to even bother applying.
Read entry | Discuss (10 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Mon Nov 21st 2011, 10:20 AM
Employers who use credit scores in their hiring decisions might be weeding out some of the best applicants, a new study suggests.

Researchers found no connection between poor credit scores and the likelihood that an employee would steal or call in sick. But they did find a correlation between lower credit scores and a more agreeable personality, according to the study which was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

As it turns out, people with poor credit scores were no more likely to steal or display any other type of deviant work behaviors, Bernerth said. They were, however, more likely to have easy going personalities.

The bottom line, Bernerth said, is that employers are using a score that may indicate nothing — or something completely different from what they expect.

This isn't the first time I've heard this, so why is research and scientific theory backed information competing with the 'COMMON KNOWLEDGE' (I.E. lies and idiocy) that a high credit score does mean a better employee? Crazy, right?
Read entry | Discuss (10 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Fri Oct 28th 2011, 07:34 AM
OK, no, they didn't actually say that. The things they said were actually a lot worse.

"In the President’s plan, businesses are encouraged to give hiring preferences to long-term unemployed individuals through generous tax credits. Furthermore, the government subsidizes joblessness through a series of unemployment benefit extensions. Why would anyone answer Obama’s call to “get to work” and champion the “American” way when they can flaunt the way of the unemployed?"

CK That's right, you'd think they'd support a tax credit as a way of getting the unemployed back to work like expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to cover the long term unemployed or people who are seeing their unemployment insurance benefits expire. But no, they think it's flaunting being unemployed.

"All of these government hand-holders push the market toward "living the life" with little to no responsibility. Rather than stimulating the businesses and entrepreneurs the President exalts in his speeches, Obama is rolling out red tape and spending that actively stifles them."

CK Let's talk about red tape, shall we? Let's talk about the credit checks and the "unemployed need not apply" job ads. That's the red tape the unemployed are getting... from the 'job creators' like the ones who fashion themselves as such in Americans for Prosperity.

"Overall, this Jobs Bill is an implicit refusal to consider public opinion. Two weeks ago, Rasmussen reported, 64% of “Likely U.S. voters think thoughtful spending cuts should be considered in every program of the federal government” (emphasis added). But, the President follows up with a bill stuffed with just the opposite. Programs in this bill not only make it convenient to be unemployed, but make joblessness a self-righteous status symbol: I’m unemployed, so hire me!"

CK Emphasis mine. Yeah, those crazy leftist hippies, acting like you need a job to pay rent or pay back loans or something. Crazy.

Link here, set faces to stunned:
Read entry | Discuss (9 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Tue Oct 11th 2011, 10:31 AM
The Tea Party's response to the Occupy Wall Street is calling themselves the 53%, saying that they are subsidizing the 99% and calling them whiners who need to suck it up.

I want to be a 53%er too.

Too bad though...

I get told I can't get this job because I'm not currently employed
Or I can't get that job because I don't have a job, and so I can't pay my bills, and now my credit score sinks, and because of my low credit score I am denied
Or the only job I can find is something that I can't pay rent with or pay back student loans with

Mr. Erickson, there is a difference between people whining and people crying out because you are pushing them up against the wall and grinding their faces into that wall. Are you going to accuse people of whining or are you going to break down the wall and the vicious circles?
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Sat Oct 08th 2011, 01:06 PM
What have you done about the crimes that resulted in the meltdown of the economy? Nothing.

What have you done about the vicious circles the long term unemployed face? Nothing.

What have you done about corporate excess at the expense of the average American? Nothing.

What have you done about debts and lack of opportunity strangling the American Dream? Nothing.

Who is the real anarchist here?
Read entry | Discuss (11 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Fri Sep 30th 2011, 08:38 AM
In Debt Enough Already.

