$447 bil
 

thats a lot of $ to conjure up outta thin air

extend unemplyment out to 3yrs from 2........:td:'

though on my short stint of unemployment (6 mos) i think the federal $ was like $25/wk if that.

But it won't cost us anything.

What a crock of shit.

I am starting to compare Hussein Obama to Punxsutawney Phil. Everytime he gets to the podium we get six more months of recession.

:lol:

Did you notice the Republicans didn't applaud when Obama talked about spending money on schools......Yet they applauded when he talked about spending money on some kind of new job program for vets. But wait, I thought they were against any new spending programs? Oh I forgot, the GOP is programmed to agree with any military-related spending. It makes them appear macho, which helps them get votes from armchair tough guys. So much for Republicans being economic conservatives.

Hell, if you make $300 a week and get unemployed and make $250 a week. Why the hell would you get a job? And for 3 years? I wish I was "let go" before I went to full time student. That'd get me through my entire bachelor's. Then use money made on the side to fund my graduate schooling. Sucks going to school 4 days a week and working 2-3 days on the weekend.

Homeslice:
The Republicans don't applaud becuase they know any money for education is not meant for the kids. It is meant for the teachers and their unions but more importantly vote buying. Same for the Republicans and the military. Republicans get more military votes so they want to throw the money that way.

They should get a bunch of Nintendo DS'...

http://malosactores.files.wordpress....nts_money1.gif

You guys understand that unemployment runs out right? Its not a lifetime of riches and fortunes....

well unemployment doesn't work that way.......its graduated, so the less you make normally, the lower your payment, and it goes up as you make more. and there is a cap, and its state specific. TX is a little over $400, washington state $800.....but to get the $400 or $800/wk, my guess is you have to making over $50k a yr.....

and like i said the Federal part of my unemployment $ was like $25/wk

how long should somebody be unemployed from their "career" 1-2-3yrs?

when should they change careers or "go get a job any job" ?

If they keep extending it, maybe it will be...

You understand that it has stretched from about 6 months to almost 2 years right?

And now they want to make it 3 years?

It may not be a lifetime, but it's a hell of a lot longer than it used to be.

There's no such thing as "go get any job." It is very easy to be overqualified for menial jobs if you've had a decent career leading up to the layoffs.

The U.S. can easily afford to take care of citizens who've fallen on hard times and don't necessarily want to end up homeless. Yes, there are those who will take advantage of the system, but it does not negate the need to take care of our own.

That's horseshit. The problem is people made a decision about what job is "beneath" them and don't apply for it. Does it suck to go from a career to a shit job? Fuck yes it does, but we can't just let people collect unemployment checks because they don't want to be a ditch digger.

Unemployment is fucking a ridiculous waste of money. It assists some people, but far too many people know how to abuse the fuck out of the system and use it to avoid working for as long as possible because it makes it way too easy for people to be sedentary. The money would be better off going to job stimulus programs and getting people who are unemployed trained into skill sets that would broaden their appeal to employers. Instead, we coddle these fucking idiots and promote laziness and poor work ethic.

so what time frame should we give somebody?

1-2-3-4-5-6 ? yrs?

Exactly. No matter how "overqualified" someone is, they could still get a job at Barnes & Noble or Trader Joes if they needed to.

Or, they could move to a different city, or re-train for a different career. Oh but wait, that would require some savings.......Can't have that. :rolleyes:

So it's not possible that some of the money could be used to actually renovate the schools and buy new equipment?

Oh, and even if the money went towards teacher salaries, that's not a bad thing IF their credentials & performance are monitored. Right now, the best & brightest don't want to be teachers because the salaries suck.

So if you have a family with 3 kids, grocery bills and a mortgage you're supposed to take an $8.00 an hour job at McDonalds and some how be able to pay those bills. Yes, that sounds like an awesome plan. A "job" is not a magic cure all that ensures all the family's or individual's needs are met.

The current time frames they use are excellent.

i've pointed out 2 people in the last yr to learn comp. drafting, both took about 4 mos of classes, got jobs in 1 mos. lowest was $15/hr quickly to $18 other was $20/hr........3 yrs...........pfft!

That's awesome. You're a good friend to have around! Not sure where you're getting the 3 years estimate.