We've got a start with the 99'ers and the Occupy Wall Street, it's time to press forward, there needs to be a force to remind politicians and the media:
About foreclosure fraud
About student loans and with the shrinking the job market, the inability to pay back said loans
About the long term unemployed and the discrimination that they face, keeping them in perpetual unemployment
About the vicious cycle of using credit scores as a hiring filter, keeping people with an inability to pay bills unable to pay bills
That tax cuts do not necessarily mean job growth
That repealing the minimum wage, anti-discrimination laws, and other regulations will not solve anything
That cutting the safety net will not mean people will all of the sudden find work
And more

Aren't our nation's youth in debt enough already?
Aren't people with medical bills in debt enough already?
Aren't college students in debt enough already?
Aren't the long term unemployed in debt enough already?

Maybe it's time for an Idea Party to stand up.
Read entry | Discuss (11 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Wed Sep 21st 2011, 07:48 AM
This should give everyone an idea of just what the marginalized and the long term unemployed are up against...

"1/3 People on unemployment find work withing 3 weeks of their benefits running out. Seems like extending the benefits for 2 1/2 years is a little over kill maybe?"
- No source given /

"I had heard a figure before that 30% of the people on unemployment find jobs the very next month AFTER UI runs out."
- No source given for this 'figure'

“it's no coincidenc­e that 76% of people on unemployme­nt find a job the week before their benefits expire. just sayin”
- No source given for this 'coincidence'

"According to an AP story, 2/3 of people on unemployment find work within 30 days of the "benefits" running out."
- No link given for this 'AP story' /

"Studies have shown time and time again that the majority of people on unemployment find a job during the last 3 weeks of benefits and the first 2 weeks of no benefits"
- No links given for these 'studies'

"In all economic climates, the vast majority of people on unemployment find a job within 2 weeks of their unemployment benefit end."
- No link given for this 'pearl of wisdom' /

"A recent study showed that people on unemployment find a job when the unemployment runs out..hmmm"
- No link given for this 'recent study'

"Can't help to laugh at the 6 week reduction because it's been proven that 85% of the people on unemployment find a job (albeit miraclously) in the last 2 weeks of their unemployment running out."
- No link given for this 'proven' miracle

"Did you know that 20% of all people on unemployment find work within 1 week of losing their unemployment compensation? Gee, isn't THAT a coincidence?!?!"
- Gee, how come there is no link for this 'coincidence'?

"Studies have found that a very high percentage of people on unemployment find work within 2-3 months after their unemployment checks have stopped. This would suggest that many in America today who are unemployed are not searching for a job as if their lives depended upon it."
- No links given for these studies

"I saw a statistic that about 1/3rd of people on unemployment find a job within 30 days of losing the handout. It would seem to me that the best way to create jobs would be to stop incentivizing people to not work."
- No link given for this statistic

"The governments own statistics show that the vast majority of people on unemployment find jobs within a couple months of their benefits why is that?"
- No link given for the 'governments own statistics'

"One third of all people on unemployment find work within 30 days of their benefits ending. 82% find work within 60 days of their unemployment ending. People don't start looking till the end of their benefits in a lot of cases."
- No links given for these 'facts'

"80% of people on unemployment find jobs within 30 days after their benefits run out. What does that mean? The biggest competitor for workers is the government handout programs."
- No link given for this 'statistic'

"I think I read somewhere that most people on unemployment find jobs during the last two weeks of their term. It doesn't matter how long they're been drawing. Once they have two weeks left they magically find jobs."
- Nope, no link given for this magical thing that this guy 'read'

"I recently read that one third of all people on unemployment find work within 3 days of losing their benefits."
- Was it a book that this person read from? A magazine? A newspaper? We'll never know, because no link was ever given

"I've seen stats showing most people on unemployment find jobs within a few weeks of it ending. That sure suggests it's a crutch more than a helping hand."
- No link for these stats given

"I heard a stat on TV yesterday that 1/3 of all people on unemployment find a job in thier last week collecting benefits. It appears that at least 33 percent of them truly need an incentive."
- Which TV show was it? Guess what? It's not listed on there!

"In a recent study it has been shown that two thirds of the people on unemployment find a job in the last few weeks of collecting."
- Don't bother looking for a link, there isn't one

"How can you even argue with the cold hard fact that over 90% of people on unemployment find work with in 6 weeks of running out of Benefits."
- No link given for this 'cold hard fact'

Isn't this amazing? It's a magical statistic that's all over the place and people just hear about it.