A "government" is not a magic cure all that ensures all the family's or individual's needs are met.

currently unemploy. is extended to 2yr, w/ O's new plan 3 yrs.........

Yes, you do it because you have to. You make sacrifices until you are able to secure a better paying job. You bite the bullet and do what's necessary. Unemployment is a wicked double edged sword. The longer you're on it, the longer you're out of the workforce, and the harder it is to find a job. Your ability to pull in a previous salary declines the longer your away from your position. Let's say someone spends the full two years on unemployment. That's two years that a person has not been working. If they're on unemployment, chances are they're not able to do a damn thing to improve their situation, making that gap in employment a greater liability. They lose the ability to obtain a position that pays anywhere near what they were making prior to unemployment and become practically irrelevant in the job market. That does not help people, that severely hinders them. There is no fucking glamour in a shitty McDonalds job, but that looks far better on a resume to potential employers than "sat on ass waiting for something to be handed to them.

I agree and disagree.........I think an employer would prefer a candidate who spent time volunteering, or writing a blog about their industry, or attending trade shows, something like that. Something that is actually relevant to their career. Oh but wait, that would require having some savings bulit up, so that they don't have to take a shitty non-relevant job like McDonalds. Can't have that. :rolleyes:

Doing something, anything, is preferable to doing nothing. Unemployment encourages doing nothing.

Since 40 hours per week at minimum wage is more than unemployment pays, yeah, they should take that job. However, since it's not a LOT more than unemployment pays, most of those people will choose to sit on their ass and do nothing except collect a check. Or they'll collect the check and do side work for cash that they choose to not report as income and not pay taxes on.

:lol

so true, and so typical

I love how everybody assumes that places like McDonalds or Walmart have a limitless number of open positions that unemployed people could walk right into if they wernt so lazy.

I know a few people who work seasonal jobs and collect unemployment for the off season.
The reason why I bring it up because several of them have been doing this for decades.
One of them has been working the same seasonal job since the early 1970's.
Is even in the union...

:lol

Depends on the area. Generally, nice suburban areas are the easiest to find good retail jobs. Go into a Trader Joes or Barnes & Noble, and the average age of the employees is like 40. It is considered a respectable, laid-back job that doesn't make them feel like failures. Hell, I wouldn't mind working there.

Wal-Mart and McD's are examples used for worst case scenario jobs.

I don't think that it is a stretch to say that if you are willing to work for $8/hr, there are endless possibilities available.

The Greeks learned on rock cliffs in the outdoors. Schools should be built pretty much how (or at least last time I was on one) a military base is. Basic boring designs with boring desks and boring everything. Schools shouldn't look like the Taj Mahal.

The problem is that they won't monitor teacher performance. I remember a while back, D.C. offered teachers the chance to potentially make $150k (averging 60-70k then) a year based on performance. The Union wouldn't even let it come to a vote.

Teachers do pretty damn well for themselves. Especially when they take side jobs in the summer. Plus their benefits rival those of CEOs. Really good teachers don't take the job becuase they don't want to bust their asses and do everything they can to help children achieve when they will make less than a sorry ass teacher who sleeps in class because they have seniority.

Education can't be fixed by launching more money at it.

Teachers salaries don't suck, but that's another debate... And yes, I know people who have, and still do teach... across multiple states...

They pretty much do... Those jobs churn people constantly... Call centers are similar... We expect to hire on average 8 people per week in 2012 with zero growth in business. We have unemployed people turn down our offer every day because they are looking for something different...

The only place teachers are making 60-70K is places like DC and NY due to the cost of living. Meanwhile, a first-year banking analyst, lawyer, or private military contractor in those cities is making $100-120K.

Go to a more typical city like Louisville or Indianapolis, and teachers make only like $30K

Really?

Because according to this site, average teacher's salary is $44k in Kentucky... and you better fucking believe they make more in the bigger cities...
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/ave...-kentucky.html

Indiana - $47k.

For 9 months work.

Starting salary might not be amazing, but there are plenty of office jobs for people right out of school that make less AND you need to work a full year to make that...

Teachers making peanuts is a fucking myth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpb9DymmoU

Yup I know quite a few ppl who have done it. :td:

So am I the only one who thought that the speech was purely political with 0% chance of anything actually coming from it?

Really, what i got out of the speech was the prez introducing a few programs that go against the GOP stances. This way in the upcoming election the dems can (any of them) say look at what we are trying to do for America, but the GOP is going against you and only for what their party wants.

Also, has everyone else forgotten about the budget comitee that needs to slash trillions off the federal budget by November?

OK fine, but let's compare being a teacher to the "typical" $47K/yr job...........Which one is more important? Which one has more impact on people's lives and our country's future?

And the whole "they only work 9 months" is kind of a myth too. Yeah let's show up on day 1 of school without doing any prep work...... sounds like a teacher who won't get very far in their career

our teachers are in school 1 mos after it lets out and 1 mos before it starts.

Sure, but they and their family might not be able to survive on the income from it.

That video is funny, at the end of it they say its all about the kids and not about the money.. So if they're making way more than average americans anyway why are they still at rallys saying they aren't paid enough? :wtfru:

survive is relative

Prolly shouldn't have bought a 4000 sq ft house if the security of their career field was iffy redflip

Making way more than average Americans? I thought the average was like 45

Hindsight is 20/20 and who was to say what jobs were secure, BEFORE everything went to shit?

Ok, so again them not making anything is a myth... and pretty much nobody gets paid based upon their impact on people's lives and our country's future... Your argument is total bullshit.

Cool... that's not the case in most places, but ok... 11 months of work, more holidays/breaks than 95% of other workers, and they STILL make more than the national average... soooooo... to the original point... throwing money into the schools ISN'T the answer...

Interesting article, relevant: http://authoritycon.blogspot.com/201...er-we-get.html

I wouldn't want to be a teacher.
Sure you work 9-10 months a year but you end up working 12 hour days and several of those hours are spent dealing with brats and bureaucrats.
In my county, those that make it past probation start at a salary appropriate for the area and increases with continuing education and some other crap.
NYC City teachers are paid with cum drenched food stamps shat out the back of city rats and salary increases are delivered by lawsuit infested bullets.

I think upstate teachers are paid with email forwards and homemade raspberry jam.

Like I said before, IF proper vetting/recruiting/performance measurement took place, higher salaries would be justified. Right now, the teaching field does not attract the best & brightest college grads. Why would they, when they can make twice as much at Procter & Gamble, GE, or Goldman Sachs?

well for some people it's not about the $

I work 10-12 hour days, don't get weekends off, deal with adult brats all day, and get 6 paid holidays per year... teachers complaining about not making money can kiss my fucking ass... There are plenty of people, doing more, dealing with more, and getting paid less.

How amazingly intelligent and talented do you have to be to teach 3rd grade? Or hell, even middle school? Fuck it, HS?

You start talking high level AP HS courses and college, then yeah, you'll want the best and brightest... $30k/year to teach 1st graders how to sound out words and write their name doesn't seem too bad to me...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news...lass/index.htm

Those teachers making 55k and 60k are a lot more than 33k.

Just like I wouldn't want a career as a teacher..
I wouldn't want whatever job\career you do either.

My sister is a teacher in the Miller Place School District. She makes good money, has great benefits, and loves her job. Personally, I couldn't do it. I fucking hate kids of all ages and wish the majority of them dead.

Up here, you need at least a masters and if you are teaching math or science you have to have your major in math or science.

Elementary school teachers dont make as much as HS teachers and I think it is those folks (elementary school) that screw with statistics around teachers salaries.

A Masters to teach 3rd grade?

That leaves only two reasonable conclusions:

1. Paul is full o' shit.

2. If it is true, the school system has more than enough qualified applicants to be picky which means that they are an attractive employer which means that the compensation package is at least fair if not generous.

I like option 1.

School districts in my area are very desirable for teaching candidates and it is a very competitive market.
aside from NYS requirements -( http://eservices.nysed.gov/teach/cer...Help.do#cfocus ), you have to make it though the vetting process.

So yes for a 3rd grade teacher in many of our districts, you best come to the door with a sparkling reputation and a masters degree.
bitch

Typically...if you luck out and land a job in elementary school, you have to prove that you are working towards a masters otherwise you will booted.
this is how it was explained to me by all deez bitches who be teachers and shit

Right, but just like these teachers, I love it... And if I didn't, just like teachers, I'd have the option to change career fields...