Now, do you want something with a source?

People on unemployment actually find work faster.

Crazy, right?
Read entry | Discuss (7 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Sat Sep 17th 2011, 06:49 AM
Who to believe, the same crowd that calls Obama a Muslim Commie Nazi who was born in Kenya and have absolutely no evidence to back up their claims that the unemployed are lazy or a bunch of eggheads who use liberally biased things like math and the scientific method? Hmmm. Tough decision.

Tea Party Rep. Steve King (R-IA) took to the House floor yesterday to give a diatribe against large swaths of of the social safety net, from food stamps to heating fuel subsidies, but reserved particular disdain for unemployment insurance, which he dismissed as “welfare for people that won’t work.”

The former speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, has consistently said that unemployment checks are one of those reliable and immediate forms of economy recovery. <...> The 80 million Americans that are of working age but are simply not in the workforce need to be put to work. We can’t have a nation of slackers and then have me have to sit in the Judiciary Committee listening to them argue that there’s work that Americans won’t do, so we have to import people to do the work that Americans won’t do, and borrow money to pay the welfare for people that won’t work. That is a foolish thing for a nation to do. We’ve gotta get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker rolls and onto the employed rolls. /

This claim has also been echoed by Senator Rand Paul, Rep. Blake Farenthold, and by John Lott in an editorial on the Fox News website.

But what is the reality?

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has this:

Figure 2 displays the resulting unemployment duration series for job losers and leavers/entrants from 2005 through the end of 2009. The vertical lines identify the start of the recession and the dates for the initiation and renewal of the extended UI benefits programs. Unemployment duration rose slightly in the early phase of the recession and then increased sharply after extended UI benefits became available, reaching a high of about 35 weeks in mid-2009 before declining back to about 30 weeks by the end of the year. Notably, the increase in expected duration was similar for job losers, the group that is eligible for UI benefits, and leavers and entrants, who are ineligible.

The similar increase in duration for the UI eligible and ineligible groups suggests that extended UI had only a limited impact on unemployment duration. As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the expected duration of unemployment had risen about 18.7 weeks for job losers and about 17.1 weeks for leavers and entrants, using the years 2006-2007 as a baseline. The differential increase of 1.6 weeks for job losers is the presumed impact of extended UI benefits on unemployment duration. It is straightforward to translate this increase in unemployment duration into an effect on the unemployment rate, based on their proportional relationship and adjusted for the share of job losers in overall unemployment, which was about 67% in December 2009. The implied increase in the unemployment rate is quite small, slightly less than 0.4 percentage point, indicating that without UI extensions, the measured unemployment rate would have been 9.6% in December 2009 rather than the observed 10.0%.

The red line is people who are on unemployment, the blue line is people who are not on it. People on unemployment insurance usually find work faster than people on it, and even when they don't find work faster, the difference isn't by much. Why this is not told to us by the 'liberal' media is beyond me. Oh wait...
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Fri Sep 16th 2011, 12:26 PM
We don't see a lot about unemployment, but I think we need to give it a very thorough examination and all the things that unemployment is connected to.

I'm thinking about:
Credit being affected
Inability to pay bills
Medical and psychological costs
Inability to afford goods and services
Relocation costs
And more

And let's compare that to the cost of an employer of last resort, a new Civilian Conservation Corps style program.

I've seen 250,000 dollars per worker. OK, we've got something. So now let's compare that to long-term unemployment.

Cost of an employer of last resort:
250,000 dollars per worker

Cost of long-term unemployment:
Being unemployed for a long period of time is equal to smoking ten packs of cigarettes a day
Wal-Mart CEO says customers are running out of money
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Wed Aug 24th 2011, 08:21 AM
The fine folks overseeing how kids learn in Texas want to change textbooks to give them a right wing slant, and they know that textbooks all over the United States will be changed to suit Texas (As they a large purchaser). But at the same time, the kids themselves won't be getting any new books for what could be months.

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- Some students are starting the new school year without new textbooks. The delay may not seem like such a big deal, but it might be for students who need to do homework.