Ok... so what does this prove? There are plenty of people getting master's degrees who STILL won't make what teachers do, won't get benefits like they do, and certainly won't get as much time off throughout the year as teachers do...

Just so you know, a Master's degree isn't some magical passport to getting paid six figures... Last time I checked, average earnings difference between having a Master's and having a Bachelor's was only about 10%... that was the primary reason why I never went for it...

It proves that I can directly respond to shmike's posts.

So what?
Only reason why I posted it up is because you implied that you dont have to be intelligent and talented to teach.
I responded that in my area, you have to be intelligent and talented enough to go to grad school.

I agree and I never said anything different you temperamental man child of a jerkoff.

Where the fuck did I say earnings should be tied to education?

It's true.

I had had my doubts.

And, those that live in those nice suburban areas won't be caught dead working at Target. It's not just a $$ thing, they would be working with their neighbors children or, gasp, be seen working at Target...

:wink:

I would be willing to bet less than half of teachers enjoy it.....
The rest simply "fell" into the job, because whatever they were originally doing failed.....Like maybe they couldn't hack the engineering major they originally wanted, or maybe they couldn't find a job with their Art History degree.....

The fact is, only a minority of employees actually "love" their job. The rest are in it for the $$. And that means that the teaching field isn't getting top-quality people. Most teachers have mediocre credentials. Sure, they might have 1 or 2 or even 3 degrees, but from lower-ranked schools, and lower GPA's, and lower people skills & leadership skills.......... otherwise they would have scored a more lucrative job.

Just about all the teachers I know teach because they always wanted to teach and that was what they went to school for. Some shot for HS while others went on to pursue their PHd's so they can teach at the college level.

For most people it is. Especially when they have $30k in student loans to pay for.

:lol:

What do you do that sucks so much?redflip

Oh....and HINT OBAMA WE DON'T FUCKIN HAVE 447 BILLION BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CUT ANYTHING U PRICK. WHEN AMERICA FOLDS...and it will if we continue on this path...FUCK U.

So do people hate teachers and government workers because they are two of the few types of workers in America who still get benefits?

I wasn't just replying to you sugar tits, there were other comments implying that if teacher's weren't teaching they'd be out changing the world and making 3x what they currently do... I should have said, "just so you ALL know..."

That's been my experience as well...

$30k aint shit... I came through with more than double that... Closer to $80k... I've made less than or right around the average for teachers up until the past couple of years, and still managed to pay it down, while saving, while buying a house, while enjoying some luxuries, etc... And they'll be paid off within the next two years... Sucks, but you gotta do what you gotta do...

I miss sugar tits. That term isn't used enough around here.

When it comes to education talk, i tend to toss out a bunch of mehs when talk with folks across the country. Mainly because
1. our teachers are paid well.
2. We have excellent public schools around here.
3. Shit like no child left behind hurts our schools

Sent from my old iTouch which is not as cool as racerx's fucking ipad

i gots a new itouch too lol

Z actually won either an Ipad or $500 the other day from some Oncology Nurse website, she chose the $

so how much should a teacher make, granted its diff for diff parts of the country.

You're in an area with great schools, and a lot of money....

How about average America?

Dunno why we're talking about teacher salaries anyway, unless someone has proof that Obama's proposal is mostly about raising teacher salaries........it isn't, it's mostly about renovating schools,

EMTs, Police, and let's not forget the military get paid jack shit and actually save lives. Infact, let's focus on the military which was brought up earlier.

I don't think a General even makes much more than $150k. Those fuckers have all kinds of responsibility that teachers could never imagine or fathom (when they fail, we literally die). The grunt getting shot at in the middle of some god forsaken country makes less than $20,000. Even a high ranking officer (with a Masters+) doesn't make much more than $55,000 a year.

I doubt anybody in their right mind would say that a teacher has it harder than anyone in the US Military. I'm tired of this "teachers have it tough" bullshit. How about they start improving the education of children and then we'll talk pay raises.

So we are in agreement. Sugar tits it is...

I think they are paid right... maybe even a bit high... I say that considering the number of open positions when compared to the number of applicants who submit resumes...