Parents are still trying to make sense of the message they received from Tomball ISD telling them that their children will not have all the new textbooks which have been ordered.

According to this letter sent home from Tomball Superintendent John Neubauer, the delay in getting new books to the classrooms is due to "...legislative cut backs..."

A Texas Education Agency spokesperson says the problem is rooted in the legislature's delay in funding and changes in the way purchases are made. As a result, books couldn't be ordered in the spring as they generally are. Most orders were just made this month.

So caught up trying to indoctrinate kids all over the US and they can't even care for their own.
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Tue Aug 23rd 2011, 10:39 AM
Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the SNAP (Food stamps) recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.

"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And that's only likely to get worse. So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.

And 6% of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9% in 2009, and 3% in 2002, according to government data.

But hey, it's OK. Billionaires are trying to build artificial islands out in the middle of the ocean, so thank you for your sacrifices, everyone else... Oh and try not to starve or freeze to death too loudly, the billionaires don't want want to be bothered by your cries... I mean class warfare, 'kay?
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Wed Aug 17th 2011, 08:27 AM
People who have been unemployed for long periods don't exactly have a lot of things on their side:
Low credit scores
And ads stating that applicants "must currently be employed"

We've been told by the politicians and the media for the past decade that tax cuts would create jobs and prosperity, this has not been the case. But wait, what if there was a tax credit specifically for the purpose of hiring the unemployed? That would spur the economy, right?

Well, there WAS something like this, it was called the Back to Work Tax Credit Act. It would have given employers an incentive to hire people who were unemployed for 26 weeks or longer. Sounds good.

Too bad it quietly languished in Congress back in 2009 and did not even have an iota of media coverage announcing this as a solution to unemployment.

Congress needs to be told to bring this back and pass it. Or they could at least tell us the reason behind "Let's just throw out tax cuts in general and that might give employers the courage they need to hire people... Yay! Let's do it!" vs "How about we give a tax credit specifically for the purpose of hiring the unemployed... Meh."
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by ck4829 in General Discussion
Tue Aug 16th 2011, 06:06 PM
In all the applications and interviews I went on know one actually said it out loud but I did notice over time that when filling out applications the questions being asked became geared towards them trying to find out how long I was unemployed.

When you are looking for employment it's really is hard to tell what the problem is when applying for a position. If I had to guess it would be a couple of factors. More competition and employers being overwhelmed with the amount of applicants. There is no standard way to apply for a job; it depends on the company. Some employers will say, "You need to submit an application online from our website and it will go through HR" and when looking online, some employers will say "Please see the store manager in your location for open positions." If you are lucky, you will actually get a human being to see who you are and possibly have a conversation with them.

My other favorite is the company that tells you are overqualified. Can someone please explain what this term means when you are looking for employment? Especially, with this economy and job market. Sure, I may be overqualified, but wouldn't that be my call? These employers don't have a clue what my financial status is, so how could they judge that way?

I still have not found any work. Giving up is not an option. I still have bills to pay and need money to live. The only reason I have been able to survive for this long is due to great money management skills and pure luck. It’s frustrating because I miss working; I WANT to work, but no one is willing to give me the opportunity to prove myself.

I was employed as a copywriter for an advertising agency in 2008-2009. In early March of 2009 I represented the only remaining creative employee at the company. Earlier that year all three graphic designers and our web designer had been let go. I was also “let go” in middle March.

It’s hard to determine whether my lack of job inspired employers to look in the other direction. More often than not I never received an interview and only few inquired as to what I had been doing with my time prior to applying for an open position.

For jobs in my field; I get to phase two of the interview process, but feel once I submit my birthday or graduation date, I’m invisible. I’m 51 and unmarketable. 
I don’t regret spending quality time with my Dad, just leaving my job to do it. It’s amazing how just a few years ago I could pick who I wanted to work for, and name my price … now I can’t even get a minimum wage job. What happened? 
Unemployment isn’t enough to keep your head above water. I’m renting a room … when unemployment is out, what next?

And no, politicians and the media, another round of tax cuts will not solve this. Try something else.
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.