Huh?
Cops round here pull in 6 figures after 5 years.
Unlike cops and military, everyone else has to work more than 20 years to get a lifetime worth of benefits. My gym is filled with "retirees" in their early to mid 40's.

How about improving the quality of children? You can't take Chinese engineered and Chinese manufactured car parts and mold it into a Lexus

Don't knock the Chinese....we have African and Mexican manufactured car parts, not Chinese. redflip

Plus housing allowances, medical care, re-enlistment bonuses, combat pay, special bonuses for certain MOS's, yada yada.......

One only needs to look at some of the cars owned by "lowly" E3's & E4's.....

Bro, your job sucks.

lol @ the military and police saving lives. We're talking about the military that drops bombs and the police that do home invasions right?

I realize that this doesn't mean a whole lot, compared to what is asked of them, but remember that military personnel have their living expenses paid. My uncle, who retired a colonel, lived like a king with his family in Belgium when working with NATO.

Fair enough. To compensate teachers we'll put them on military style housing (which blows, I lived in them), they can go to their military healthcare provider (which blows), spend a year away from their family (which blows) in a hell hole (which most bases are at anyways, and blows), put them through SERE (which I'm sure blows) for an extra $50 a month. Oh yeah, we'll shoot at them too (which blows). After that, teachers can get their pimped out Nissan 350z with its nice Pep-Boys rims.

Kaneman:
Seriously? Did the Air Force bomb your neighbor on accident and did the police raid your house thinking you had blow in there or something?

We make good money, and the pay scales are similar. What they get in the form of perks and rebates, we get in terms of allowances.

Their generals HAVE to make more than that. Our commanding officers onboard the ships (3 ringers) make about 170-200k.

Damn fine statements!

I know several folks of the "I'm too good for that job so I refuse to do anything" ilk and even after unemployment ran out they depend on other people to bail them out b/c they are too damn lazy to do something "beneath" them. When you paint houses for a living or do handy man work and have zero education, I'm thinking the dollar tree would look pretty good when you arent bringing in ANY money to support your family. But wait, you can call your 80 year old parents who are retired and living on SS and what they set aside and get them to help you out when you blow all your wife's paycheck on cigs and beer.

I work in public utilities and I get calls all the time about folks not wanting to pay their bill b/c their "check" hasn't come in yet, even tho they got it at the beginning of the month when bills were due and blew it on other things than paying for water and power.

I have no pity. Turn off your cable TV, your cell phone and that internet service and take care of the important things, like rent and utilities.

AMEN!! Being a military dependent AND a local govt worker, I dont want to hear shit about how bad teachers have it. My insurance sucks, I cant even get in to see a Dr. without having it scheduled more than a month out, if we lived on base, even as nice as they are it would still suck IF we could even get on the list to GET housing, and my paycheck working for a govt entity is shit. I was also told a few months ago that unless it's life or death, we arent supposed to EVER go to the ER and if we do and they decide it was unneccessary, they wont pay. How's that for all those awesome military benefits?

Lets also consider that if Obama and his successors dont turn things around, my husband wont have a retirement in 10 years when he's done his 20 or more...nor will any of the other military members who put their lives on the line on foreign countries because America wont pull back and take care of home first!

The military employs 1.43 MILLON active service personnal and another 848,000 reservists and you wonder why your pay sucks? Does this country need 2 million people for defense when we have weapons to blow the world up 33 times over? Let me answer that for you...no. So....we HAVE to start unending wars in order to fund and keep all these people doing something, even if that something means doing nothing. You simply cannot pay 1.43 million people 100 grand a year plus good healthcare and good retirement ON TOP OF spending billions upon billions in weaponry.

If all that you have is weapons to "blow the world up 33 times over", then all that you can do is either blow the world up, or nothing. Not a very effective method of defence.

I'm normally quiet for these types of discussions but this is just a plain narrow view on things. Those folks employed by our armed forces are a million times more important to defense than a million nuclear weapons or other means of "blowing up the world"

Defensive moves (and ultimately, entire wars) are accomplished at the micro level combining up to the macro level.

Decrease personnel levels and keep massive weapons and you just end up with another version of the Cold War. No thanks.

Now, if you're talking about narrowing that focus and removing the people just along for the pay-ride while not really accomplishing anything other than taking up space and replacing them with personnel that will actually work, then sure, that makes more sense. You'll spend more trying to figure out who is just taking up space, however...

Thanks, particle. I agree. Also, I'd like to point out that of the 1.43 million people the military employs, a very small percentage of them make 100grand. The vast majority who stay past 4 years are in the middle ranks of enlisted, earning more like 35-45k, if that. A lot of the military are enlisted in their first 4 years, so they're earning more like 20k.

I think 101 was saying we can't increase military pay significantly (the mythical hundred grand) as many people would like because with the number of people in the military it would just be too expensive.

We could if we quit blowing money on other crap. Such as paying some sorry ass $15k a year for 2-3years for unemployment (make them join the Army for 2 years). Or blowing money on shitty art that no one in the private sector cares about. And instead of throwing more money at education system, we can actually fix it with the excess they have now. Not to mention the foreign aide we give out.

Another benefit is if we paid our soldiers better we could get away with less soldiers who are better soldiers, instead of taking anybody with a pulse.

"shitty art" :lol:

If there is such a drastic need to increase pay in the military, why do more than enough people volunteer? I would like to see the stats to know for sure, but I'm going to bet only 20-30-40% of the people who try to get in do.

And as for "if you raise the pay, you'd get better quality people", OK maybe....... but how come you don't think that would be true for teachers as well?

Oh but wait, then it would be "But most teachers/soldiers/etc. are in it for the altruism..........(cough BULLSHIT)".

Sounds like all of us are going round and round in circles

This. Where 101 gets the impression that military members make decent money is beyond me...yeah, officers get paid decent, but the majority are enlisted and they dont. They do get nice perks like the free medical (if you can ever get in) and free housing (again if you can get in) and they pay for living costs to help cover some rent expenses when they move you every few years, but even WITH basic allowances for housing and regular pay, you're looking at under 40K for a staff sgt in the AF that has 5-6 years in...no where near this mythical 100K for pay he speaks of and these are the men and women who put their lives on the line daily, whether they agree with the wars or not. I'm thinking thats not much when you are risking losing your life on a regular basis, and potentially leaving your family without a breadwinner. NOt to mention, you have to die juuuuust right to get those military benefits after death for your family, and oh, lets add in that if the military member passes, no matter what age while they are recieving their retirement pay, it ends. The spouse gets none of the benefits of all those years of living without the military member while they are deployed, or moving your entire adult life. Nothing. Nada. Hope you put some in savings/a good lif insurance plan if your military retiree dies from a heart attack a week after retirement cuz the non military member is screwed.

You guys are misreading his post...

Well, he quoted me and made the statement, and since I didnt say anywhere in my post that I think the military members should make more money and get raises, what else can we read from it?

----Beware grammar nazi's!! Extremely long sentence below----
Based on the (Ron Paul's and his followers) premise that the United States should not be involved in force projection, using military to manipulate foreign affairs and all that other Darth Vader shit
AND
based on our geopolitical reality
AND
based on the fact that no other country in the world, friend or foe has the ability to project force in a way that threatens our national integrity
there is no need to maintain our current military doctrine, structure and assets to support that doctrine.

In other words we dont need the 1.43 military personnel
We dont need close to a dozen aircraft carriers, 70+ subs
We dont need a long range bomber force
We dont need a lot of big ticket offensive systems

We can eliminate tons of programs and decrease the size of the total armed forces to a fraction of its current size.

We could drop total spending from 700 billion (actual spending is probably close to a 1 trillion once you factor in related costs) to 100 billion dollars if we were to adopt the stance proposed by Ron Paul and his supporters.

Based on our GDP (adjusted downward due to theoretical downsizing of military) we would be able to afford a small raise for the remaining military personnel.

However, based on our new "theoretical" isolationist posture and the fact that we have no external threats (and none in the foreseeable future) we would have to question why we are giving raises to people who would have nothing to do but fill out paper work and go out on training exercises.





Note: This is not what I'm proposing nor is it something I really feel strongly about. I'm just following the logic..and procrastinating on something I'm supposed to be doing.

:lol: Through all of this discussion I am reminded of this:

Agreed

Thats great
:lol